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

November 6, 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-Nov-06 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 6 November 2001 Mardi 6 novembre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CANADIAN FORCES

CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC POLICIES

HAROLD GRAHAM

HOSPITAL SERVICES

FRANCHISE BUSINESSES

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

REMEMBRANCE DAY

DISCOVERY CENTRE

AT THE NORMAL SCHOOL

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

1268519 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2001

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(PHOTO-RADAR), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA

ROUTE (RADAR PHOTOGRAPHIQUE)

RESPONSIBLE CHOICES FOR GROWTH AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (BUDGET MEASURES), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR DES CHOIX RÉFLÉCHIS

FAVORISANT LA CROISSANCE

ET LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

CORPORATE TAX

ONTARIO EMERGENCY MEASURES FUNDING

CORPORATE TAX

ONTARIO ECONOMY

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

HEALTH CARE REFORM

MINISTERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

TIME ALLOCATION

Tuesday 6 November 2001 Mardi 6 novembre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): Citizens of southwest Ontario are experiencing a crisis in health care. I have urged many Ministers of Health

and the Premier to reconsider their disastrous policies. You have cut funding for hospitals, which resulted in bed closures, overcrowded emergency rooms unable to take patients, and diminished

services across the board.

Since this government took office, the crisis has steadily worsened. In Chatham-Kent, surgeries have been cancelled, emergency wards have been closed, and now

there will be no obstetrical coverage at the Chatham-Kent Health Alliance on November 9, 10 and 11.

Our doctor shortage is critical. I have begged this government for measures to attract physicians to the southwest. Again, I'm urging the health minister to lift

the freeze on funding for community health centres to help areas like Tilbury, waiting since 1995 for CHC funding to attract doctors. I am urging him to provide an envelope of funding for nurse

practitioners' salaries. Today, on behalf of the family of Mike Wells in Chatham and many other families, I beg the minister to maintain and protect the specialized paediatric and other services at

the London Health Sciences Centre, at risk because of government cuts. This centre of excellence helps to attract and keep doctors in southwest Ontario.

I urge you to keep your promise. These programs gave the Wells family hope and the chance for survival. As a member of the Southwestern Ontario Paediatric

Parents Organization, Mike is fighting to save these programs in memory of his son. No more cuts to health care. Restore these programs immediately.

CANADIAN FORCES

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I stand to honour all Canadian Forces, past and present, as we prepare to mark Remembrance

Day. Remembrance Day takes on a special significance this year. With Canada's navy joining the counterattack on terrorism, it has become commonplace to wish them a safe return. I'm going to be less

politically correct. I wish our sailors victory and then a safe return. May God watch over them.

There are more than 116,000 Canadians buried overseas. They are the dead of the South African war, the First and Second World Wars, Korea and a number of smaller

conflicts and peacekeeping operations. Our dead never got a share in the freedom they preserved. Because of their epic victories, this House can exist. We must never forget that there are people

all over the world who would like to get rid of this House and all of our liberties and freedoms. We must never forget those who died to keep us safe and free.

It fills me with pride that people continue to wear the poppy. I urge all my constituents to join me at Brampton city hall next Sunday at 11 o'clock as we honour

war veterans and the glorious dead. I'm asking them to bring their children and grandchildren and that they all wear their poppies.

CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC POLICIES

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): In a few minutes the Minister of Finance is going to present this House with an economic statement,

and I just want to point out here the extent to which this statement will misrepresent the finances of this province.

I expect the Minister of Finance to say that the province will continue not to run a deficit here. I want to tell the people of Ontario that this province, after

six years of Conservative policy and Conservative financing, has a terrible structural deficit and it affects every aspect of public policy.

I want to talk about the deficit in our school systems, not only the cutbacks that have demoralized our teachers, but the lack of construction and repair of our

schools is a shame. I want to talk about the deficit in our hospital system, the lack of beds. Hospital associations have been here today telling us that very thing.

I want to talk about the deficits that are now confronting every city and town in this province. The deficit of the city of Toronto has never been so large, and

it's exactly as a result of Conservative economic policies.

This government has debased the tax system in this province. And today we will hear that we no longer have the money to afford the kinds of programs that

Ontarians deserve. This is a disgrace, and the people of Ontario ought to know about it.

HAROLD GRAHAM

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Harold Graham.

Commissioner Graham passed away Saturday in Toronto at the age of 84.

A long-time resident of Scarborough East, Commissioner Graham had a long and very distinguished career in policing in the province. During his time as

commissioner, he helped modernize the OPP. He served for one year in the OPP's London detachment and moved on to the Sarnia department, where he worked for seven years. After that, he was promoted

to inspector and transferred to the general headquarters in Toronto. At the time, Mr Graham had the distinction of becoming the youngest inspector in the criminal investigation branch. He was only

33 years old.

During the course of his career, he dealt with more than 100 murders, many of those cases being very high-profile.

Although he wasn't a flamboyant officer, he had the reputation for being extremely methodical. He was diligent and would dig deep for clues.

Mr Graham held the ranks of chief inspector, assistant commissioner and deputy commissioner before becoming commissioner in 1973.

Under his leadership, the OPP underwent tremendous change. Those changes included employing female officers, forming a special branch of First Nations

constables, setting up the OPP's news and community services bureau and launching the new communications system.

Harold Graham also earned an impressive list of police and civilian credentials to back up his record. He was a member of the International Association of Chiefs

of Police, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, president of the Ontario Public Service Quarter Century Club and a recipient of the Canadian

Centennial Medal, and in all respects was a dignified and very capable leader of one of the best police forces in all of North America.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Today I would like to bring to your attention the effects of this government's user fee

policies, especially as it relates to hospitals.

I wonder how many members of this House are aware of this policy. For example, a person who requires an operation for a broken hip, according to this government,

is allowed an average stay in the hospital of eight days.

Mr Lloyd MacDonald, who broke his hip on March 29, had to be hospitalized for an operation. Since his stay was more than the eight days, which under this

government's rules is the average time allowed for this operation, the community hospital followed government rules and charged Mr MacDonald $43.03 a day for 21 days. Mr MacDonald, this frail

81-year-old man, was served court documents in the amount of $903.63 for his chronic care co-payment.

Also, this week the Queensway Carleton Hospital in Ottawa announced the reduction of 600 deliveries, or 23% of their maternity beds, due to a $1.8-million

deficit. Do community hospitals have to apply user fees in order to balance their budgets and survive, or will they have to cut beds and services?

My leader, Dalton McGuinty, Lyn McLeod and I, as well as the Liberal caucus, insist that this government give Ontarians the services they require and stop

charging user fees and closing beds.

FRANCHISE BUSINESSES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It's been interesting in this place over the last couple of weeks to sit and watch the back and forth between

the member for Hamilton Mountain, Mrs Bountrogianni, the Minister of Consumer and Business Services and the member for Kitchener-Waterloo, Mr Wettlaufer, regarding the issue of franchising.

I hate to be the one standing here saying, "I told you so," but you will all remember that it wasn't that long ago that we did a significant amount of work to

regulate franchising in this province, and the government chose at that time the narrowest of approaches. We predicted then that what is actually happening now with Grand and Toy would in fact

happen, that if you weren't willing to regulate the relationship, we would continue to have trouble, because no matter what you say, what's there now does not, where the relationship is concerned,

level the playing field between the giant who is the franchisor and those small individual entrepreneurs and small business people across this province who are franchisees. So now you have Grand

and Toy in mortal combat with their corporate owners.

You as a government have a responsibility. You dropped the ball when we were passing the regulation. You wouldn't move to regulating the relationship. So now I

feel you have a responsibility to step forward and do the mediation that you refused to put in this act, to bring the partners together and to see that small business people and entrepreneurs in

this province are duly protected.

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): This week, students from my riding and across the province will be taking

part in the Learning Partnership's Take

Our Kids to Work job-shadowing experience.

Today I have my eldest nephew, Matthew Maves, visiting from Ridgeway-Crystal Beach High School. Matt's whole grade 9 classroom will be participating in the

program tomorrow. Although computers are Matthew's current passion, you never know after today's experience. He could become interested in politics, although the opposite may in fact end up being

the case.

However, when these students do go back to their classrooms and discuss their individual experiences, this may pique the interest of many kids in the class in a

variety of different careers.

