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

October 23, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Oct-23 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 23 October 2001 Mardi 23 octobre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LEO GERARD

TRUMPETER SWAN SCULPTURE

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

COLLÈGE DES GRANDS LACS

LIFELONG LEARNING CENTRE

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

CASINO NIAGARA

CHILD CARE WORKERS

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

VISITORS

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ARCHIVES AWARENESS WEEK

ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE SENSIBILISATION AUX ARCHIVES

CONGENITAL HEART DEFECTS

AWARENESS DAY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA JOURNÉE

DE SENSIBILISATION

À LA CARDIOPATHIE CONGÉNITALE

DECORUM IN THE CHAMBER

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

TAXATION

MENINGITIS

BORDER SECURITY

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

PALLIATIVE CARE

SULPHUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

BORDER SECURITY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

LORD'S PRAYER

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HIGHWAY 407

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HIGHWAY 407

NURSES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

IMPROVING CUSTOMER SERVICE

FOR ROAD USERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION

DES SERVICES À LA CLIENTÈLE

OFFERTS AUX USAGERS DE LA ROUTE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Tuesday 23 October 2001 Mardi 23 octobre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LEO GERARD

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Over the next few days, my community of Sudbury will be host to a meeting of the international executive of the

United Steelworkers of America, led by Sudbury's own Leo Gerard. Mr Gerard will be returning home to his roots with his executive members. Leo was sworn in as the international president of the

700,000-member Steelworkers union this past February.

Born in Lively, Ontario, and the son of a hardrock miner, Leo began working at the Inco smelter when he was 18 years of age, joining local 6500 at that time.

While working for Inco, Leo studied economics and politics at Laurentian University, which later conferred on him an honorary doctor of laws degree.

Leo has spent most of his working life in the labour movement and has done much to ensure that workers' rights and the issues of health and safety of workers are

brought to the forefront.

Let me share with the House two quotes of Leo's which really articulate his dedication to workers. First, Leo said, "There are people in our society who would

like us to think that economic decisions have no values attached to them, but I don't believe that." Secondly, he said, "I am going to fight for the standard of living of workers. I am going to

fight for the right to have a decent job and maybe put something away for my future and I am not going to give that ground to anybody."

Sudbury extends a hearty welcome to our homegrown boy whose determination and character are as uncompromising as the rock for which Sudbury is famous. He not

only champions the rights of workers but also has time to support special-needs students who are so dear to his heart. Welcome home, Leo, and welcome to your international executive.

TRUMPETER SWAN SCULPTURE

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On Friday, October 12, I had the honour of participating in the official unveiling of the trumpeter swan

project at Waterfront Park in beautiful Midland. The project, coordinated by the Friends of the Wye Marsh, consists of a stainless-steel-built, 25-foot trumpeter swan which is symbolic of the

trumpeter swan reintroduction program at the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre. The ceremony began with Simcoe county native and Canadian country male vocalist of the year Jason McCoy singing our national

anthem.

There are so many people to thank for their contributions, beyond the hundreds of personal donations: Cheryl Webb, president of the Friends of the Wye Marsh;

Laurie Schutt, executive director of the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre; Hudson Leavens for his vision for the trumpeter swan sculpture project. The sculpture stands as a visionary symbol not only to

the Midland community but also to fellow Canadians of what can be done when a community works together to save an endangered species.

Ron Hunt is to be thanked for his outstanding contributions in designing and sculpting the trumpeter swan sculpture. Ron has been working on the sculpture for

over a year, and without his expertise and commitment this wouldn't be here today. Bill Fielder and Les Hussey both assisted Ron Hunt with the making of the trumpeter swan. Both have put endless

hours in also. Bill and Les work at Kindred Industries Ltd and are members of local 540 of the Sheet Metal Workers.

There is Case de Jong, president of Kindred Industries Ltd. Kindred very generously donated the mirror-finish stainless steel that the sculpture is made of and

allowed the swan sculpture to be built at Kindred Industries.

Finally, thanks to the council and staff of the town of Midland for generously donating the land and staff assistance to see this generous community project

become a reality.

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I was away when the Premier, Mike Harris, announced that he is stepping down as Premier. Let me at

the outset state that I wish him all the best in his new venture.

During his reign, he led a revolution that was destructive and harmful to the working families of Ontario. We have seen our health care system put in disarray;

an education system that has been confrontational; affordable housing that was completely taken off the agenda; the Walkerton tragedy; the murder of Dudley George at Ipperwash, which was a national

disgrace; the frontal attack on welfare recipients, on democracy and on the environment; and a debt that is now $110 billion, and the list goes on and on.

Now the Progressive Conservative Party is looking for a new leader. A new Tory leader will not change the terrain. Arrogance is the policy of the Conservative

Party. The bullying will continue. Nothing will change the suffering. Disrespect for democracy will prevail. The lack of accountability for the taxpayers' money will continue to be the norm. The

chairs of the Conservative Titanic will not make a difference. It will sink.

Is there hope? Yes, there is hope: Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals bring hope and compassion to the province; a leader and a party that understands the needs of

the people, that understands there must be accountability for taxpayers' dollars. There is hope for Ontario: Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party.

COLLÈGE DES GRANDS LACS

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James) : Intéressant, ce qui se développe quand ça vient à la question du Collège

des Grands Lacs. Comme on le sait, le gouvernement et le ministère des Collèges et Universités, avec le collège, ont décidé de fermer ce collège cette année,

mettant complètement en danger l'année pour beaucoup des élèves de la première année.

Aujourd'hui j'ai eu l'occasion, de la part de notre caucus, d'assister à une manifestation au collège, où on a appris quelque chose de très

intéressant. Apparemment hier soir, soit le collège ou le ministère -- ce n'est pas encore clair -- a fait une offre aux enseignants de rouvrir le collège pour les

élèves de la première année. Ce qui est intéressant est que supposément ce matin quelqu'un a retéléphoné pour dire, « On retire l'offre. On a

changé d'idée et on n'ouvre pas le collège pour les élèves de la première année. »

Je dis directement à la ministre des Collèges et Universités, c'est l'enfer. C'est complètement mélangé, ce qui se passe entre

votre ministère et le collège lui-même. On demande à la ministre d'intervenir et de s'assurer elle-même que les élèves vont avoir la chance de finir leur

année à ce collège cette année, et de mettre, finalement, un bon sens à ce collège à la place de ce qu'on voit depuis les derniers mois avec l'administration

présente.

LIFELONG LEARNING CENTRE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize the hard work of local 183, Universal Workers Union, and the co-operation

of the union and the management team with our government.

Yesterday I attended the sod-turning ceremony in Cobourg for a new lifelong learning centre sponsored by local 183. The centre will offer training programs and

short-term courses in a variety of disciplines including road building, sewer and water main installation, framing, bricklaying and cement finishing. The new facility will train some 245

individuals in apprenticeship courses and 400 students in health and safety annually.

The lifelong learning centre is an $8.2-million project, with a portion coming from the province's strategic skills investment initiative. This initiative will

help us to address the critical shortage of skilled workers in the construction industry.

This project is a great example of how unions, the government and management can work together for the benefit of all Ontarians. By the fall of 2002, there will

be more opportunities for employment because of these efforts.

I look forward to the opening of the new facility in 2002. I'm pleased to say that we have a great new friend in Northumberland, and it's the Universal Workers

Union, local 183.

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I am speaking on behalf of the residents of Hamilton Mountain, and indeed on behalf of all the

residents of Hamilton, when I raise concern over the prolonged crisis in health care in Ontario. Because of the chronic nursing shortage in this province. McMaster University Medical Centre in

Hamilton has been forced to close medical beds for acute care patients.

They are short 200 nurses, and since Ontario nurses are earning less than their counterparts in British Columbia and Alberta, it's becoming even more difficult

to recruit them. It's shocking and unacceptable when hospital units requiring 33 nurses regularly operate five to six nurses short. A nurse in intensive care described it as "scrambling all the

time." This is not quality health care. This is no way to treat our nurses, and this will not attract new nurses to the system.

The taxpayers of Ontario deserve better. Under the Harris government, Ontario is below the national average in per capita nursing numbers. Ontario has fewer beds

per capita --

Interjections.

Mrs Bountrogianni: I know you don't want to hear this, but this is the truth. Why don't you accept it for a change? There are fewer beds per

capita than any other province in Canada.

In addition to nurse and physician shortages, we are facing a shortage of radiation therapists in Hamilton. My constituent, Grace Gagliano, was diagnosed with

breast cancer in July and underwent surgery. This is not a laughing matter. In August it was recommended that she receive treatments in 12 weeks. It will be at least 14 weeks and probably longer

before she gets treatment. When will you fulfill your responsibilities?

CASINO NIAGARA

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Yesterday, both Tim Hudak, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and I were on hand as construction of

the new Casino Niagara officially got underway. The Niagara Falls Casino/Gateway Project, a Hyatt casino and resort, is part of a larger vision to revitalize the Niagara Falls region by

transforming it into a unique, year-round tourist destination which will draw and expand on the existing tourist base and increase visitors' length of stay.

The estimated $800-million investment in the new Casino Niagara complex is approximately the equivalent of building three new Air Canada Centres. Located on an

eight-hectare site on Murray Hill, overlooking the Horseshoe Falls, the complex will feature a casino containing 3,000 slot machines and 150 table games, a 368-room Hyatt hotel, extensive meeting

and exhibition space, a world-class retail facility, restaurants and entertainment venues. The complex also includes several off-site attractions, including plans for a people-mover system as well

as a 12,000-seat indoor-outdoor amphitheatre for concerts.

Many residents had the opportunity yesterday to participate in the groundbreaking and start of the new casino complex. Approximately 200 excited and enthusiastic

people equipped with shovels and wearing hard hats were in attendance. Thanks to all of them, as well as to Premier Harris, Ernie Eves, Chris Hodgson, Bill Saunderson, the late Al Palladini and all

my caucus colleagues for helping make yesterday possible for my community.