Take Our Kids to Work Day is organized by the Learning Partnership, a non-profit organization that fosters collaboration among its members, who represent school

boards, government, teachers and community groups, large corporations and employers. The first Take Our Kids to Work Day was organized in 1994. I encourage all parents to get involved in this

program. It's a great learning experience for our children. I look forward to when my own kids are a little older and able to participate.

Matthew is not required to write a paper on today's events by his school, so I'm requiring him to write one, and Mrs Munro will be the one who will mark it.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): This coming Sunday is Remembrance Day, a day devoted to paying tribute to the memory of the brave Canadians who

served and died in battle.

As we have just barely ended a century in which two world wars were fought, it is fitting that we take time to remember the more than 1.4 million Canadians who

proudly gave so much to defend our freedom. In their honour, we think of the many men and women who courageously answered the call and made the supreme sacrifice. The contribution they made so that

we might live in peace can never be measured or forgotten.

It is indeed tragic that this year has brought a further 11th day to remember. In the destruction and terror of September 11, some 24 Canadians lost their lives.

We remember and mourn with their families.

On November 11, the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, let us celebrate past victories, mourn lives lost, and pledge to take time to remember the

ultimate sacrifice of those defending Canadian freedom and security today. On behalf of all the members of the Legislature, we extend our sincere condolences to the families of these innocent

victims. We will never hear from them again. They will never be forgotten. They will always be remembered.

DISCOVERY CENTRE

AT THE NORMAL SCHOOL

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise to recognize the campaign underway in my riding to transform the Stratford Normal School building into

the Discovery Centre. The normal school was built in 1908 to establish a set of norms for teaching in Ontario. The building itself is a great example of Italian Renaissance architecture. Last

Thursday, the Renaissance Campaign was officially launched to raise money to preserve and renovate this historic landmark that had fallen into disrepair after many years of neglect. So far, $1

million in gifts and pledges has been raised to support the $2.5-million transformation project. When the restorations are completed next spring, the Discovery Centre will become the permanent home

for the Stratford-Perth Museum. The centre will also have rooms for art exhibits, educational workshops, as well as a theatre centre affiliated with the Stratford Festival and a tea room.

I want to commend the many volunteer members of the campaign committee for their hard work and dedication to this project over the past several years. I also

want to recognize and thank the many project partners, including the Stratford-Perth Museum, the Kiwanis Club of Stratford, the Stratford Festival, the city of Stratford and the Friends of Normal

School Heritage. Please join me in wishing the committee every success with the Renaissance Campaign.

VISITORS

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to welcome the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance

here today, fighting for the rights of students across this province. Welcome.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like the House to welcome Mark Baseggio, Garret Rocca and Emma

Jackson from the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance.

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 move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 101,

An Act to protect students from sexual abuse and to otherwise provide for the protection of students / Projet de loi 101, Loi visant à

protéger les élèves contre les mauvais traitements d'ordre sexuel et à prévoir autrement leur protection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

1268519 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2001

Mr Gill moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr3,

An Act to revive 1268519 Ontario Inc.

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

Pursuant to standing order 84, the bill is referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(PHOTO-RADAR), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA

ROUTE (RADAR PHOTOGRAPHIQUE)

Mr Hoy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 126,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to photo-radar / Projet de loi 126, Loi modifiant le Code de la route à l'égard du radar

photographique.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The member for a short statement.

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): This bill will provide protection for motorists who must drive the notorious stretch of Highway 401 between

London and Windsor that has become known as Carnage Alley. This bill will follow the safety recommendations of two recent coroners' juries and implement photo radar on this dangerous highway.

RESPONSIBLE CHOICES FOR GROWTH AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (BUDGET MEASURES), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR DES CHOIX RÉFLÉCHIS

FAVORISANT LA CROISSANCE

ET LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 127,

An Act to implement measures contained in the Budget and to implement other initiatives of the Government / Projet de loi 127, Loi mettant en oeuvre

certaines mesures énoncées dans le budget de 2001 ainsi que d'autres initiatives du gouvernement.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise pursuant to standing orders 57(

a) and (b), standing order 2,

standing order 25(d), standing order 50, standing order 57, and standing order 58.

The purpose of an economic statement or update is to update, normally and historically. It is the view of the official opposition that what we see happening

today is in fact the introduction --

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): You haven't heard it yet.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I need to hear it. It is very serious. He may have a legitimate point of order. I need to hear it, please,

member for Scarborough East.

Sorry, member for Windsor-St Clair.

Mr Duncan: What we see today, Mr Speaker, is in fact the introduction of a new budget. We are now tabling what we refer to in our standing

orders as budget papers. The standing orders, Mr Speaker, call for certain procedures to be followed with respect, first, to the tabling of a motion; second, to the nature of the debate and how the

debate is conducted; finally, to how votes are conducted.

In addition, it has been the tradition of this House that the government provides both the media and the opposition an opportunity to have a lock-up associated

with any budget in that they can be briefed prior to the reading of the budget speech itself and, second, the tabling of budget bills relating to the budget motion.

In the view of the official opposition, this represents an unquestioned attempt on the part of the government to stifle our ability to respond to what is

essentially a budget. We understand why they may wish to do that, sir. This is a new budget for the province, for all intents and purposes. We could not find a precedent that suggested there be

budget bills associated with what is essentially supposed to be an update that goes over 20 minutes.

Further, the standing orders call for at least an hour of opportunity for the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the third party to respond to

a budget.

Fourth, the standing orders call for at least one amendment and one amendment to the amendment to deal with a budget motion. We have no budget motion.

This represents an unprecedented abuse, in our view, of the system that has evolved over centuries in the British parliamentary tradition whereby governments

can be properly held to account for their financial policies.

We ask you, Mr Speaker, first, to rule on whether or not this is in fact a budget bill, whether or not it is a budget paper, to use the language found in the

standing orders.

Second, we call upon you to rule whether or not the opposition should have an opportunity to respond per the standing orders, and how the debate on a budget

motion and budget papers is considered as distinct from a regular bill.

Third, we ask you to rule on whether or not time allocation could appropriately be used on what is essentially a budget paper. The word "budget," as I recall

-- and we've just now received the documents and the speech at approximately 1:45 in the afternoon on what is essentially a budget. We ask you, sir, for the reasons I've outlined and on those

issues and other issues you may consider relevant to your decision, to find that in fact what we have presented today is a budget.

A final point, Mr Speaker: if in fact you find that and rule in that, there is a requirement under the standing orders for the government to produce new

estimates within 12 days of the tabling of a budget document. Clearly, if the government is changing its budget plan and providing all of the documents, then clearly the estimates now before the

House and before committee must be considered in their entirety and from the perspective of the changes that obviously will attend these budget changes.

This question in our view is absolutely fundamental to the proper functioning of a democratically elected Legislature. No government should be able to usurp

the rules that have developed through the traditions of this House, through our standing orders and through acts of the Legislature Assembly, the Parliament of Canada and Westminster.

Mr Speaker, I ask you to consider the interests of the population, to consider the interests of this House and to determine that what we have today is not an

economic statement, but is in fact a new budget for the province of Ontario starting today.

The Speaker: I have received some information I didn't receive before. In the meantime, I'll try and look through some of the information

that's come to the table to help. The member for Niagara Centre on the same point of order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): That's part of the problem, Speaker, and you're obviously aware of it by virtue of the need for an

opportunity to examine, among other things, the content. But at the end of the day, it's as simple as this: I put to you that it's not a complex thing at all, that if it looks like a duck, if it

walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

We were promised one thing and were delivered something entirely different, along with a massive number of pages of legislative endeavour that this government

is imposing on us today in an effort to circumvent the requirements of standing orders 56 and 57.

One can suspect the government has a strong interest about wanting to endure the compulsory days of debate that follow a budget presentation. One understands

that, but at the same time it doesn't make it right. I think the Speaker has to be very careful, with all due respect, not to let the government set the agenda in terms of its circumvention of the

rules merely by imposing a new label on what is in every other respect a budget as contemplated by standing order 56, requiring of course, as it indicates, "unless recommended by a message from the

Lieutenant Governor," and then of course in 57(

b) in particular, the statutory requirement that there be a minimum number of days of debate around that action specifically.

If this were truly merely a reflection of an existing budget, then I put to you that the legislation tabled for first reading today should not have

accompanied, as it did, the purported Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review. The risk, Speaker, in permitting this to proceed without at least some intermediary contemplation by you, and quite

frankly by members of the two opposition parties, is that 56, once again, refers to, "Any bill" -- we have a number of them, it appears, before us, at least one covering a number of statutes --

"resolution, motion or address," -- we're told we're going to be listening to an address -- "the passage of which would impose a tax or specifically direct the allocation of public funds, shall not

be passed by the House unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant Governor."

If the Speaker permits this to proceed now without there being an opportunity to examine the material before us to ensure it doesn't violate that requirement,

to ensure that it truly is, in terms of the legislation, a reflection of the already existing budget, that would then make the whole exercise academic and moot. We at least need an interim period

of time for us to examine this material to see whether it stands the test of 56 and for you to do the same. Having said that, even if it does clear standing order 56, we still have what I put to

you is a pretty transparent effort on the part of the government to avoid the statutory right of the opposition caucuses to engage in a minimum period of debate around a budget presentation.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Further to the same point of order, Mr Speaker: there are only two additional pieces of information I

would like to provide for your consideration. One is that the document that has just recently been tabled is very clearly in print called "budget papers," and therefore I would submit to you that

it does constitute a significant fiscal initiative on the part of this government and that it should have deserved the full consideration any normal budget would have received.

Second, by whatever name the government chooses to give this, there is precedent that has been set by this government. It was the minister's predecessor, Mr

Eves, as finance minister, who did what I believe was termed an economic statement. I believe, if I recall correctly, that the date would have been November 1995. It was shortly after the

government was elected. It was in lieu of a formal budget presentation, so I believe that's why it was called an economic statement.

On that occasion, the finance minister did have, as was appropriate, a full budget lock-up for members of the opposition, for the media and for relevant

groups. I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, that this is no less a budget document than that economic statement that was made by Mr Eves, and that the precedent for this House has been well

established.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We believe that before we can even introduce a bill, you need to rule on whether or not this bill

is in order. We will clearly vote against it, but right now the very first of a number of considerations is whether or not this bill is in order, given that there was no notice of budget or budget

motion brought first.

The Speaker: The government House leader.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, thank you very much for your consideration.

First of all, I think we need to be very clear with the members of this House that this is not a budget. The budget was brought --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Ecker: If the opposition would let me --

The Speaker: Order. I was fair to the other side. I didn't allow them to heckle. I need to hear. I cannot have people yelling and screaming

during points of order, if I could, please.

Sorry, government House leader.

Hon Mrs Ecker: It is my understanding that those papers that have been tabled here in this House, appropriately, are updates of what the

spring budget was forecasting. So they are simply numbers which are updating the financial situation, as the Minister of Finance promised to do. He promised there would be an economic statement

this fall to update us all on where we are with Ontario's finances, in an attempt to be very clear, in an attempt to be very open and in an attempt to share information not only with members of

this House but with the public as well. They are papers in detail that update numbers. It is not a new budget. I think that is very important to stress.

Second, the finance minister is making an economic statement. Again, it is his right as a minister to bring that forward. The appropriate information for the

opposition, compendiums, has been tabled both with the statement and proposed legislation.

The other thing is that the finance minister is certainly entitled to bring forward legislation to introduce in this House that may well have policy changes on

the finances of the government, but it is not a budget. These are simply some statements, some announcements that he is bringing forward. Many of them have been previously announced by this

government. He is within his rights, I would submit, to bring this forward, to table legislation, to table a statement in this fashion, with the appropriate papers.

Mr Duncan: Mr Speaker, we have already found in our brief review a number of substantive changes in the numbers that the government presented

in the spring. The government itself called its bill a budget bill. Again, had the government taken the opportunity to provide members of this House with a lock-up to see this stuff before 15

minutes ago, perhaps we might feel compelled to say, "All right, that's the case."

I can tell you that in our very brief review, we found substantial changes. We have a government that's calling it a budget bill. We can't find a precedent

where there was a bill related to an economic statement introduced in this House at the same time. The government, in our opinion, is simply trying to circumvent the proper democratic consideration

of a budget bill, and that is fundamental to the functioning of this Legislature. Had the government House leader been serious about this, they would have provided a lock-up, as did the minister's

predecessor, Mr Eves, in 1995.

We are left with only one conclusion. Based on the title of the bill, based on our quick review of what we've been able to look at, this is in fact a budget.

This is a budget that acknowledges they got it all wrong in the spring. This is a budget that is changing the financial policy of this government, and consequently the estimates of the government.

In fact, sir, this bill is out of order and we ought to be treating it as a full budget.

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, Mr Speaker, I would certainly expect that the members would want a Minister of Finance to report to this

House on a regular basis on the status of Ontario's finances, and that is simply what this minister is doing. He is fully within his rights to make a statement about the updating on the finances.

That's what this is all about. He is fully within his rights to introduce legislation that impacts and changes certain policies of this government. As a minister of the crown he is certainly

allowed to do that.

I would respectfully submit that if the opposition would listen to the statement, they would certainly hear what this is all about, instead of being so

concerned that somehow or other this is a dramatic new change. It is simply a financial update. I think the Minister of Finance is trying very hard to be open with the people of Ontario in terms of

putting this forward.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): If we are going to examine --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Not again. I don't need to remind you. The next time I do it, nobody is going to be here for the statement because I'm

going to throw you out. I have asked at other occasions -- when we are having debate in the House it's fine to heckle. Points of order, I cannot hear. You cannot yell during points of order when

the Speaker is trying to make a very important ruling. This is a very serious matter before me. I will be looking at the documents, but it's a very serious matter with potential consequences and I

need to hear it and rule very carefully. I would appreciate all members' support in allowing me to do that and not heckle people when they are doing the points of order, please.

Sorry, Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify a few points of view from the other side's recommendation to you as Speaker, let me

just say I don't think I've seen in this place -- and you would be best to check history and check the budgets -- where any budget was introduced in this House where technical amendments to budget

income tax acts were not spoken to -- in any budget. They are always spoken to in a budget, because during the year you need to make technical amendments that provide you with flexibility to make

changes in-year without having to go through this exact process. All governments in the past have done it, as well as this government.

If you were not allowed to make those kinds of technical amendments in-year, the NDP wouldn't have been allowed to introduce their social contract. They

wouldn't have been allowed to introduce their social contract because they were making major amendments to revenue expenditures, transfer payments etc during that process. But because you're

allowed to make technical changes in-year in your budget, that allows you the provision to react to certain economic realities of year over year. That has been an accepted fact for many budgets

over many years, exercised by every party in this House.

Further, if the suggestion of the opposition benches is that every time a Minister of Finance wants to come forward to make an economic statement, to give you

an economic outlook, thereby also suggesting he needs to make technical amendments, then for every economic outlook, in some cases under Mr Nixon and Mr Laughren that happened four, five and six

times a year, they would then have to go through the whole process of lock-ups, budget papers, full discussion and full debate. It's frankly impossible to do. That's why the budget is placed before

this Legislature, debated and passed, and the provision provided in the Liberal budget, the NDP budget and the Conservative budget is with: "Technical amendments to the tax policies will come

forward at a later date."

Mr Speaker, there's nothing out of order here. It's a standard process, a standard practice used by those across the floor and this government. I would implore

you to review those previous budgets, review the technical amendments spoken to in the original budget tabled by Mr Flaherty, and I think you will see there is no out-of-order business here. It's

standard practice by every government used as long as I've been in this place and certainly before that.

The Speaker: I thank the member. With another point, the member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate that my comments may be moot, seeing as how you've heard from the final authority.

But, Mr Speaker, I would ask you to consider as well that in the normal course of introduction of bills, the government House leader's office advises opposition caucuses when there are going to be

government bills put forward. To the best of my knowledge, that information was not forthcoming from the government to certainly this caucus's House leader's office today. Two, when the government

makes a ministerial statement, those ministerial statements are distributed early after the House commences at 1:30 in the afternoon, clearly to give opposition critics and leaders, among others,

an opportunity to read and anticipate at least in some respect what's going to be addressed.

This incident today is neither one nor the other. It was treated, quite frankly, with very much the same level of secrecy as would a budget. Indeed, we were

advised that we wouldn't have access to the material that was going to be referred to until the moment the Minister of Finance stood up and not a second sooner. Therefore, it seems to take it well

out of the realm of a mere ministerial statement.