CHILD CARE WORKERS

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Tomorrow, October 24, will be recognized in communities across Ontario as Child

Care Worker Appreciation Day. CUPE, along with the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, have worked very hard to inform municipalities about this important day in recognition of the very good

work of child care workers.

Children are our most precious resource, and the Early Years Study is the most recent affirmation of the significance of quality care and nurturing of children

between the ages of zero to six. Studies show that child care providers play a key role in shaping children's social, physical, emotional and cognitive development, yet there is still little

support or recognition for the value of the work of care givers. It is disturbing that those people who carry the responsibility of caring for our youngest children are among the lowest paid

workers in the province.

We are blessed in Ontario to have child care workers who have a tradition of high-quality care for our children. Mary-Anne Bedard, executive director of the

Coalition for Better Child Care, expresses it well when she says, "Child Care Appreciation Day is an opportunity to raise awareness about the valuable role and contributions of child care workers

in the lives of our children, their families and the broader community. By working together we can make early childhood development and care an important issue in our communities."

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): The tragic event of September 11 is still with us. Premier Harris and this government have

shown strong leadership in a time of political and economic uncertainty. We stand in stark contrast to the Liberals and their leader, Tax-and-Spend Dalton McGuinty.

The Liberals and Mr McGuinty want to go on a billion-dollar spending spree. Under the influence of their voodoo economics, the Liberals recently called on the

government to blow $1 billion in a panic. Spending our way to prosperity has been tried and failed miserably, but it appears that no one has told Mr McGuinty.

Today we are seeing Mr McGuinty's true colours -- red, as in red ink. If the Liberals had a chance, they would have maxed out our credit card a long time ago.

Ontarians now know that at the first sign of an economic slowdown Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals are reaching out for our credit card.

Let the record show the Liberals do not believe in tax cuts; they believe in reckless spending. Mr McGuinty wants to do what's expedient, not what's right. This

call for reckless spending just goes to show once again that Dalton McGuinty is just not up to the job.

VISITORS

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to take a moment to have this Legislative

Assembly recognize, acknowledge and welcome the wonderful folk from Victoria county who are here in the gallery today to be with us.

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr Speaker, as you are aware, I did write to you earlier today to indicate that, pursuant to standing

order 21(c), I would serve notice of intention to move a point of privilege this afternoon regarding the Minister of Health.

It is my submission that the Minister of Health has perpetrated a contempt of this Legislature by impeding and obstructing me, a member of the Legislature, in

the execution of my duties.

Let me cite very quickly, Mr Speaker, a reference from the 22nd edition of Erskine May in regard to contempt. Quoting from page 108 of Erskine May, "Generally

speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the

discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."

Section 46 of our own Legislative Assembly Act sets out the jurisdiction of this House to inquire into and punish as breaches of privilege or as contempt a

number of matters, including "assaults upon or interference with an officer of the assembly while in the execution of his or her duty."

Mr Speaker, the case of privilege that I'm submitting to you today stems from the failure of the Minister of Health to publicly announce the allocation of $161

million in additional operating funds to support patient services, while at the same time such an announcement of public funding was made in a purely partisan fashion.

The following is a portion of an e-mail distributed to the subscribers of the Ontario PC Daily Bulletin dated October 19, 2001:

"Quality health care for all Ontarians: Everyone in Ontario deserves access to quality health care. And that means providing hospitals with the necessary

resources to meet the health needs of their communities.

"That's why Tony Clement, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, today announced $161 million in additional operating funds to support patient services. Today's

announcement brings the total funding for hospitals this year to $8.7 billion -- the highest total in Ontario's history."

In fairness, Mr Speaker, I've read the content of the announcement. What is of import is that there was never a press release of this nature placed on the

newswire service or on the Ministry of Health Web site. I draw your attention to the fact that this was not placed on the PC Party Web site -- that would have been bad enough in and of itself --

but at least it has some access to the public. This announcement was made on the Ontario PC Daily Bulletin, which is available only to members of the Progressive Conservative Party and to its

executive.

Further to that, my staff contacted the minister's office on Monday, October 22, requesting a copy of the release and a breakdown of the amount that each

hospital had received. My staff was told by Gord Haugh, the press secretary to the Minister of Health, that he did not believe there was a breakdown available and that I could just contact each

individual hospital for that information.

The minister announced the funding to members of the PC Party on Friday, yet there has still been no official announcement made to the public.

I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that the Minister of Health, in not only failing to report this announcement to the public but also suppressing this information

from my office, has perpetrated a contempt of this Legislature.

As the health critic for the official opposition, I believe it is the responsibility of the Minister of Health to make available to all members of this House all

information about public expenditures that are being made. This is of particular importance to me in my role as critic for health because it is my responsibility to help hold the government

accountable for these expenditures.

I submit these matters to you for your urgent and serious consideration, Mr Speaker. I do believe that it is absolutely inappropriate that announcements of

public funding should be made only on a site geared to reach partisan supporters, and I believe it is of the utmost importance that you deal with this matter in the midst of a leadership campaign

when we need an assurance that announcements of public funding will not be used or misused for partisan purposes. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member for giving me a copy. I won't go through, as she's just done it, but the member essentially

takes issue with the fact that other than the e-mail, no official announcement was made to the public and no information was readily available to the member.

I am sure the member will appreciate that the Speaker is in no position to require compliance by all members to any sort of format or distribution list for

government announcements.

I do not find that the e-mail and distribution as described tramples upon the rights the members enjoy in this chamber, and therefore a prima facie case of

privilege has not been made.

But I do thank the member for giving me that in plenty of time to be able to review it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice and social policy, and I

move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Mr Barrett from the standing committee on justice and social policy presents the committee's report as

follows and moves its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 30,

An Act to provide civil remedies for organized crime and other unlawful activities / Projet de loi 30, Loi prévoyant des recours civils pour

crime organisé et autres activités illégales.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1352 to 1358.

The Speaker: Mr Baird has moved the adoption of the report of the standing committee on justice and social policy regarding Bill 30.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 81; the nays are 9.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ARCHIVES AWARENESS WEEK

ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE SENSIBILISATION AUX ARCHIVES

Mr Johnson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 116,

An Act to proclaim Archives Awareness Week / Projet de loi 116, Loi proclamant la Semaine de sensibilisation aux archives.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I have had a lot of requests and a lot of background and support for giving recognition to those who are in

archives and keep track of documents and things like that from the past, the same as museums keep track of artifacts from the past.

CONGENITAL HEART DEFECTS

AWARENESS DAY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA JOURNÉE

DE SENSIBILISATION

À LA CARDIOPATHIE CONGÉNITALE

Mr Spina moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 117,

An Act to proclaim Congenital Heart Defects Awareness Day / Projet de loi 117, Loi visant à proclamer la Journée de sensibilisation à

la cardiopathie congénitale.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I think it's important that we recognize a day that acknowledges that congenital heart defects or diseases

are birth-related and consist of 35 different types. They affect many children across Ontario and Canada. In fact, as a person with a congenital heart defect, I am very proud to present this bill

to the House.

DECORUM IN THE CHAMBER

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): Monsieur le Président, I have a point of order I would like you to consider under page 14 of the

rules, "IV. Order and Decorum,"

part 13(

a) and (b).

Yesterday afternoon at the end of question period, at approximately 3:23 or 3:24 pm, you being in the chair, Speaker, there was an exchange which several

members here on this side, and I suspect on the other side, heard between the member for Don Valley East and the member for Don Valley West. The member for Don Valley East was exiting the House. At

that point in time, he pointed over to the member for Don Valley West and, in a raised voice, said words to the effect, "Come on outside, fella, and we'll deal with this matter there." He not only

made the statement once; he made the statement twice. My question --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member for raising the --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Speaker, on a point of order --

The Speaker: The same point of order, but let's be very brief and then I'll order. I think the member for St Catharines was first.

Mr Bradley: I can explain how this can happen. Very often there are meetings going on in the House when there are proceedings and you ask that

we take our meetings outside. I presume that's what happened.

The Speaker: The member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Kormos: Mr Speaker, I know both these members. The member for Don Valley West may be a few years older, but I suspect he's in better shape.

I've got 20 bucks on him right now.

The Speaker: I thank the member for raising the point of order and for the members' participation. I know that occasionally members do get

rather heated in here. I'm sure the member will agree that the Sergeant at Arms does all he can. In circumstances like this, if members could realize that we are honourable members -- and in fact

on that particular occasion, it could have been a discussion taken outside. I would ask all members to act honourably, which I'm sure they will do.

It's a difficult task in here some days to keep order. Having said that, I appreciate the member for St Catharines's and the member for Niagara Centre's trying

to keep things a little bit loose in here. It is a responsibility of the Speaker to maintain order, and I intend to do that. As you know, there are some occasions when I've had to be pretty tough

on some of the members, and I do wish that all members would behave accordingly, as is the case -- for everyone watching -- most of the time. Members do behave, and I'm sure all of them will

continue to do that.

It now brings us down to statements by --

Mr Hastings: Do I take it, then, that it's OK?

The Speaker: Of course not, and you know it's not OK. Don't be silly. We're not going to get into that. There are situations that come up. The

Speaker will try to maintain order. Quite frankly, at the end of the day, when people are leaving, it's very difficult to tell because it's very noisy in here, and I say to the member for Etobicoke

North that on some occasions I have had to rule very strongly for him as well and I will continue to do that. I think he knows very well that behaviour and calling people outside won't be tolerated

by either side.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Minister of Health. In the days after September 11, you know

that our party promised our full support to ensure the safety of Ontario's working families, and we promised to keep bringing forward positive solutions, like our Ontario security plan. Here is

another part of that plan.

Right now our hospitals are running at about a 93% capacity when it comes to bed occupancy right across Ontario, and it's 97% right here in the GTA. Our

emergency wards are full. Our hospitals and emergency wards would have a real challenge contending with a bus crash, let alone something of the magnitude of what recently took place in New York

City.

Here's my proposal to you: instead of speeding up handouts to already profitable, already competitive corporations, let's instead invest that $175 million in

emergency health care. Making sure our families are safe, making sure we're meeting their needs in an emergency, is more important to me and to my party than cutting taxes for already competitive

corporations. So I ask you, Minister, will you implement my plan?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for his suggestion. It's in fact our plan, because

since 1998 we've invested over $750 million to improve access to our ERs across the province, to provide more flexibility to anticipate and respond in the peak periods of activity. So that is in

fact our plan. We have added $44 million this year to our universal flu vaccination program, which takes pressure off our emergency wards. That is a plan that is unique in the world, not only in

North America but in the world, to allow any individual at their workplace, doctor's office, hospital or nursing home to get the flu vaccine.

May I take this opportunity, since the honourable member has provided it, to encourage Ontarians to get their universal, free flu vaccination. That will help

us deal with our ER situation as well. That's the kind of foresight this government has shown over the last few years.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, let me tell you where your foresight has led us. We now have the fewest nurses per capita in the country. We come next

to last when it comes to the number of hospital beds per capita. That is where your leadership has taken us.

This is a good opportunity for you to tell Ontarians and perhaps your supporters, since you view yourself as a contender, where your priorities might lie.

We've got a very important choice to make. I think it's more important that we invest $175 million in our emergency health care system to make sure our families get the care they need should the

eventuality unfortunately arise. You consider it more important to sink $175 million into corporate tax cuts for corporations that are already competitive and yet you still want to make sure they

are taxed at a rate that is 25% below their North American competitors. That's the issue here.

I ask you, is it more important that we make sure there is room at the hospital inn for our families in the event of a terrible emergency, or is it more

important to you, as the Minister of Health, to make sure our corporations have a tax level that is 25% below their competitors?

Hon Mr Clement: Let me remind this House about some of the investments we have made since 1998: $225 million over four years to implement more

flex beds, interim long-term-care beds, expanding home care services; $90 million for emergency and critical beds in Toronto, Hamilton, London and Ottawa; $97 million to fast-track the expansion of

56 hospital emergency departments. I could go on, but the point is that we have acted, that we have understood that after the years of the Liberals closing hospital beds, we had to expand our

hospital sector in a way that put the money for patient care, that concentrated on patient care. We have made those investments, and when the honourable member talks about his plans, these have

been our plans and we have acted on those plans under the leadership of Mike Harris, and we are very proud of that.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, if you want the big job, you're going to have to do better than that. You're going to have to actually take a position.

You'll have to tell us whether you think it's more important to invest in health care, especially in emergency care, for our families, or whether you think it's more important to invest in more tax

cuts for already competitive corporations. That is the very clear distinction. Tired, old ideology is no longer going to cut it. Ontarians are looking for good ideas, not old ideology.

I put forward a good idea. It doesn't cost you a single extra cent. The money can be found in the budget. It's all about making sure our families have access

to emergency care should the unfortunate need arise. I think you've made it very clear whose side you're on. I want to ask you now, in your capacity as Minister of Health, why is it you don't stand

with Ontario families in making sure they've got adequate emergency care in the event of an unfortunate eventuality?

Hon Mr Clement: Here's a Leader of the Opposition who earlier last year said that money wasn't the problem in health care, that the system

needs to be fundamentally reformed. Evidently he's changed his mind since then, which happens with alarming regularity. The honourable member mentions our economic policies. Our economic policies

are based on growth and opportunity. They are based on the fact that our province can succeed when we have an economy that is growing, when people have jobs, when people have economic opportunity.

Tax cuts have been part of that. They have created 860,000 jobs since we were elected. We are proud of that legacy. That's how we pay for health care; that's how we pay for education; that's how we

pay for safe streets. That's how we pay for all the programs the honourable member seems to be so enamoured with and yet spends the money over and over again, seeming to think it comes out of a

well that has no end. That is not leadership. That's the same old Liberal rhetoric that'll get us right back in the soup again that we just crawled out of through the leadership of Mike Harris.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Chair of the Management Board. On Thursday this Legislature will be

debating my bill to end the use of taxpayer dollars on partisan ads.

Your government has a sorry record of serious addiction when it comes to spending public money on partisan political ads. Recently, instead of investing $6

million in our classrooms -- for example, buying more textbooks for our students -- you plowed $6 million into an ad campaign. Still more recently, after September 11, instead of investing $1

million in concrete measures to make Ontarians safer, your government invested $1 million in an ad campaign. Again and again, you choose to prop up your sagging political fortunes over the needs of

working families.

Minister, my question to you is very straightforward: will you do the right thing? Will you support my bill?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The Leader of the Opposition mentions the ad that the government put in the

newspapers a short while ago dealing with our response to the tragic events of September 11. It's certainly something the people of Ontario have been expressing to us on the government side, and I

suspect on the opposition side as well, that they need to know what the government is doing to respond to September 11. It was also very important for us to thank the many Ontarians and Canadians

who went down to the United States to assist in this effort -- to thank the firefighters and other volunteers. I think it's very important for us to recognize those efforts.

This is a piece of advertising that I believe the people of Ontario wanted to see. They wanted us to acknowledge the efforts of Ontarians, but also to indicate

the steps the government is taking to address the events of September 11.

Mr McGuinty: Between 1995 and April 2000, your government spent over $234 million on advertising. You can stand up and act as an apologist for

this government and these policies, if you will, but our values are decidedly different and we think it is wrong to use taxpayer dollars on partisan political advertising.

You hack away at our classrooms, our schools are falling apart, we don't have enough money for busing, we can't hire enough school psychologists, but

apparently there's more than enough money for partisan political advertising. I ask you again, minister: I am putting forward a bill, and it's the second time I have done so, which will ban the use

of taxpayer dollars for partisan advertising. We think it is the right thing to do; we think it is the right time to do it. I ask you again, will you support my bill?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It was my impression at one point in time that all people in this Legislature were supporting the efforts we made in terms

of dealing with the events of September 11. This is something I believe the people of Ontario wanted to hear. If I could indicate some of the steps -- the last time the Leader of the Opposition

raised this point, he held up the ad that the government placed in the papers. I proudly hold it up as well, because it indicates the positive steps that we as a government have taken to protect

the people of Ontario, such as appointing Norman Inkster and also Major General Lewis MacKenzie to give us consultations on ways we can improve safety for the people of Ontario. We have taken many

steps. I applaud my colleagues for taking positive steps. I applaud the Premier for taking a leadership role in all this.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, maybe your colleagues are going to buy into that, but Ontarians are not. They can see through that as clear as day. So

far you've spent $234 million in advertising that we've been able to calculate -- and there's a lot we haven't been able to incorporate here. You tell us we don't have money for more nurses, but

you have hundreds of millions of dollars for advertising. There's no money for hospital beds. There's no money to save the programs in London -- I'm specifically talking about the pediatric burn

unit and the pediatric cardiac unit. There's no more money in Ontario for home care for our parents and grandparents. We can't keep on staff the only biohazard experts whom we had working for us

here in the province. We don't have money in Ontario for textbooks for our kids; we can't afford smaller class sizes; we can't afford to invest in school libraries; we can't afford to ensure there

are adequate busing levels for our kids; we can't afford to hire enough school psychologists. We can't afford to protect our drinking water. Yet you're able to find $234 million for partisan public

advertising.

Minister, isn't it time that you put our working families ahead of your political fortunes? Isn't it time to do the right thing and pass my bill?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I have a news flash for the Leader of the Opposition: this government has spent more money on health care than ever before

in the history of this province. This government is spending many, many dollars more on education. I want to say something else: this government is also investing in police officers -- a thousand

more police officers in this province since this government took over.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. It's getting too noisy now. Come to order, please. It gets carried away. I let you go, I let you go, and

then you get too loud. It's too loud now. I would ask all members to listen to the minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Thank you, Speaker. I might say as well that the Leader of the Opposition is always proud to stand up and say, "I'm speaking

on behalf of working families in the province of Ontario." Guess who wants to know what's going on? Working families in the province of Ontario want to make sure they have the assurance from this

government, which we are giving them, that we are taking care of their safety needs and dealing with their economic needs.

I have to applaud my colleague Bob Runciman for taking a lead in the economics, the Premier for taking leadership on this entire issue, and my colleagues in

the justice ministries, Mr Turnbull and also the Attorney General, for taking their lead in making sure people in this province are safer and better positioned than any other jurisdiction in Canada

to deal with the event.

TAXATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, you will know that today the Bank of Canada cut the interest

rate rather aggressively. In fact, it is the lowest bank rate now in Canada in over 40 years. They were clear about why they did it: they want to stimulate consumer confidence in the economy. They

want to see people back out there making purchases.

Premier, it's now time for your government to do your part. It's time to reduce the provincial sales tax from 8% to 5%. Consumers are clearly worried about our

economy. The Bank of Canada is clearly worried about what's happening to consumer confidence. Will you do your part, Premier? Instead of reducing corporate taxes, reduce the tax that matters most

to consumers. Cut the sales tax from 8% to 5%.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The leader of the New Democratic Party is becoming this one-trick tax-cut pony. I know the Liberal members

smirk at that, but at least I would say this: the member has got it. He has now understood why Ontario has been leading the way in Canada, understood the response of every other provincial

government, the response even of the federal government in Ottawa to work in co-operation with the Bank of Canada and to work in concert with other governments in making sure that we have sound

fundamentals here in the province of Ontario.

I appreciate the advice and the suggestion. As you know, both the federal government and ourselves have opted for other tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and

we think, in conjunction with the Bank of Canada, this is the right way to go.

Mr Hampton: Premier, we're well aware of your boasting and your Minister of Finance's boasting about your corporate tax cuts, but the reality

today, as expressed by the Bay and Zellers, is that your corporate tax cuts are not helping them or anybody else in the retail sector one bit. They are saying they are going to lose this year. Why?

Because consumers are worried about the economy, and when consumers are worried about the economy, they put money away for a rainy day and they stop making the purchases that they need to make and

they want to make.

Cutting the sales tax is one way of saying directly to them, "If you want to make this purchase of a fridge, a stove, if you want to make this purchase of

winter clothing, we're prepared to cut the sales tax to save you some money." This is a way to get people back into the shopping malls, back into the Bay, Zellers, Sears, and restore confidence in

our economy before we have more layoffs, Premier.