The lack of information, the lack of advice to opposition caucuses that there was going to be a bill, or bills, presented this afternoon also creates more of a

suggestion of this being a budget matter and indeed is sufficiently out of sync with what historically has been done here that it certainly calls out for your inquiry and attention.

The Speaker: I thank all the members for their input. Not having had a chance to review the documents, I will have a recess for 15 minutes

while I have a look at the information that has been provided.

The House recessed from 1411 to 1445.

The Speaker: I have had an opportunity to review the documents presented. Let me quickly review what precedents are in order.

The first question to be decided is the orderliness of the bill introduced by the Minister of Finance. The bill is in its proper form. It is accompanied by the

required compendium and a consolidation of the acts. Whether or not it contains measures as provided in the budget as presented in May has no bearing on the orderliness of the bill, and this is

substantiated by precedent.

For example, in November 1990, the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act was introduced in the House. In December, a bill similar to this one,

An Act to implement the

2000 budget to establish a made-in-Ontario tax system and to amend various Acts, was also introduced. The point is that these bills were subject to all of the rules that any other bills are subject

to. There is an opportunity to debate at second and third reading and, if the House chooses, it may send it to committee for hearings and debate.

As to the substantial issue of the statement we are expecting today -- is it really a budget and therefore requires a budget lock-up and extended debate? -- I

can only say that a budget lock-up is an external apparatus which precedes what occurs in this House. There is no procedural requirement for it. That is not controlled by the Speaker. However, let

me say very clearly that it is a strongly held custom that is deeply seated in our traditions, and hopefully that will continue.

As for compelling an extended debate, let me say this: a budget debate is preceded by a budget motion. It is the question in that budget motion which is

subject to debate. We have no such question before us here today. What we do have before us today is a ministerial statement restricted to 20 minutes, followed by five-minute responses from the

opposition. I can find nothing out of order.

However, let me say this: what has happened is that the trappings and proceedings have been escalated to make it appear in some circumstances, to some people,

that this would be a budget, and when you put on a show like that, it is very easy for people to assume that it is a budget. In the future, hopefully the Minister of Finance will take that into

consideration.

I again find that there is nothing out of order, and I believe we were at reading the bill. The minister had read it and I'm going to read it.

The Minister of Finance has moved

An Act to implement the measures contained in the budget and to implement other initiatives of the government.

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

All those in favour of the motion 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 1448 to 1453.

The Speaker: Would the members kindly take their seats, please.

Mr Flaherty has moved first reading of a bill entitled

An Act to implement measures contained in the budget and to implement other initiatives of the

government.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 50; the nays are 40.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The minister for a short statement on the bill, or will you do it later?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I will be making a minister's statement.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The appalling events of September 11 have reminded us that our most cherished values

and our very way of life cannot be taken for granted. In the aftermath of these horrifying tragedies, we have gained a deeper sense of the values that define our society, values such as respect for

the individual, economic opportunity, justice, compassion, and the free flow of people, goods and ideas.

Today, as I discuss the outlook for our economy and the state of our finances, my focus is on preserving and defending our core values. I believe we can remain

true to our values by following the key principles that have guided our economic and fiscal policies since 1995. These principles include commitment to economic growth to create jobs; confidence

that the people of Ontario are in the best position to decide how to spend and how to invest their own money; fiscal responsibility, which means spending tax dollars wisely and giving taxpayers the

best value at the lowest cost; responsible choices, since government, in facing competing demands, has an obligation to set priorities and make responsible decisions; accountability, because the

citizens of the province are entitled to know how their money is being spent; and protecting the most vulnerable, since as a caring society we have a duty to reach out to those who need our help.

It is by fostering growth, spending wisely and making responsible choices that we are able to help those who are most vulnerable. Finally, looking to the future, so that while dealing with

immediate concerns, we also plan for tomorrow.

These guiding principles have stood us in good stead. We will stay the course. Staying the course requires strong leadership and tough decisions. Since 1995,

Premier Mike Harris has provided the decisive leadership we need. Under his leadership, Ontario has prospered as never before: 824,200 net new jobs have been created; take-home pay is up 20%;

602,000 people have broken the cycle of welfare dependency. We are expecting a third consecutive balanced budget for the first time in nearly 100 years. With the end of deficits, the province's

credit rating has been upgraded.

But prudent fiscal management, low taxes and more jobs are only half of our success story. The other half is that as a result, we are able to provide the

services people rely on and help the most vulnerable. For example, we have delivered on our budget commitments to increase services for people with developmental disabilities.

Our economic climate in Ontario is changing. Now private sector forecasters, on average, expect Ontario's economy to grow only 1.1% this year and 1.3% next

year. This is a substantial change from the 2.3% they predicted for this year and the 3.6% they predicted for next year at the time of our spring budget. Although private sector forecasters expect

Ontario's growth to pick up in mid-2002 and accelerate to 4.3% in 2003, we know that serious economic and financial challenges lie ahead.

At this point, we have two options. We could let ourselves slip back into the days of deficits, high taxes and high unemployment. Or we can build on the

Premier's legacy of strong leadership and renew our commitment to fiscal responsibility. We believe that the answer is obvious.

This government will not surrender the hard-won gains that have restored Ontario to prosperity. Today I want to assure the people of Ontario that because of

the Premier's leadership and their hard work, Ontario is better prepared than ever to weather a period of economic uncertainty.

We remain on track for a balanced budget for 2001-02. As a cushion against the unexpected, we included a reserve of $1 billion in the spring budget. We plan to

use $300 million to balance the budget this year, leaving us with a $700-million reserve. Next spring we plan to table Ontario's fourth consecutive balanced budget.

It is true, of course, that a slowing economy means slower growth in government revenues, and our commitment to fiscal responsibility means that our spending

can increase only as fast as our revenues increase. We are not a government that plans for deficits. Currently our revenue projections are down, yet pressures for more spending on priorities like

health care, education and infrastructure are up.

Health care is the biggest item in the Ontario budget. Since the spring, we have increased funding to hospitals by $300 million. This year we are spending more

than $23.7 billion on health care, an increase of 6.9% from one year ago.

We have increased our investment in health care by more than $6 billion since we came to office, but the federal government continues to provide less to health

care than it did in 1994-95. To maintain its 1994-95 share, the federal government should be providing $2 billion more for Ontario health care in 2002-03, rising to $3 billion in 2005-06.

To date, as the Premier said yesterday, we have been able to pick up the slack for Ottawa, but in a slowing economy we can no longer afford to do so. To be

blunt, I hold out little hope that the federal government will make the necessary financial commitment to the people of Ontario and the health care of the people of Ontario. We will soon begin

consultations leading up to the 2002 Ontario budget on how we can make up for the federal shortfall in health care spending.

This government will make the tough choices needed to secure Ontario's future. There is no question that this is the right government to lead Ontario in

uncertain times. Some people would argue that in times like these we should not move forward with our tax cuts; others would even advocate raising taxes. But we believe that sticking to our

tax-cutting plan is more important than ever. Low taxes attract business. More business means more jobs and higher government revenues.

Since we started cutting taxes, our annual tax revenues have increased nearly --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry to interrupt, Minister. Order. We need to be able to hear. With both sides shouting, it's very difficult.

Sorry for the interruption, Minister.

Hon Mr Flaherty: Since we started cutting taxes, our annual tax revenues have increased nearly $15 billion. With this government at the helm,

Ontario has weathered heavy storms before. The people of Ontario can be confident we will do it again.

September 11 made it clearer than ever that safe communities are fundamental to a strong economy. That's why in the aftermath of the tragic events the

government acted quickly to make Ontario safer.

Today I am announcing three more anti-terrorism and emergency management measures, bringing our recent investments in Ontario's security to more than $30

million. This new funding will do three things: first of all, enable Emergency Measures Ontario to offer municipalities more help with community emergency planning; second, to build an

anti-terrorism training facility for local police at the Ontario Police College at Aylmer; third, to build an emergency management training centre, particularly for high-rise emergencies, for

firefighters and ambulance personnel at the Ontario Fire College in Gravenhurst.

Border security issues are also critical for the economy. One quarter of Ontario's total output is exported to the United States. Half of our manufacturing

shipments go to the United States, and many Ontario factories depend on just-in-time delivery of imported parts. The free movement of goods and services across a secure border must be preserved.