The federal government and the Bank of Canada have done their part. When is your government going to address the issue of consumer confidence?

Hon Mr Harris: As I said, I welcome the debate over which taxes to cut and I welcome the NDP to this debate. I think it is something that

demonstrates, really for the first time in a long time, that the New Democratic Party understands the mistakes it made when it was in government, something the Liberal Party has not yet understood.

So plaudits for that; we appreciate that and we welcome the debate.

I would say a couple of things. We have looked at which of the various taxes are the correct ones to provide overall momentum. I would say that the Bank of

Canada -- I met with the governor of the Bank of Canada -- is very supportive of the policies of this government. We work in concert and look at what other jurisdictions are doing. Both the federal

government and ourselves have determined that making sure that employers can employ and that people actually have a job, cutting their income taxes and all the other taxes we have reduced, is the

most beneficial way to help the economy.

Mr Hampton: Premier, George Bush tried that argument this summer. He reasoned that if he cut personal income taxes to the tune of $600 per

household, it would create a stimulative effect in terms of consumer confidence. The jury is now in in the United States. Seventy-five per cent of the households didn't spend that tax cut. They put

it in the bank because they were worried about the economy.

It's the same thing with respect to your corporate tax cuts. It will do wonders for banks that are already profitable. It will do nothing for the Bay, nothing

for Zellers, nothing for Algoma Steel, nothing for Stelco and nothing for consumers out there. Even the parliamentary assistant to your Minister of Finance yesterday admitted your government now

has to look at reducing the sales tax for three or four months to restore consumer confidence.

Will you do your part, Premier? Forget about more tax cuts for your corporate friends, forget about the George Bush experiment of personal income tax cuts that

didn't work. Deal with the problem -- consumer confidence -- and reduce the provincial sales tax.

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate that a second tack that's new for the NDP is this lobbying now on behalf of corporate America and corporate

Canada, the very large corporations. The next thing you know, the New Democratic Party will be accepting donations from large corporations, or do they already do that?

I welcome the debate on how we can stimulate the economy, on how we can have the right balance of revenues in the province of Ontario, the right mix that is

important for today and into the future. I appreciate that the New Democratic Party has a different view than we have on that right mix, but it is a view that is supported right now, I know, by the

federal government, by the Bank of Canada and I think by the vast majority of those who understand how to create jobs.

I would say this: any speculation that there will be a sales tax cut is not helpful for jobs and for purchases today, which is why we are not speculating, nor

is the federal government. Rest assured, that's not something we're considering.

MENINGITIS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): This question is also to the Premier. I would hope that when you make your economic statement on

November 6, that will be part of it and will address the real needs of consumers.

In July I asked the Premier to follow the example of Quebec, Alberta, Great Britain and other jurisdictions around the world that have implemented a meningitis

immunization program. I repeated that request in September as the school year was beginning. I was joined by Dr Ron Gold, an international expert on immunization. Just a few days ago, the National

Advisory Committee on Immunization called for such a province-wide meningitis immunization program.

Premier, in Ontario this year 65 people have been infected with meningitis, mainly young people, and eight of them have died. Will you now do the sensible

thing and follow the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization and implement a province-wide meningitis immunization program?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The Minister of Health.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the honourable member knows, there is a National Advisory Committee on

Immunization, which just released some recommendations on meningococcal immunization for children under 20. We've typically had guidelines, which were first issued in 1994, that recommend we don't

use this kind of immunization for routine vaccination but only for an outbreak control issue.

We just received the recommendations of this important committee. I should stress for the record that it is a national committee, because this issue is of

national importance. Certainly we do call upon the federal government to engage in discussions with us on how best to ensure that this national strategy is implemented.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Do you know that two other provinces, Alberta and Quebec, have already implemented province-wide strategies

on their own? We were also told at the health estimates that Ontario has been following the recommendations of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization when it comes to meningitis

vaccinations.

Now this committee has made a critical recommendation calling for meningitis vaccinations for everyone aged two months to 20 years. The committee also

recommended that that vaccination program begin now, because most of the cases of meningitis occur in the winter and the number of cases has been steadily rising since 1998.

Minister, 65 people have been infected and eight people have died from meningitis this year. This is a serious health issue. Your government had over $2

billion in the May budget for tax cuts for your corporate friends. Where is the money now to protect infants and children from meningitis?

Hon Mr Clement: Let me repeat that we just got the report earlier this week. The original guidelines that were in place said you don't

immunize on a routine basis; you immunize when there is an outbreak control issue. This issue, of course, is not just an Ontario issue, a Quebec issue or an Alberta issue; it is a national issue.

The federal government has taken the lead to get all the parties together to discuss what should be done on a national basis. We are in discussions with the federal government to see what sort of

ongoing and enhanced funding through CHST or some other method can be used to deal with this program in a national and comprehensive way so that we do meet the concerns the honourable member has so

rightly expressed.

We of course want the best health for our children and our seniors and for the general population when it comes to meningitis, but it does involve an issue of

national importance with national participation necessary.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Solicitor General. The Windsor Port Authority is asking for the help of

your government. You will know that the Windsor Port Authority is responsible for 22 kilometres of the Detroit River, including the busiest border crossing in North America, which handles 40% of

Canada-US trade. If something were to happen to the bridge or the tunnel located adjacent to Windsor, it would devastate our economy.

A letter today to the Premier reads in part as follows: "It is apparent that local experience in dealing with terrorism ... and financial resources are

dangerously inadequate to provide security for key vehicular infrastructure ... for interdiction of people moving illegally by water ... for escort of high-risk ships, and for general policing....

We respectfully and urgently request your government's support in addressing these critical issues."

The question to you, Minister, is what are you going to do to make sure the Windsor crossing is safe for people and for Ontario trade?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): We have certainly been consulting with all our partners at the federal and municipal levels, but

surely the Leader of the Opposition understands that what he's speaking about is a federal responsibility.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Turnbull: I find it passing strange that every time we mention in this Legislature that the federal government should take its

responsibilities, you run 100 miles an hour backwards from that proposition. The fact is, the federal government has balanced its budget on the backs of all the provinces, and now you're asking us

to try to bail out the feds. I suggest that's rather silly.

Mr McGuinty: I want to remind the minister that this government has representation on the Windsor Port Authority. I also want to remind the

minister about my plan, which would enable you to lend some assistance to the community of Windsor.

You will know that last week we put out our Ontario security plan, which creates a special $100-million fund that communities might access for purposes

precisely like this one. As I am sure you well understand, Minister, people in Windsor are dependent upon the free flow of goods, services and people across the border. They are telling us that

they cannot cope on their own, and there's a letter here that is not directed to the federal government; it is directed to the provincial government and the leader of the provincial government. I

think we have a responsibility to try and help out. Does the federal government have some responsibility here? Undoubtedly they do. But I think it is also appropriate that we work together with

this community and lend whatever assistance we can. I put forward a proposal which sets aside $100 million specifically for this kind of purpose.

I ask you again, Minister, what are you going to do now that you've received an urgent request from the Windsor Port Authority to make sure the people of

Windsor and our trade are secure?

Hon Mr Turnbull: I would suggest to you that (

a) I have not received such a letter, and (

b) very clearly, they should be directed to address

themselves to the federal government, because that is the authority which is responsible for this. However, that being said, we have committed to a process of looking at all the resources of the

federal, provincial and municipal governments, as well as police forces, to ensure the security of our borders. I have to tell you that while you were running out to spend $100 million, which you

didn't say how it was going to be raised, over and over again, ad nauseam, our Premier was in contact with the US authorities, working on freer flow of goods and services across our borders.

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. Ontario welcomes immigrants --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. Order.

The member for London-Fanshawe.

Mr Mazzilli: As you know, Ontario welcomes immigrants and always has. I'm certainly proud to be one of those people who have been welcomed to

this province. I came over at a very young age with my parents. We have approximately 100,000 newcomers a year. As a result, this province has an enormous stake in the effectiveness of any

immigration policy that's spelled out in Bill C-11. I understand that Ontario was not given the opportunity to appear before the House committee on Bill C-11, which proceeded through the House of

Commons. But the Senate committee offered to hear our concerns. On behalf of the government of Ontario, you attended yesterday, Minister. Could you outline what you put forward to the federal

government on behalf of the government of Ontario?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I'd like to thank the member for London-Fanshawe. In fact, we

were the only province in Canada that presented before the Senate yesterday. I was pleased to table Ontario's position with respect to Bill C-11. It was very clear to all the Senators, who openly

admitted that this is overly complex legislation -- one Senator indicated that the legislation seems to move more to be governed by bureaucracy and less by the laws of our country. Also, Ontario

believes that we should be doing a much better job in terms of our front-end security screening for refugee claimants and we should be honouring the financial contributions that are required to

support refugees.

Some 26,000 refugees land in Canada every year, yet the federal government flatly refuses --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the members for Windsor West and Windsor-St Clair come to order, please. You just keep yelling across. I know there's some

heckling, but you just continually keep yelling, with no let-up. Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Jackson: There are about 26,000 refugees --

Interjection.

The Speaker: It's not helpful to yell stuff like that, I say to the member for Ottawa West-Nepean. That is not helpful at all. I'll maintain

order in here and I don't need cheap shots coming across like that, when they're loud enough for everybody to hear. I'll maintain order in here. If you want to be Speaker, next time run

yourself.

Sorry for the interruption.

Hon Mr Jackson: There are about 26,000 refugees who arrive in Canada every year, and most of them, over half of them, land in Ontario.

Fundamentally, we have a concern as a province --

The Speaker: Time is up. Supplementary.

Mr Mazzilli: The tragic events of September 11 have not only changed our economy but the way we view the world. A recent poll suggests that

57% of Canadians have higher stress levels about security in our country. Recently, the media have criticized Canada's immigration policies, particularly concerning the refugee process and

immigration enforcement.

Minister, I understand the need for legislation that addresses the concerns of our citizens. Can you tell us if Bill C-11 lives up to the federal claim that it

will address these concerns?

Hon Mr Jackson: The short answer is that the bill does not live up to its claims. In fact, before the Senate I had an opportunity to expose

some of the key elements of the legislation. In fact, the old immigration bill in this country clearly sets out a mandatory duty for police officers to investigate and report inadmissibility for

deportation. That is required in the current law. Under the new law proposed by Minister Caplan it becomes a voluntary, non-mandatory condition, and they've dropped the reference to police officers

and vested it in the hands of bureaucrats. In other words, they've removed 50,000 police officers from the immigration enforcement process in our country. This is a serious matter and one which

even the Senate expressed concern about yesterday.

Frankly, the current Bill C-11 contradicts Bill C-36, a federal piece of legislation brought in by Minister McLellan to deal with anti-terrorism. This

government has asked for a bilateral process so we can deal with the concerns of underfunding for refugee claimants and for the security --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You know, Minister,

not a day goes by that I don't hear one of my constituents expressing anger at your government for forcing amalgamation down their throats. They feel mistreated and disrespected. Many of your very

own constituents, feeling the same way, are here today at Queen's Park looking for answers. Over the past several months, the citizens of Victoria county have held a series of referendums. In 17

separate ballots administered in different communities throughout your own riding, an overwhelming 96.5% voted to de-amalgamate.

Minister, they don't like their new municipal government and they want their historic communities and names back. For the record, the people of Victoria county

want to know from you today: will you bring forward legislation or regulation to undo the disaster that your government has created in your own backyard and return local municipal government to the

people?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Thanks for the question. I could be partisan and read a bunch of quotes from

the member from Hamilton and your leader about the benefits of amalgamation. I can tell you that in my own riding, Bill 26 is the only way that Queen's Park could amalgamate if it was asked for by

democratically elected councils. The expenditures -- it's working -- are down $5 million from what was collected the year before and spent in that municipality.

There are some transition problems, but it wasn't taken lightly. The township of Emily and the town of Lindsay requested a commissioner. We asked that they

find a local solution. They couldn't find that, a commissioner was brought in, and the result is that we have a new municipality which is spending less dollars, providing better service, and the

councillors are working hard to make it work.

I would be interested to know what the Liberal solution is, because I'm not going to give weasel-word answers to my residents and pretend that you can undo the

past.

Mr McMeekin: Minister, when will you and your government actually listen and respond to the people? Let's be honest: the concept of forcing

municipalities to amalgamate has been a bad idea from the get-go. In fact your own government, to its recent credit, has now placed a moratorium on any future amalgamations in this province. I want

to believe that you are one on that side of the House who still believes in democracy. On February 8, 1997, a full 57% of all the eligible voters in the old town of Flamborough voted 10,762 to 532

-- or roughly 95% -- against the proposition of amalgamating six municipalities into the new city of Hamilton. I'm noticing a trend here. You wouldn't listen then and you're not listening now. The

people of Kawartha Lakes, like the people of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, want to know what it is going to take to convince you and your government to allow them the right to determine

for themselves their own democratic future.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Enough of the rhetoric. He knows full well that in our area it was asked for by local, democratically elected councils.

Secondly, they talked about it for 25 or 30 years. He also knows that back in the 1950s and 1960s there were 1,100 municipalities in this province; now there are 447.

If he's suggesting that Dalton McGuinty's position is to allow a referendum without any weasel words, I would like to see it. Where do you draw the line? Do

you let Sturgeon Point, with a few residents, separate and become a municipality and county unto itself? Do you let little neighbourhoods that disagree with their neighbours separate and form their

own municipalities? I would like to see the wording on how you would allow referendums. What we've done is respect democratically elected councils. In the past, Queen's Park could have forced its

will on rural Ontario; it couldn't under Bill 26. The decision is working for the benefit of residents of that area.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Bob Wood (London West): My question is for the minister responsible for children. The minister is aware of the innovative program currently

being run in the state of Hawaii. As part of their strategy to support parents and children, Hawaii runs a program that allows nurse practitioners to visit families and provide support if they need

help adapting to their role as parents. This program has helped a broad range of families, including young families, single parents and couples, who may sometimes feel overwhelmed with the

challenges of raising a child. Studies say this program has reduced child abuse among these families by 75%. Long-standing research shows reduced criminal and non-criminal delinquency is likely

among these children in the long run. Does the minister believe that such a program could be helpful to the families of Ontario?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone

affairs): I'm certainly impressed with the program of which the member speaks. Indeed, they've had a significant success rate at reducing child abuse and ensuring optimal child

development.

We have pursued a number of initiatives in this regard, including the Healthy Babies, Health Children program, where we're spending about $70 million providing

a real commitment to screen about 139,000 babies born in Ontario each and every year. We're also expanding our Learning, Earning and Parenting program, providing supports to single parents, so they

can realize the very best they can for themselves, their future and their families. We're also doubling the support for our program for young children with autism to ensure they get the support and

the capacities they need to be successful later in life. This is a record of which I think we can be tremendously proud and one for which we're prepared to accept any good ideas, like the idea the

member is suggesting, for consideration in the future.

Mr Wood: A number of experts, including the government's own Early Years report, have identified a clear need to expand supports to families,

so that children can get the best start in life. Research has clearly demonstrated that the first six years of life are the most crucial in determining a child's opportunity for a successful and

happy life. I believe a program like the one in Hawaii offers the chance to greatly reduce criminal and non-criminal delinquency and greatly improve the quality of life for many families across

Ontario. Is the minister prepared to consider mandating the offering of a Hawaii-like program across Ontario?

Hon Mr Baird: As I said at the outset, I'm certainly prepared to consider any initiative to help young children in the their optimum years.

Building on the success of initiatives we've undertaken as a province, whether it's through the proposed Early Years Centres that will be rolling out over the next year, whether it's building on

the supports we provide through our health units and the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program and building on the success our Premier had in encouraging the federal government to provide

increased supports and financial support to our Early Years initiative, an initiative on which the federal government took more than three or four years to come to the table and provide that

additional funding, we now have the benefit of all levels of government rowing together for the benefit of young children. That's good news for children, parents, families and the future of our

province.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Health. Are you telling the Soo area hospitals to cut services? They're

running a $3.5-million deficit. You're telling them they can't run a deficit. They're saying they've already cut to the bone. Doctors are saying that this whole scenario puts services at risk. Are

you telling the Soo area hospitals to cut services?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): We are working with every hospital. Every hospital has to file an operating plan, as

the honourable member knows, so that we can go through what services they propose to render in a given year. We then work with the individual hospital to make sure the resources can cover the plan,

and that they do so in the most efficient way. That process takes a little bit longer in some hospitals than others. Sometimes we have to go through an operational review, because the hospital

boards approach us and indicate they have difficulty managing in the way we expect them to manage. There is a process of dialogue that goes on, and that dialogue process takes a few months. But we

always put patient care first, and this will be no exception.

Mr Martin: The Soo area hospitals are running a $3.5-million deficit. You're telling them they can't. They are saying they've cut to the bone.

The doctors are saying that any cut to services will have a devastating effect on their ability to do their job. They won't even be able to attract new doctors to Sault Ste Marie if they can't

perform their duties. Will you tell us today whether in fact you're telling the Soo area hospitals that they need to cut services?

Hon Mr Clement: Quite the opposite; we expect them to maintain their services. That's why we go through the process of reviewing operating

plans to make sure patient care and clinical results are number one. That's the kind of thing we expect of our hospitals, and the hospital administrations are usually exceedingly good at meeting

those expectations. The hospital report card we released in July revealed an 88% patient satisfaction with overnight stays in Ontario's hospitals, something all hospitals should be proud of.

Incidentally, the honourable member should know that, as a result of the final allocation for this year, in terms of funding for hospitals that the honourable

member opposite mentioned in her remarks prior to question period, the Sault Ste Marie General received $2.2 million, which of course will help them deliver excellent patient care for the people of

Sault Ste Marie.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. I want to ask you about the St Peter's Hospital situation in

Hamilton. As you are aware, St Peter's is the only hospital in the city that has a dedicated palliative care unit. It has 15 beds that are operating at this point. Last year, it had a waiting list

of 285 people, mostly cancer patients who died before they were admitted to St Peter's Hospital. On any given day, 30 people are on a waiting list to get into those 15 beds at St Peter's. Most of

them are in acute care wards in hospitals, where they don't get the care they would receive at this particular hospital.

In February, you were given a proposal by St Peter's that was going to cost $700,000 to open up an additional 19 beds. That does not solve the full problem but

would go a long way toward solving the situation at St Peter's. Can you tell us why you're delaying and denying this basic care to patients in Hamilton in their dying days?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I have heard about this plan. You

should know that the member for Stoney Creek, the honourable Brad Clark, has been a consistent and very good representative and advocate on behalf of the people of Hamilton and Hamilton area in

order to ensure that this minister and the Ministry of Health understand the needs in Hamilton; I wish to put that on the record. The fact of the matter is, we haven't received a detailed proposal

from St Peter's. As well, there is a district health council study that is ongoing on this very issue. I would be happy to receive that detailed proposal, and I'm sure Minister Clark can assist me

in that regard.

Mr Agostino: Minister, you seem to be the only one who doesn't understand the need and feels we need more studies and more reports. Maybe the

Spectator editorial had it best in the headline when they said, "Tories Tell the Dying to Wait a Little Longer." Clearly there's no need for further studies. We know the need that is there. Your

own colleague seems to understand what you don't. But let me quote what he said, "I think in the Hamilton area we don't have the palliative care we should have. Unfortunately palliative care in

Hamilton has fallen by the wayside." That is your cabinet colleague Brad Clark. You're the only one left who doesn't seem to understand this need, Minister. I don't understand why you need further

studies with 15 beds in the whole city for palliative care. What other reports do you need to convince you that the need is there, that you're not meeting that need? They provide quality care. They

provide round-the-clock nursing. They give the families opportunities to visit around the clock. It is a type of support you don't get in the hospitals.