The Premiers of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia have all called for a common North America-wide security perimeter. Business leaders tell me that Ontario must be inside, not outside, the

perimeter if we expect to remain an attractive place to invest and do business. I challenge the federal government to commit to a North America-wide security perimeter.

We need to work with our American neighbours to remove barriers between us and build a secure boundary around us. Borders are a federal responsibility, but all

provinces have an enormous economic stake in these areas. We need a joint approach to finding a solution.

Following the September 11 tragedies, we expressed our confidence in the people and businesses of our province by proposing to accelerate planned tax cuts.

Today I am tabling legislation to advance to October 1 the reductions in personal income, corporate and capital taxes originally scheduled for January 1. I am pleased to announce that this bill

would also accelerate the application of the lower small business tax rate to more businesses. These tax changes inject an additional $176 million into the economy for this year.

We know that September 11 has had a severe impact on tourism. The industry has told us about lost business, lost hours and lost jobs in the restaurant and

accommodation sectors. Last month, in response, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Tim Hudak, launched a $4-million tourism marketing strategy.

Today I am announcing a further investment of $10 million to support a more aggressive multi-pronged campaign. This campaign has two parts. The first, Come

Stay With Friends, is aimed at our American friends and neighbours in neighbouring states. The second, Pride in Ontario, is designed to encourage Ontario residents to help make up for the drop in

international visits by travelling in our own attractive and exciting province.

I would ask families that might be thinking of a winter break to consider events here in Ontario, like the Festival of Lights at Cullen Gardens in Whitby,

Handel's Messiah at Stratford and the Old-Fashioned Christmas Walk in North Bay. The people of this province can play a role in boosting the economy. If we pull together, our individual actions can

make a big difference.

Some other things people across the province can do are to start your holiday shopping right now; to give an extra present this year to someone less fortunate

through one of the many charity drives in all our communities across the province; to go ahead with that home improvement project you've been putting off; to treat the family to a dinner out. In

short, the economy will benefit if everyone gets back to normal.

We know that a slowing economy is especially hard on lower-income parents. We value their hard work and their dedication to raising their families. The tax

cuts in the spring budget will remove 75,000 lower-income earners from the tax roles so that they can keep more of their hard-earned money.

Today we are thinking about families again. We understand that an economic slowdown is tough for them. For this reason, I'm announcing a one-time payment of

$100 to low- and middle-income working families for each child under age 7. It is our goal to get these payments in the hands of families in time for December holiday shopping. This would give

these parents some extra help to do what they do best: care for their children. About 367,000 children will benefit from this initiative. The average payment would be about $165 per family.

One of our economic advantages is the unparalleled commitment this government has made to investments in highways, hospitals, colleges and universities. These

investments will support an increasing population and a growing economy. By the end of this fiscal year, the government will have invested nearly $9 billion through the Ontario SuperBuild Corp and

committed further funding to municipal infrastructure. Through public- and private-sector partnerships, the total investment will reach over $13 billion. Moreover, we have committed $3 billion to a

$9-billion transit investment plan. We are still waiting for the federal government to match our commitment.

SuperBuild's projects are coming on stream at the right time. They will help keep our economy steady in this period of uncertainty. Cranes and work crews can

be seen in communities across Ontario in the hundreds of SuperBuild projects now underway.

Today it is my pleasure to announce a further series of SuperBuild investments: $13.4 million toward a research and technology park located on the campus of

the University of Waterloo to provide high-tech firms and research companies with space to grow; $6.6 million toward an upgrade of the David Street Water Treatment Plant, ensuring that 40,000

residents of Sudbury can count on clean, safe drinking water; $32 million in priority projects to enable the city of London to take advantage of its strategic location in the Highway 401 trade

corridor, such as the widening of Airport Road --

Interjection.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): Why don't you shut your trap, Sandra, so the rest of us can hear?

The Speaker: Take your seat. Stop the clock. That's it, no warning, I'm naming the member and asking him to leave the chamber for the day. I

will not tolerate that.

Mr Mazzilli was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, Minister, I may have missed a few seconds on the clock. If we run down, I think there's about 10 seconds. I

apologize.

Hon Mr Flaherty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's $32 million in priority projects to enable the city of London to take advantage of its strategic

location in the Highway 401 trade corridor, such as the widening of Airport Road and the servicing of Skyway Industrial Park; $70 million toward a package of transportation and tourism investments

in the city of Ottawa that will improve access to business parks, promote local tourism and support the city's smart growth plans.

Details on these initiatives, as well as hundreds of other sport, culture, tourism, transportation and clean water projects will be announced by year-end. All

of these investments will help position Ontario for long-term economic success. They will also get capital dollars working now for communities here in Ontario.

Government is the servant of the people, and the people have a right to know how their money is being spent. Today I am pleased to announce that we are moving

ahead with our budget commitment to perform a value-for-money review of provincial government services and activities. The purpose is to ensure that government dollars are focused on the core

services that people count on, not on areas where government does not belong.

The performance of our economy and the quality of our lives are connected. It is a prosperous economy that creates the wealth to support essential public

services, such as health care and education, and to assist those who need our help, and it is a prosperous economy that offers hard-working families the promise of a brighter future. We have the

fundamentals in place for long-term growth, and we will not stray from this path. The people of Ontario can have confidence in the long-term future of the economy.

When I entered politics, I was thinking not about my own prospects but about the kind of world our three sons would live in. I think that is how most parents

look at things. We make decisions not just for today but for tomorrow. Government must do the same, and this government is.

Applause.

The Speaker: Responses?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): If the government members applaud this much for virtually nothing, it would be interesting to

see what they would do if something of substance was ever presented by the government.

On behalf of Ontario's working families, I want to acknowledge receipt of this government's official declaration of intellectual bankruptcy. The idea well has

run pretty dry. We find ourselves in the midst of an economic downturn, we've had plastered on top of that a horrific terrorist incident which has also dampened consumer confidence, and what does

this government come up with? They come up with a series of reannoucements and they advise us to take the kids out for dinner and to go on Christmas walks. That's the best this government can come

up with in these trying times.

Let us cut to the chase. While it's true that our families find themselves in the midst of an economic downturn and it is true that the events of September 11

have acted further to dampen consumer confidence, it is also true that this government has failed to act in a fiscally responsible manner, and our families are about to pay a terrible price.

While none of us could foresee the terrorist acts of September 11, we could all foresee, and it was eminently predictable, that there would be at some point,

sooner or later, a downturn in the economy. This government should have prepared us for a drop in revenues. It should have prepared us for tough times. It should have built a firewall around

services that families absolutely need to be able to count on. This government should have ensured that today we would find ourselves in a position where we could protect our health care, where we

could protect our education and where we could protect our environment. Those are the kinds of things this government should have been in a position to protect. Instead, this government has failed

to take advantage of the good times in order to prepare us for the bad times.

I want to be very specific about the wrong decisions this government made. First of all, this government borrowed $10 billion for tax cuts and today our

families pay, on an annual basis, an additional $800 million in interest. That was a wrong decision for our families.

As well, this government remains determined to proceed with another $2.2 billion in corporate tax cuts for our corporations which are already competitive. When

it comes to competitiveness, this government and our party have a decidedly different definition. They believe we should have the lowest corporate taxes in North America. We believe that when it

comes to competitiveness, we should have competitive taxes and we should have the best schools, the best health care, the cleanest air, the cleanest water, and we should have fiscally responsible

management. To our way of thinking, at the beginning of the 21st century, that is a progressive definition of competitiveness which these people will never, ever understand.

Let me tell you about another wrong decision this government insists on making. At a time when our public education is struggling, at a time when parents are

losing confidence, at a time when our test scores are simply not measuring up, this government is determined to transfer $500 million to private schools. That's a wrong decision for our families.

This government fails to understand that in a knowledge-based economy, a healthy, vibrant, robust, inspiring public education system is the foundation for our prosperity. They don't get it; we

do.

The other thing this government simply fails to recognize is that our families do not support their continuing expenditures on partisan political advertising.

Twice I have introduced a bill in this Legislature which would outlaw the use of taxpayer dollars on partisan political advertising, and twice this government has refused to support it.