Minister, can you explain to this House why you have $2.2 billion for tax cuts but cannot commit today to $700,000 for Hamilton to give people in their last

few days the quality care that they deserve and need in the city of Hamilton?

Hon Mr Clement: Let me make it perfectly clear for the House and the honourable member. There is a planning process which will have a final

report at the end of that process. The hospital is participating in the process. They haven't finalized their proposal with us, because they are participating in the local process, the DHC process,

so we are waiting for that. In the meantime, we've had some very effective advocacy by the member for Stoney Creek, who understands the issue and who understands the need for this kind of care. So

we are taking all of that under advisement.

When it comes to the latter part of your argument, we know the Liberals don't like tax cuts. We know the Liberals have voted against every single tax cut that

we have proposed in this House. You don't have to underline it, but if you want to underline the fact that you don't like tax cuts, that you don't like the fact that the people of Ontario have more

change in their jeans, you can continue to do that, but that does not help with health care --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Hamilton East, come to order. Was the minister finished? Sorry. Member for Simcoe North.

On a point of order, the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr Speaker, the Minister of Health, in response to the question from the member for Sault Ste Marie,

made reference to the point of privilege I raised earlier with you regarding a list of hospitals that had received funding in a recent announcement. He held up the list in the House. I therefore

have reason to believe that list is the list I was requesting earlier. It's my understanding that any material referenced in the House must be tabled with all members. I would ask him to table

that.

The Speaker: You know that it says it will be referred to, and not just on one simple occasion, every time somebody does it. It's on occasion

when it's being referred to continually, and it was not. Simple references like that are not a situation where he needs to table it.

SULPHUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of the Environment. I was reading an

article this morning in the

Globe and Mail regarding acid rain and the Clean Air Task Force report that was released today. The report clearly states that acid rain will continue to affect the lakes and forests of eastern

Canada and existing salmon populations unless sulphur dioxide emissions, which are the main cause of acid rain, are dramatically cut.

Minister, could you please tell the House what the government's commitments are to reducing sulphur dioxide emissions in our province?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): To the member for Simcoe North, yes, I had an opportunity to take a look at the Clean Air

Task Force report, and Ministry of the Environment staff are reviewing that report.

Our government is very proud of the commitments that we have made to reduce sulphur dioxide. In 1985, this province, along with New Brunswick and Quebec,

signed the Countdown Acid Rain agreement to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 50% by 2004. However, I am very proud to say that in January 2000, our government announced a commitment to reduce

sulphur dioxide emissions by a further 50% beyond the Countdown Acid Rain agreement, and this action will then reflect an 80% reduction from the 1980 base levels. I can assure you we will continue

to take aggressive steps to reduce sulphur dioxide, because we know it has a negative impact on our forests and our lakes.

Mr Dunlop: Thank you very much, Minister. I understand that acid rain is an extensive problem due to the fact that many of the repercussions

associated with acid rain will persist in nature for many decades, and a full recovery takes many more years.

I'd like to ask the minister what other measures the provincial government will be pursuing to ensure that acid emission curbs are strengthened in the

future.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have been moving forward very aggressively this past year. As the member perhaps does know, we have announced in July of

this year proposed new emission caps for the electricity sector that will reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 25% by 2007. As of this September as well, we did issue orders to Inco and Falconbridge

in Sudbury to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 34% by 2006. This is very important, because Inco and Falconbridge account for over 40% of all sulphur dioxide emissions in Ontario.

I am also pleased to say that tomorrow I plan to make further announcements concerning aggressive action that we plan to take regarding reduction of sulphur

dioxide emissions.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): The ministers leave when I'm about to ask them the question. My question is for the Minister of

Health, and he just left.

Interjection.

Mr Parsons: Thank you. Minister, you're very aware of a medical affliction called age-related macular degeneration. It strikes our seniors and

virtually guarantees that they will go blind. The good news is there is a very simple, painless treatment for it that has 100% success. The bad news, Minister, is that you have refused to fund it.

The previous Minister of Health, Minister Witmer, refused to fund it. Seven Ontario provinces do fund it now. You and I daily receive letters saying things like, "Will you try to help me? Time is

running out for me."

These people are not wealthy; they cannot afford to keep their eyesight. They have paid taxes all their lives. They need some service, and you have stalled and

stalled. Minister, will you today commit to funding the cure for macular degeneration?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for the question and thank him for his point of view

on it. I can update the House on the situation.

The honourable member should perhaps add to the facts that we of course have to wait for Health Canada to go through its process to ensure that a new drug is

safe and is effective in what it does. That process is now complete. We then wait for what is called the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee to finish its preparations and its consideration.

That was just recently completed, and I can tell the honourable member that we have the issue under advisement and would like to report back to him and to this House at the earliest available

opportunity.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr Parsons: Minister, that has been approved for some time. Other provinces fund it. Every day that you stall reinforces your commitment to

two-tier medicine and forces working families to have their loved ones go blind.

You need to talk to your staff, Minister. They have indicated to us that there is a red tape problem within your office as to which branch of your ministry

will pay for it. They say it should be approved, but you can't decide which budget line should pay for it.

Minister, financial decisions can be backdated; blindness can't be. Will you show some leadership qualities and, today, make the decision that our seniors not

go blind and you will fund their treatment?

Hon Mr Clement: Let me say to this House that of course we take this matter very seriously. This government has added 1,200 new medications to

the formulary since we were elected. Previous governments were adept at delisting services, delisting medications from formularies. We have added 1,200 new medications to the formulary. We are

proud of our assistance to seniors and to those who are members of the Trillium drug plan, and that support will continue.

Incidentally, these are 100% provincial dollars. Not a single cent comes from the federal Liberals. Only 14 cents on the dollar comes from them when it comes

to preserving and enhancing our own health care system. That's the kind of support we get from Allan Rock and the federal Liberals.

It is quite concerning to us, but we are in fact spending more and more. For six years in a row we have spent more on health care, and we have the highest

budget in the history of Ontario, both generally and for the drug formulary. That is a record of which we are proud and which is known to the people of Ontario.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, since the events of September 11,

we have heard countless versions of how the border system should change. Some people recommended an updated version of the status quo, while others are recommending a complete overhaul of the

border crossing system.

Our province's economy relies very heavily obviously on trade with the United States. You have said on a number of occasions that we need a border that allows

easier access for legitimate people and goods. Could you please update the House on your views and what you have been hearing regarding this issue?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): This is a critical issue and one recognized by the Harris government. We

can't lie back and think it's business as usual. A quote last week from US Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont: "One of the major security issues we face involves our border with Canada."

We have recognized it. We had the New York-Ontario border summit in June. We'll have that report coming, publicly, shortly. The Premier and I met last week

with Governor Pataki and other officials from New York state to talk about these issues. We are sponsoring a border forum on November 2 to discuss these issues with major players who are affected

by economic transportation across the borders. The New York state government is going to mirror our round table, and we hope to, at the end of the day, have a joint report from New York state and

Ontario which we can provide to our respective federal governments.

Mr Maves: Minister, my community is one of the busiest Canadian gateways to the United States. None of us wants the close relationship we have

with them jeopardized. I understand that not everyone is onside with the idea of a secure perimeter. Could you please explain to us how the federal Liberals seem to be lagging behind everyone else

on this issue?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think we can describe the federal approach with a range of adjectives: "curious," "perplexing," "worrisome," "disturbing."

The US ambassador to Canada, our Premier, Mr Harris, and the Premiers of Manitoba, Quebec and British Columbia have all called for a North American security perimeter.

Instead of recognizing the economic implications of border traffic, federal officials have been suggesting that somehow a security perimeter is going to lessen

sovereignty. This is an urgent, critical issue. There is a clear need for the federal government to get off the bench and into the game. Mr Chrétien, this is no time for your trademark

complacency. Get into this game.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You have a busload of people here,

Voices of Central Ontario, from your own constituency. Some 11,000 people have signed a petition and 96% of the people in your riding have voted to get their towns and villages back. Will you agree

to a government-sponsored referendum and be bound by the results?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): In my area, two democratically elected councils requested that a commissioner

come in and sort out what they've been talking about around restructuring for the last 25 or 30 years. If the NDP has a recommendation that, where there were 1,100 municipalities and now there are

about 447, referendums decide your municipal boundaries, and one street in Toronto wants to separate from the city of Toronto, is that the NDP position now?

Mr Prue: Obviously you're not willing to let the people's democracy speak. I have heard from them that you have not even been willing to meet

them; you've not been willing to return their phone calls. You have not been willing to be any part of their discussions in their desperate and valiant effort to save their towns and villages.

Will you at least meet with them? Will you consider their pleas, and will you give them back their towns and villages to protect their local democracy?

Hon Mr Hodgson: In my riding for the last 25 or 30 years they have talked about restructuring. Local governments are very, very important. I

have met with the councils of the former Victoria county; I've met with the councils of Haliburton county and Peterborough county. We looked for local solutions. Haliburton and Peterborough

counties chose to do that. In Victoria county, you had about two thirds who wanted to have change and one third who wanted no change. I was fine with whatever my democratically elected councillors

wanted. Unfortunately, those who wanted change couldn't agree, and so two of the democratically elected local councils asked for a commissioner. The result, under Bill 26, was binding. It couldn't

be forced by Queen's Park for rural Ontario.

As a result, we have a new municipal authority, the city of Kawartha Lakes. It's one tier. Under the old system, it was two-tier. Most of the expenditures were

made at the upper tier, but they were elected at the lower tier.

This is something that has its growing pains but, as I said to an earlier question, they are spending less money than before and delivering better service, and

most people are trying to make it work. I understand that a lot of people are disappointed and frustrated, and it's their democratic right to express that, so I appreciate the question.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Before we begin petitions, we have a new group of pages. I'd like all the members to welcome Richie Abrich from

Oak Ridges; Timothy Armstrong from Algoma-Manitoulin; Emily Baker from Hamilton West; Lisa Blenkhorn from Sarnia-Lambton; Amanda Brown from Mississauga West; Benoît Brunet-Poirier from

Ottawa-Vanier; Antony Candeloro from Niagara Falls; Timothy Cuddy from Lanark-Carleton; Olivia Dennis from Scarborough East; Cherie Fawcett from Nickel Belt; Andrew Guytingco from York North; Amy

Hammett from Brampton Centre; Andrew Hodes from Perth-Middlesex; Emma Kastanis from Davenport; Courtney Kiss from Prince Edward-Hastings; Katherine McCormick from Scarborough-Agincourt; Gillian

Mucklow from Thunder Bay-Superior North; Gawain Tang from Brampton West-Mississauga; Chadd Vandermade from Brant; and Ben Ward from Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Please join in welcoming our new group of pages.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I have a petition signed by some 12,000 residents.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of Victoria county had no direct say in the creation of the new city of Kawartha Lakes; and

"Whereas the government by regulation and legislation forced the recent amalgamation, against the will of the obvious majority of the people; and

"Whereas the government has not delivered the promised streamlined, more efficient and accountable local government, nor the provision of better services at

reduced costs; and

"Whereas the promise of tax decreases has not been met; and

"Whereas the expected transition costs to area taxpayers of this forced amalgamation have already exceeded the promised amount by over three times,

Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our

local municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance it has coerced

on all local residents."

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a petition that has been signed by over 240 residents from Victoria county.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of Victoria county had no direct say in the creation of the new city of Kawartha Lakes; and

"Whereas the government by regulation and legislation forced the recent amalgamation, against the will of the obvious majority of the people; and

"Whereas the government has not delivered the promised streamlined, more efficient and accountable local government, nor the provision of better services at

reduced costs; and

"Whereas the promise of tax decreases has not been met, based on current assessments; and

"Whereas the expected transition costs to area taxpayers of this forced amalgamation have already exceeded the promised amount by over three times,

Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our

local municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance it has coerced

on all local residents."

I have affixed my signature as well.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I continue to receive petitions. This one reads as follows:

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer, also called Our Father, has been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the

beginning of Upper Canada in the 18th century; and

"Whereas such use of the Lord's Prayer is part of Ontario's long-standing heritage and a tradition that continues to play a significant role in contemporary

Ontario life; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is a most meaningful expression of the religious convictions of many Ontario citizens;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom, and do all

in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers in Ontario."

I'm proud to support this because I believe in it.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of Victoria county had no direct say in the creation of the new city of Kawartha Lakes; and

"Whereas the government by regulation and legislation forced the recent amalgamation, against the will of the obvious majority of the people; and

"Whereas the government has not delivered the promised streamlined, more efficient and accountable local government, nor the provision of better services at

reduced costs; and

"Whereas the promise of tax decreases has not been met, based on current assessments; and

"Whereas the expected transition costs to area taxpayers of this forced amalgamation have already exceeded the promised amount by over three times;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our

local municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance it has coerced

on all local residents."

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

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a petition as well, signed by 227 people. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of Victoria county had no direct say in the creation of the new city of Kawartha Lakes; and

"Whereas the government by regulation and legislation forced the recent amalgamation, against the will of the obvious majority of the people; and

"Whereas the government has not delivered the promised streamlined, more efficient and accountable local government, nor the provision of better services at

reduced costs; and

"Whereas the promise of tax decreases has not been met, based on current assessments; and

"Whereas the expected transition costs to area taxpayers of this forced amalgamation have already exceeded the promised amount by over three times;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our

local municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance it has coerced

on all local residents."

I affix my signature as well.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased the Minister of Transportation is in the House today because I've received a petition with respect to

Highway 407 from Bob Brown and Philip Brown, who operate the Kedron Dells Golf Course in my riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario has proposed the extension of Highway 407 into the Durham region and the proposed route, designated as the technically

preferred route, will dissect the property of Kedron Dells Golf Course Ltd Oshawa;"

"Whereas such routing will destroy completely five holes, and severely impact two additional holes effectively destroying the golf course as a viable and

vibrant public golf course;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to change this routing to one of the other identified alternate routes, thus

preserving this highly regarded, public facility patronized annually by thousands of residents," of Durham region and the GTA.

I've been to the golf course. My constituents use this course. I sign, endorse and respect this petition and present it to the Minister of Transportation here

in the House today.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of Victoria county had no direct say in the creation of the new city of Kawartha Lakes; and

"Whereas the government by regulation and legislation forced the recent amalgamation, against the will of the obvious majority of the people; and

"Whereas the government has not delivered the promised streamlined, more efficient and accountable local government, nor the provision of better services at

reduced costs; and

"Whereas the promise of tax decreases has not been met, based on current assessments; and

"Whereas the expected transition costs to area taxpayers of this forced amalgamation have already exceeded the promised amount by over three times,

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our

local municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance that is forced

on the local residents."

I've also signed the petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a petition here, 232 signatures out of 11,000. I'm going to read it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of Victoria county had no direct say in the creation of the new city of Kawartha Lakes; and

"Whereas the government by regulation and legislation forced the recent amalgamation, against the will of the obvious majority of the people; and

"Whereas the government has not delivered the promised streamlined, more efficient and accountable local government, nor the provision of better services at

reduced costs; and

"Whereas the promise of tax decreases has not been met, based on current assessments; and

"Whereas the expected transition costs to area taxpayers of this forced amalgamation have already exceeded the promised amount by over three times,

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our

local municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance it has coerced

on all local residents."

I affix my signature to this petition because I totally agree with it.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition signed by hundreds of persons from across Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,

"Whereas the November 2000 announcement of massive privatization of Ministry of Transportation services will have a significant detrimental effect on citizen

road safety, confidentiality of citizens' information and on the economy of Ontario; and

"Whereas the employees of the Ministry of Transportation are recognized in writing by the provincial government to have provided excellent service on the

government's behalf; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is taking away the livelihood and decreasing the standard of living of thousands of employees and families by its actions,

both directly and indirectly through spinoff effects; and

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are entitled to safe roads, consistency in driver testing, competent inspection of trucks, school buses and vehicles carrying

dangerous goods; and

"Whereas communities continue to need to retain decent-paying jobs if they are to maintain viability and vibrancy; and

"Whereas we taxpayers have entrusted the provincial government with the maintenance of public safety with an apolitical and efficient public service, a service

free of profiteering and protected from conflicts of interests; and

"Whereas privatization is an abdication of such public trust;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to place a moratorium on all further privatization and to restore and promote public service

as being of significant value in our society."

I, of course, have signed this petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The Harris government forced a restructuring in my community last year, so I understand the concerns of the

folks who are here today and it's my pleasure to present this petition on their behalf. It says the following.

"Whereas the citizens of Victoria county had no direct say in the creation of the new city of Kawartha Lakes; and

"Whereas the government by regulation and legislation forced the recent amalgamation, against the will of the obvious majority of the people; and

"Whereas the government has not delivered the promise of streamlined, more efficient and accountable local government, nor the provision of better services at

reduced costs; and

"Whereas the promise of tax decreases has not been met, based on current assessments; and

"Whereas the expected transition costs to area taxpayers of this forced amalgamation have already exceeded the promised amount by over three times,

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order and return our

local municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Victoria county and remove the bureaucratic, dictatorial, single-tier governance it has coerced

on all residents."

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

HIGHWAY 407

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'd also like to recognize the people from Victoria county. As my wife was born in Lindsay, I probably know some of

them. It was a beautiful place to live and it is certainly still a beautiful place to live.

I also want to present this petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, now that the Minister of Transportation is here and listening to this

petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario has proposed the extension of Highway 407 into the Durham region and the proposed routing, designated as the technically

preferred route, will dissect the property of Kedron Dells Golf Course Ltd Oshawa,"

"Whereas such routing will destroy completely five holes, and severely impact two additional holes effectively destroying the golf course as a viable and

vibrant public golf course" -- I might say that the problem is that they're landlocked;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to change this routing to one of the other identified alternate routes, thus

preserving this highly regarded, public facility patronized annually by thousands of residents" -- not just of Durham region but all of the GTA and probably from the city of Lindsay and

Peterborough county and the city of Kawartha Lakes.

I sign and support this in respect to my constituents.

NURSES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the nurses of Ontario are seeking relief from heavy workloads, which have contributed to unsafe conditions for patients and have increased the risk of

injury to nurses; and

"Whereas there is a chronic nursing shortage in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has failed to live up to its commitment to provide safe, high-quality care for patients;

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

"We demand the Ontario government take positive action to ensure that our communities have enough nursing staff to provide patients with the care they need.

The Ontario government must:

"Ensure wages and benefits are competitive and value all nurses for their dedication and commitment; ensure there are full-time and regular part-time jobs

available for nurses in hospitals, nursing homes and the community; ensure government revenues fund health care, not tax cuts; ensure front-line nurses play a key role in health reform

decisions."

I'll be happy to sign this, and I'm handing it off to Gillian Mucklow, our new page from Thunder Bay-Superior North. We're very proud of her in Thunder Bay.

Welcome, Gillian.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Sarnia-Lambton has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the

answer to her question given by the Minister of Finance yesterday concerning the Cabinet Office costs. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

IMPROVING CUSTOMER SERVICE

FOR ROAD USERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION

DES SERVICES À LA CLIENTÈLE

OFFERTS AUX USAGERS DE LA ROUTE

Mr Clark moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 65,

An Act to permit the Minister of Transportation to delegate to persons in the private sector powers and duties and responsibilities to deliver

services relating to road user programs / Projet de loi 65, Loi permettant au ministre des Transports de déléguer à des personnes du secteur privé des pouvoirs, des

fonctions et des responsabilités pour fournir des services liés aux programmes à l'intention des usagers de la route.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 16, the remainder of this sessional day will be divided equally

among all recognized parties and the question on the motion for third reading of Bill 65 will be put at 6 o'clock this evening.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): I am pleased today to rise and introduce the Improving Customer Service for Road Users Act, 2001,

for third reading.

As the honourable members know, our government believes that the essential and proper role of government, for the most part, is to manage public services,

rather than deliver them directly. We have worked diligently toward that goal since taking office in 1995. That role as a manager of public services included a promise to explore alternative

approaches to service delivery.