The other thing this government did when it comes to making a wrong decision from the perspective of Ontario's working families is that this government blew $1

billion on a publicity stunt and sent out $200 cheques. I can tell you that where we find ourselves now at this time in our economic struggles, it would have been nice to have $1 billion available

to support education, to support health care and the protection of our environment.

If this government wants to be responsible and to protect the interests of our families and to protect our economy, what they should do is cancel the corporate

tax cut, pass my bill on partisan advertising, and reject the expenditure on private schools.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Most people in Ontario, in Canada and around the world would agree that our world has changed

dramatically over the last two months. Thousands of people have lost their lives. We witnessed in the economy to the south of us the admission that they've lost 400,000 jobs, the admission that

consumer confidence has virtually disappeared, and the admission that they're going to lose even more jobs.

Here in our own province, 29,000 people have lost their jobs since May of this year. The government's own statistics tell us retail sales here are dropping,

and are dropping considerably. The government's own statistics tell us that housing starts are also starting to decline. We know from some of the recent announcements from other corporations that

have not yet cut jobs that they are very likely to cut jobs. People are worried about the state of the economy and they're calling on the provincial government to give a response.

What was the response today? The response today was that the government is going to continue to push $2.5 billion in corporate tax cuts out the door. The

government will look after its bank friends and its financier friends on Bay Street. But for the 29,000 people who have lost their jobs, the government has no plan. For people who are worried about

losing their jobs, the government has no plan. For tens of thousands of people who work in sawmills across northern and central Ontario, who are being told that their mill may shut down and they

may lose their job, the government has no plan. For hundreds of thousands of people who work in the retail sector and who know, because of declining consumer confidence, they may lose their jobs,

the government has no response. For people who live in northeastern Ontario, where one mill has shut down today, the government's response is that they're going to make it easier to shut down the

Northlander, rail transport, and cut more jobs.

This is a government that announced today, at a time when many people are worried about losing their jobs, losing their livelihoods, it will look after its

corporate friends, and as for the rest of you in Ontario, you're on your own. That's what this government has said.

It is so revealing that at a time when housing starts are declining, at a time when we know jobs are at risk, the government talks about SuperBuild and doesn't

even blush that it has actually cut capital funding by $3 billion from what it was three years ago, when the economy was booming; that capital investment is now at an all-time low in Ontario. Not

only that, announcements that it has made about SuperBuild, it cannot get out the door. So community after community that wants to repair its water treatment system, that wants to rebuild its

sewage treatment system, that wants to put people to work on a valued community construction project, can't do it, because this government refuses to put the money out the door.

This is what should have been said today by this government. If it was serious in responding to the needs of all those people who are unemployed or who fear

becoming unemployed out there, the government should have said that it is going to rescind the $2.5 billion in corporate tax cuts. It should have said, to address the issue of declining consumer

confidence, that it was going to create a retail sales tax holiday for the next three months so people can go to the shopping mall and buy what they need. The government should have announced

today, not just announced today but should have been going to community after community around this province and delivering the cheques so that those needed community construction projects can

begin now. After seven years of freezing the wages of the lowest-paid, it should have increased the minimum wage in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CORPORATE TAX

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, the economy is slowing down. You've

revised your projected rates of growth. Last year, you told us that you expected this year it would be 2.2%, next year 3.5% in terms of growth, but you've revised those down to 1.1% and 1.3%,

respectively.

Things are getting tight around here, and our families are wondering why it is that you remain hell-bent on proceeding with a $2.2-billion corporate tax cut.

That's not their priority; that remains your ideologically driven priority. Will you now admit that, given these economic circumstances, it is entirely inappropriate and irresponsible to proceed

with your $2.2-billion corporate tax cut?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Job creation is not ideological. The creation of jobs for people in the province of

Ontario is fundamental to the health of our families. You know, you're still at the point where you don't get, through you, Mr Speaker, the concept that if you reduce corporate taxes, you increase

corporate investment, that if you increase investment in plants and machinery and work sites, you create more jobs, that if you create more jobs, you create more revenues for the government of

Ontario.

This isn't academic; this isn't theoretical. This is exactly what has happened in Ontario over the course of the past five years. Quite frankly, it's sad the

Leader of the Opposition still doesn't get it.

Mr McGuinty: We've had 26,000 fewer jobs recently, Minister. What I do get and what Ontario families do get is that we have the overwhelming

majority of our exports going to the south, going to the US. They've had a very healthy economy, and that has benefited us. We've had a low dollar, we've had low rates of inflation and the Bank of

Canada has been very cooperative in terms of keeping interest rates down. That is what has helped us here, the boom in Ontario.

The problem now is that the people down south are experiencing an economic downturn. Many would argue that they're officially, down there, in a recession. We

are going to take it on the chin up here as a result of what's happening down there. We know our revenues are going to drop. We know people are going to lose their jobs. We understand that. What we

believe as well is that it is entirely irresponsible, given the circumstances, to proceed with another $2.2 billion in corporate tax cuts. I ask you again, Minister, on behalf of Ontario's working

families, will you now cancel your ideologically driven corporate tax cut?

Hon Mr Flaherty: Ontario's families are working in large part because of the tax cuts. We want people working. We don't want people on social

assistance. If the member opposite looks at the documents today, if he looks at the papers, he'll see in paper B, with respect to corporate tax cuts supporting investment, "The value of Ontario

business investment in machinery and equipment almost doubled in real terms between 1995 and 2000. Real investment in commercial and industrial construction rose by about 35% over the same period.

The value of building permits issued by municipalities for total commercial, industrial and institutional construction projects rose by 6.1% over the first eight months of 2001 from the

corresponding period a year earlier."

Not only does the Leader of the Opposition not get it, he can't understand it. It's in the papers. He ought to have a look at it and see the benefit for the

people of Ontario. That's where jobs come from. He ought to know that.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, let's take a look at your government's record. We've had the slowest growth in the country right here in Ontario this

year. We're anticipated to have the slowest growth in the country next year. These are the results of your government's economic policies. They're not the matter of recent events that took place

south of the border.

Minister, you remain ideologically obsessed with a corporate tax cut, and as a result of that, you are compromising our future fiscal flexibility and you're

compromising this government's ability to meet our families' continuing needs. We need textbooks in our schools. We need smaller classes for our children. We need more hospital beds in our

hospitals. We need more environmental inspectors out there on the job, protecting the air and water for our families.

Those are the things that in an age where people are as mobile as capital make us truly competitive. We're after people. You think business alone leads to the

competitiveness of our province. I disagree entirely on that. I ask you one more time, Minister, on behalf of our families, why do you remain ideologically obsessed with your $2.2-billion corporate

tax cut?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I don't know who the Leader of the Opposition thinks works for corporations. They are people. They are real people who have

real families in Ontario. The health of their employers is vitally important for the health of their jobs and for the health of their families.

This is a Leader of the Opposition who 66 times during the last term voted against tax cuts. Every time our government brought forward a bill, he was against

tax cuts. He says today he's against tax cuts, but when he ran as leader, seeking to become the government in Ontario, he said, "I will not reverse the tax cuts if I become Premier. You can't

afford to do so. It would send out a negative signal about our economy."

Things may change. Today the Leader of the Opposition is against tax cuts. Two years ago he was for tax cuts. It's only Tuesday. I'll wait for the week to be

out. He may change his mind.

ONTARIO EMERGENCY MEASURES FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Finance. In your statement today, one of the things you said

is that you are bringing our recent investments in Ontario's security to more than $30 million. I refer you to the document you produced on Ontario's finances, and specifically to the page entitled

Operating Expenditure. Opposite the Solicitor General, there is, for in-year change, an additional $12 million. You made reference in your statement to $30 million. Some of your members say it

should be additional. I guess I'll agree that there should be an additional $30 million. The only additional money that is supplied under your operating expenditure document is $12 million.

Minister, where is the $18 million that is missing?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The cost of the new building at the Ontario Fire College, I understand, will be in

excess of $3 million. The cost of the new building at the Ontario Police College will, I understand, be something in excess of $3 million. If the member opposite is against helping our emergency

workers, if he is against helping our firefighters, if he is against making sure our firefighters, our ambulance workers and our police officers are safe when they're faced with high-rise

situations, he should just say so. We think it's the right thing to do for our emergency workers in the province of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Perhaps we'll try again. Minister, you specifically stated just a few moments ago in your statement that you are going to provide

Ontario security with more than an additional $30 million. In your budget document, under operating expenditures -- and I ask the minister not to confuse capital expenditures with operating

expenditures -- you provide an additional $12 million. I'll tell you why this is not an academic debate: security measures weigh heavily on the minds of Ontarians and, as well, on the minds of our

police chiefs, fire chiefs and people in our municipalities who want to take action with monies you are about to provide to them to ensure their communities are safer for Ontario families.