It's clear that Ontarians have come to expect good services from their government. It's clear too that we have provided good services for taxpayers' dollars.

Bill 65 would build on the commitment we have made to the people of Ontario. Bill 65 would ensure better customer service; the protection of privacy for all citizens of this province; and

continuing support for road user safety programs in this province.

I should mention too that this bill has undergone extensive scrutiny by many parties. Concerns raised by those parties have been addressed in the bill we have

before us today.

Better customer service is, and always has been, our intent. And Bill 65 would deliver on our goal to improve customer service in this province. Not only is

Bill 65 about customer service, it's also about accountability. Alternative service delivery of public services is an important part of this government's commitment to accountability. It would mean

continued high-quality services to Ontario's taxpayers: modern, safe, efficient and cost-effective services that continue to ensure value for taxpayer money.

The Ministry of Transportation is responding to an established need. By permitting my ministry to transfer the delivery of some road user services and programs

to other providers, this bill would improve customer service to the public. At the same time, my ministry would still be mandated under the proposed legislation to protect the public interest.

Yet, in debating this bill, we have heard the naysayers claiming that privacy would not be protected under its legislation. In fact, Bill 65 includes important

provisions to protect the privacy of individuals and to safeguard the confidentiality of their personal information.

Members of the opposition have suggested that personal information in databases would be at risk in the hands of the private sector. The fact is that my

ministry would retain custody and control of all databases related to driver and vehicle information. For service providers, access to information would be limited. Our service providers would be

allowed to see only the information required to conduct specific transactions as delegated by my ministry.

We've heard too that the public, rather than the private sector, can better protect privacy. This is not true. If passed, this legislation would ensure that

privacy would be protected to the very same level under Bill 65. It specifically ensures that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies to all new service providers. As a

result, all applicable records would always remain under the control of my ministry. We would reinforce that commitment to privacy by requiring that our alternative service providers create the

position of privacy officer within their organization. The privacy officer would be responsible for securing all customer records related to the delegated business.

I've said this before in this House and I will say it again: this legislation has received accolades from Ontario's own Information and Privacy Commissioner.

In a letter to me dated June 11, 2001, the privacy commissioner states:

"The manner in which private service providers have been made subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is laudable.... This

legislation, as well as the process through which privacy has been addressed, would serve as a good example to other government institutions, in the event they decide to provide services through

private service providers."

How can we not feel confident about this bill when our own privacy commissioner offers such unquestioned support? Underscoring the privacy commissioner's vote

of confidence, we received much additional support from other parties whose mandate it is to protect the public interest.

Yet there are those who would question the wisdom of this bill. For example, we were also asked, "Shouldn't you have been preparing for alternative service

delivery before now?" The answer to that question is a most definite yes. Yes, we prepared for alternative service delivery. We hired temporary staff to handle increased workload. We opened new

driver examination centres. We extended our hours of operation. We upgraded our systems, because our technology needed upgrading in the way that all business systems and offices across this

province require regular updates.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As I listen to the eloquent speech of the Minister of Transportation,

I'd like to ask if a quorum is present.

The Speaker: Would you check for a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker: Call in the members.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Clark: We upgraded our systems because our technology needed upgrading in the way that all business systems in offices across this

province require regular upgrades. These are required to keep pace with continuous improvements in technology and customer service standards. But the funding that was targeted to address these

issues was temporary. We needed a long-term solution. Bill 65 would provide that solution.

One of the first initiatives in this proposed legislation would be the transfer of driver examinations. Yet it has been suggested that privatization would

result in inconsistent delivery of those exams. It has also been suggested that the Ontario public would suddenly be inundated with a raft of service providers, all engaged in the delivery of

driver examination services. This is not true. To ensure a straightforward approach and to ensure effective contract management and adherence to consistent standards, Ontario would seek one service

provider to deliver driver examination services across this province.

Under this proposed legislation, my ministry would maintain a lead role in ensuring that the new service provider would fulfill its obligations as per its

contract with the government. As always, the government would continue to set and enforce the standards we have established. My ministry would, through a comprehensive and thorough system of checks

and balances, oversee every aspect of the service provider's operations.

From the initial contract through to service level agreements and daily operations, the service provider's work would be carefully scrutinized for consistency,

fairness and adherence to its contract obligations. Taxpayers would be apprised of who is responsible for providing the services and who is accountable for their timeliness, cost and quality.

Some detractors have also suggested that driver licence testing is, by its nature, strictly a public service. The truth of the matter is that there is nothing

in the concept of driver licence testing that makes it inherently a public service. Many professionals are licensed under a variety of systems, including private institutions.

We have also heard the erroneous accusation that under Bill 65, patronage would be rampant. Again, it's simply not true. Every contract awarded under Bill 65

would be awarded through an open, competitive and fair process.

To those who might suggest that privatizing road safety and driver examination services would risk safety, let the public be assured that at no time would road

safety be compromised. Under new service providers, the ministry would continue to develop policies, legislation and regulations, just as it does today. We would continue to safeguard the public

interest at all times, regardless of whether services are delivered by the ministry staff or other service providers.

To those who would suggest that, under alternative service delivery, the public would suddenly be faced with driver examiners who aren't qualified to do their

jobs, again, it's just not true. My ministry would continue to establish standards and set curriculum as well as train the service provider's own trainers under this proposed legislation.

As for the suggestion that there would be an increased risk of more instances of fraud and corruption under alternative service delivery, it should be noted

that measures are currently in place to address the issue of fraud. Those measures would not change. They would continue under any new service provider.

We would also institute a performance management system that ensures accountability. If this proposed legislation is passed, we would rigorously audit and

monitor the service provider to ensure that standards are met. And, as it is dealt with today, any instances of fraud would involve a police investigation.

It was also suggested that next up for privatization would be the inspection and enforcement of standards for trucks. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me be clear that the enforcement of standards for commercial vehicles is exempted from Bill 65. Why? Precisely because this proposed legislation focuses on improving customer service. Customer

service is important, but enforcement of commercial vehicles is a completely different issue. Therefore, my ministry would continue to retain accountability for compliance and enforcement

functions.

I again want to stress that if we were to transfer the delivery of services to other providers, road safety in this province would not be compromised. Indeed,

the safety of all road users remains a high priority for this government and for the Ministry of Transportation. Because of the work of this government since 1995, Ontario now has the safest roads

in Canada, second only to Massachusetts in all of North America. We're proud of that record, and we are working to make it even better.

A big part of delivering effective programs is ensuring quality customer service. As I have mentioned, my ministry has already made some significant customer

service improvements that would address the growing population of Ontario drivers. If passed, Bill 65 would build on those improvements. It is clear that alternative service delivery of driver

examination would bring innovation and greater flexibility in the way the services are delivered.

For those who might suggest that engaging a private service provider would reduce services to the public, the answer is no. Again, by transferring the

ministry's driver examination business to another service provider, my ministry would build on the customer service improvements that already have been achieved, and in fact be in a position to

offer enhanced service to the public in the future.

Under the new service delivery model, the service provider could elect to offer new value-added services to the public. It should be emphasized again that no

new services would be allowed before my ministry has had an opportunity to thoroughly review and approve them.

Although the transfer would affect many ministry staff, we are confident that a new service provider would need and would want to take advantage of the

considerable skills and professionalism of our existing staff. A new provider of driver examination services would need a flexible, multi-skilled workforce, people who can perform in a high-demand

environment with new and changing relationships. Some have suggested that we would be dismantling a service in which vital civil service jobs would be threatened. It should be noted that job

offers, as required under the collective agreements of those affected staff, are a mandatory part of any contract with a service provider, and many Ministry of Transportation driver examination

staff may find job opportunities with the new employer.

As the members were advised when Bill 65 was first introduced, the proposed legislation was written to address a number of important issues such as ensuring

privacy, continued high standards in road user safety, and better customer service.

As I said earlier, alternative service delivery is all about serving customers better and finding more flexible and innovative ways to deliver services. It

would help us meet this growing demand in ways that are smarter and more effective. Bill 65 would bring us closer to that goal, and to that end I ask for the full support of the House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Further debate?

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I'm pleased to rise and speak on third reading of Bill 65. As the House would know, the government invoked

closure. That was done some time ago, a time allocation that ended the debate at second reading. Now they move forward with third reading and, as stated by the Speaker, there will be a vote

tonight. So the government is in a mad rush to privatize these driver examination offices.

I think it's important to remind the public that the reasoning behind the government and their mode of operation has been to short-circuit the system. The

government quite clearly did not provide to the employees of the Ministry of Transportation the tools in advance in order to deal with what is known as the G2 licence system. The government was

warned by others five years ago that there would be an influx of those persons who have a G2 licence, that they would be coming on stream five years down the road, and they should have been

prepared for that. The government should have been prepared for this huge number of persons seeking to acquire their permanent licence.

The government not only wasn't ready and did not provide to the Ministry of Transportation employees the tools they needed to deal with this influx of persons,

but they actually closed offices. They magnified the problem by closing driver examination offices in Ontario, and I can speak of my riding. They closed one in Leamington and they closed one in

Ridgetown. So clearly the government has been trying to set up a crisis in order to convince the public that something needs to be done.

The government's answer in this situation, of course, is to privatize, and it is the wrong road to travel down. The government need not have embarked on this

endeavour. What the government needed to do was to be prepared in the first place to provide the tools to the employees of MTO and be prepared for the number of persons who were going to be coming

to their offices to upgrade and get their permanent licences.

We have been opposed to this bill from the outset; let me make that perfectly clear. I travelled, along with my friend Mr Kormos from Niagara Centre, to the

minister's office to ask him and to bring to the public's attention that he should withdraw Bill 65. We also jointly had a press conference here at Queen's Park to talk about the privatization in

Bill 65 and how it should not occur. We worked together in that regard. Many of my colleagues on the Liberal side of the House also staged events to bring awareness of our opposition to Bill 65. So

we have been consistent in our message that this is not the road that should be travel