You've made a specific commitment for an additional $30 million. My question to you is, why is it that in your operating expenditure document you tell us

you're only going to spend an additional $12 million this year?

Hon Mr Flaherty: Again, the Leader of the Opposition is having difficulty understanding what was in the remarks. The total was $30 million --

he's absolutely right -- and some of those initiatives are in the papers he has and in the speech I just gave.

In counterterrorism -- if the member opposite really wants to know:

Enhanced Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario: $1 million for intelligence equipment, $400,000 for training, $2.5 million annualized, 24 new FTEs -- full-time

equivalents.

Enhance the ROPE squad: $1 million annually, eight FTEs.

Establish the anti-terrorism unit: $3.5 annually, 24 FTEs.

Enhance the OPP hate crimes and extremists unit: $400,000, two FTEs.

Emergency measures: a one-time $3.6 million, annualized $7.36 million, 42 FTEs.

There are more on the list, but he probably has a supplementary and I'll be able to fill him in on it.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you've been found out. You've been caught. You've been doing what many in your government do on an ongoing basis: you

make announcements, and you don't back them up with substance. You said there was going to be an additional $30 million for emergency measures in Ontario. Your document says there is only an

additional $12 million in your operating expenditure document. It's right here in black and white.

This may be an academic argument as far as you're concerned, but I was in to see Chief Fantino yesterday. Do you know what he told me? He told me he hasn't

received an extra penny yet from this government when it comes to implementing new emergency measures with his police service. I'm sure other police and firefighting services around the province

have the same concern.

They're relying on you to come up with the extra bucks. You said specifically there would be $30 million. Your operating expenditures say no, there will only

be $12 million. I have a very simple question on behalf of our police, our firefighters and Emergency Measures Ontario: where is the extra $18 million?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The budget figure to which the member opposite refers is of course for this year. You can't hire people retroactively. When

you stretch out and hire people, of course it's $30 million. I would think the Leader of the Opposition, if he understands anything about Ontario finances at all, which is questionable, would

understand that.

What I said in the statement today was that I was announcing three more anti-terrorism and emergency management measures, bringing our recent investments in

Ontario's security to more than $30 million. We think that's a good investment. We think we should be building a place at the fire college so our emergency workers can learn that. We think we

should be building a new facility at the Ontario Police College in Aylmer so our police officers can be trained properly in anti-terrorist measures. We think those are the right things to do;

apparently the Liberals don't.

CORPORATE TAX

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, yesterday your Premier went out of his way to

say, six or seven times, that your government would not be finding more money for health care, yet today you have said clearly here that you have found the money to finance $2.5 billion in

corporate tax cuts. Can you explain to us how it is that your government can say, "We have no money for health care" -- that was the clear message from the Premier yesterday -- but your message

here today is, "But we have lots of money for $2.5 billion in corporate tax cuts"?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Because corporate tax cuts increase government revenues.

Mr Hampton: You are the Minister of Finance. We listened to the Premier very deliberately say it yesterday, at least six times. We hear in the

media today the head of the Ontario Hospital Association saying that hospitals are not up to a major crisis, that they continue to have a cash problem. We know that home care is being substantially

underfunded across the province, and seniors and the chronically ill are being cut from home care. Yet you came here today and said that you can afford to finance $2.5 billion in corporate tax

cuts.

I think you owe it to the people of Ontario to tell them how it is that something we value so much in this province, that people in this province want to see

preserved and sustained, your government says you have no money for, yet you boldly tell them you can finance another $2.5 billion in corporate tax cuts. Please, will you explain that to

people?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The member opposite clearly doesn't understand that it's not a question of financing corporate tax cuts or any other tax

cuts. He advocates a reduction in the retail sales tax. Why does he advocate that? I assume he advocates that because he thinks it will increase government revenues, because you're accelerating the

spending of money by reducing the RST. I assume that's what he was thinking about when he came forward with that idea. It's the same idea with personal income tax cuts and corporate tax cuts. What

happens in fact is that government revenues increase.

I know you don't get that, but if you look at the history of Ontario in the last six years, it's been proven to be true. Imitation is the sincerest form of

flattery. Not only has Ontario led in that way, but every other province in Canada has followed the lead of Ontario, and the federal government has followed our lead. The Prime Minister, the

federal Minister of Finance, everybody except for the members opposite, understands that if you reduce taxes you will actually increase government revenues.

Mr Hampton: No, Minister of Finance, a temporary retail sales tax holiday would cost the province, one time only, about $1.5 billion. Your

corporate tax giveaway is a permanent $2.5 billion. The one provides some funding for health care and education; yours doesn't. The one acts to stimulate consumer confidence; yours only benefits

your corporate friends.

I ask you again. We've got people out there without jobs. We've got people who are going to lose their jobs. We don't have the funding for health care, as your

Premier said yesterday, yet you have $2.5 billion for corporate tax cuts. Admit it. That's your real priority. Your friends, the bankers, the financiers on Bay Street, that's your real priority.

Everyone else in Ontario can sort of get in line. That's the priority, isn't it, Minister?

Hon Mr Flaherty: It's clear that the member opposite does not understand that most of the job creation in Ontario has not been in the large

corporations. It's been in the small companies, the companies that employ five, six and seven people, those who employ the workers you speak about so often. Whom do you think they work for? Who do

you think employs these people? Do you think the corporate tax cuts go to Bay Street? Where do you think people are working in Ontario? In your communities and in my community. They're working in

small business, sometimes in medium-sized business. Should we punish them? Should we somehow say to them, "You're not welcome in Ontario"? Should we make high taxes and do high spending like the

Liberals did from 1985 to 1990, like the NDP government did from 1990 to 1995? Should we follow that road to ruin? No, sir, we will stay the course.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question?

Mr Hampton: To the Minister of Finance again. We know, for example, that the six largest banks, having made profits of $11 billion last year,

are going to get the lion's share of your corporate tax cut. We know, for example, that all of those companies out there that are not making a profit this year are going to see nothing from your

corporate tax cuts because, if they don't make a profit, they don't pay any corporate taxes. If they don't pay any corporate taxes, they can't get a corporate tax reduction. Stop trying to fool

people -- companies like The Bay, companies like Sears. Those retailers that are not making any money are not going to get anything from your corporate tax cuts.

You are looking after the most well-off corporations and the most well-off people in this province, and you're saying to everyone else who needs health care,

who needs education, who needs community services, "You don't matter." I'm just saying to you, Minister, why don't you stand up and say that? It's obvious from what has gone on here over the last

two years.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The job creation is with small business. We welcome small business. We've reduced taxes on small business in Ontario. We

think that's a good thing to do. We think it's good that they reinvest in this province. We think it's great that they employ more people in our communities all across Ontario. We think that

entrepreneurial spirit should be encouraged and we should celebrate their successes. I'm sorry the member opposite does not share that. I can tell you what he's saying about economic theory is

voodoo. I have not heard such voodoo in economic theory since the Social Credit Party existed in Canada.

Mr Hampton: You know someone is in trouble when they start describing the opposition ideas with terms like "witchcraft." You know they're in

trouble.

What I want to know, though, because you always refer to this, Minister: we've got 22 sawmills across northern and central Ontario that employ over 100 people

each, and then indirectly more people are affected. All of those companies are facing layoffs. One in Kirkland Lake just announced 100 layoffs today. Would you tell us how your corporate tax cuts

are going to affect or are going to help those thousands of people who are on the verge of losing their jobs? What did anything you said today do to help any of those people who either are about to

lose their jobs or have already lost their jobs?

Hon Mr Flaherty: Actions speak louder than words. The actions of our government, led by Premier Harris over the course of the past six years,

have brought a firm foundation to Ontario that the province did not have six years ago. When the NDP government -- the leader of the NDP is asking the question -- left office in 1995, when they

were turfed from office in 1995, the deficit for that year was going to be around $11 billion. Imagine the condition we would be in now, in a time of economic slowdown, if that were the situation

in Ontario today.

Similarly, when the Liberal government was thrown out of office in 1990, they had gone through a period of high spending and high taxation, increasing the

gasoline tax, creating a new tax on tires, increasing the retail sales tax, increasing corporate taxes, and look at what they brought the province of Ontario: a recession in 1990-91. No, thank you.

We will stay the course. We're not going to high spending and high taxes in Ontario.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. You indicate in your statement that next year things

will begin to pick up in Ontario, yet in your economic outlook you point out that we will have the worst job creation performance since 1992. In your economic outlook it looks like we will perhaps

see under 20,000 jobs created next year in Ontario. Just four or five months ago you were predicting 180,000 jobs.

If people in Ontario are to believe that we are going to see this economic upturn next year, why are you predicting the worst job creation in Ontario in at

least 10 years, Mr Minister?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): There's no question that we have had phenomenal job growth in Ontario over the course

of the last five years. We've had an economy growing at 5% and 6% and 7%, resulting in tremendous job growth, which is wonderful for the people of Ontario -- more than 600,000 people off welfare,

over 800,000 net new jobs created in Ontario.

We are in a time of economic slowdown. We are also trying to deal with the consequences of the tragedies of September 11. I don't relish those consequences.

Every time a person loses a job in Ontario, that is a sad day for that person and for that person's family. I don't look forward to hearing about smaller job creation. But we are in a slowdown, and

the key here is to keep an eye on the horizon, to keep a steady hand on the helm; not knee-jerk reactions, not quick little programs, not the kind of thing that was attempted by the NDP government

in 1990-91, not high spending, not high taxation. Be steady, keep our policies as they are and keep Ontario an attractive place to do business.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate the rhetoric. I just say to you, Minister, that you told the people of Ontario a few minutes ago that next year the

economy will begin to recover. People are worried out there. People are concerned. Yet I see in your economic statement that in fact you're predicting the lowest job growth since at least 1992. I

simply want you to answer the question for the people of Ontario. You're telling them the economy will recover next year. Why is it that you are predicting job growth of under 20,000 jobs? Can you

give us an answer to that question?

Hon Mr Flaherty: If there's lower economic growth, which is what is anticipated, there will likely be lower job growth.

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. I want to be on the record about your prompt response to my letter

earlier this year regarding a question from my residents in the riding of Durham; in Newcastle, specifically. They're asking for information about the construction of a noise barrier along Highway

401 in the village of Newcastle. They had pointed out that the noise on the 401, since its widening, I might add, under our government, has interfered with the enjoyment of their property. The

ministry has indicated that the noise barrier is not currently in the minister's capital budget this year. I'm asking you today, Minister, if you can explain why this is the case.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the member for his question. I'd like to assure the member that this government

is committed to highway improvements in Durham region that support economic growth and allow local residents to enjoy their quality of life.

I would like to confirm that the Highway 401 site in Newcastle is indeed a prime candidate on my ministry's retrofit noise barrier program. The project is

subject to the availability of funding from the ministry's capital construction budget and, as everyone is aware, there are many projects competing for these capital construction dollars. Several

strategic expansion projects are underway to relieve congestion on Ontario's highways. We have accounted for over $1 billion in total capital spending and much of that was multi-year spending. They

were awarded and we're working diligently to complete those projects.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for that response. For the record, Minister, it's reassuring to hear that our government's commitment is there

to invest in the important transportation infrastructure in Ontario. However, the residents of Newcastle are continuing to bring this need for a noise barrier to my attention. Can you confirm that

this project continues to remain a very high priority candidate for the retrofit program, and could you indicate when the Newcastle noise barrier might be approved in the future?

Hon Mr Clark: It's important to emphasize that no projects my ministry has committed to have been cancelled. Every one of the commitments we

have made remains as a priority for this government.

As for the Newcastle noise barrier, I am pleased to inform the member that the design of this project is nearly complete, and we will continue with some minor

consultations with the community. This consultation with residents is planned prior to finalizing the additional short

section of the barrier close to Lakeview Road. This consultation will take

place once the timing of construction has been determined. A number of strategies are being examined to keep individual construction projects on track, such as restructuring certain projects and

matching some other projects with federal dollars. At the end of the day, I can assure the member that the noise barrier remains a commitment of my ministry.

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Your government has been determined to bring in user fees

for health care from the day it took office. You started government with an $800-million cut to hospital budgets to pay for your first tax cut. You told people they could get their care at home,

and then you made them pay for that care. Then you brought in copayments for seniors' drug plans. Then you decided to make families and seniors pay for hearing tests. Then you made more and more

people, mostly seniors, pay for physiotherapy. Now, Minister, you're at it again. You're bringing in another tax cut and you're talking about more user fees for health care.

Every new user fee hits hardest at families and at the elderly. Minister, Mike Harris used to say that a new user fee is a new tax. So I ask you, why are you

prepared to tax families and seniors to pay for a tax cut for wealthy corporations?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Let's be straight on the record here. This is the government that added over 1,200

new medications to the Ontario drug benefit plan. This is the government that is a leader in the world in flu vaccination that helps our seniors, helps our children, helps all of the population

avoid the flu and avoid the emergency ward. This is the government that increased home care, from when it was elected, by 72%.

We have nothing to apologize for when it comes to our caring and compassionate reaction to our growing and aging population. That is what we are committed to:

being there for our seniors, being there for the population as the health care demands continue to increase and as we seek newer and better ways to deliver quality, accessible care to the people of

Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, let's look at your government's record on health care. You set out to restructure hospitals to save $800 million.

Instead, you've created absolute chaos in the hospital system and your restructuring alone is costing $2 billion more than it was expected to cost. You told hospitals to discharge people early to

save money, but you failed to fund the home care to make that possible. Your surgery waiting lists are unacceptably long. You haven't been able to get primary care off the ground. Not one of your

so-called reform initiatives has worked. Now your only answer for health care is more user fees for the sick and the elderly.

Minister, I'm going to give you a multiple-choice question: are you (

a) completely incapable of managing health care, (

b) deliberately setting up public health

care for failure so you can bring in your two-tiered health care, or (

c) simply more concerned about corporate welfare than about people needing health care?

Hon Mr Clement: The correct response to the answer is (d): we will continue to care for Ontarians. We will continue to invest for Ontarians.

We will continue to ensure that the health care system is sustainable, is accessible, is there for our seniors, is there for our children, is there for the adults. The correct answer is (d).

When it comes to the federal government's reply to that answer, their answer is (e): they don't care about our ODB. They don't care about our home care. They

don't care about flu vaccinations. They don't fund a single red nickel of that. When it comes to health care from our federal government, the answer from Paul Martin is clear: he just doesn't

care.

There's a game that goes around in the children's world, Where's Waldo? I say, where's Paulo?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It now being 4 o'clock, and pursuant to standing order 30(b), I am now required to call orders of the day.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent for question period to continue.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

MINISTERS' STATEMENTS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As part of the presentation earlier this afternoon there were budget

documents prepared and distributed in the gallery and elsewhere. None of the members of the opposition have been provided with those in their seats. We are informed that the government members were

provided with them. I wonder if you could compel the government to share the documents.

Interjection: We haven't got them either.

Mr Duncan: Well, the government may want to share the budget documents with their backbenchers as well as members of the opposition.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): For clarification, the government House leader.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, since this is not a budget, these documents were distributed

according to the standard practice. House leaders, leaders and the appropriate folks on the opposition side did receive copies of these documents.

The Speaker: Just to be clear, under "Copies to Opposition,

"Two copies of each ministerial statement shall be delivered to the leaders of recognized opposition parties, or their representatives, at or before the time

the statement is made in the House."

I believe they have complied with the standing orders.

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I move that pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other

standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 111,

An Act to revise the Municipal Act and to amend or repeal other Acts in relation to municipalities, when Bill 111 is next called

as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be

ordered referred to the standing committee on general government; and

That no deferral of the second reading vote pursuant to standing order 28(

h) shall be permitted; and

That the committee shall be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 13, 2001, in Windsor, on the morning of Monday, November 19, 2001, in Hamilton, on the

morning and afternoon of Wednesday, November 21, 2001, in Toronto, and on Friday, November 23, 2001, in Ottawa, for the purpose of conducting public hearings.

That the committee meet on Wednesday, November 28, 2001, for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

That, on these dates, the standing committee on general government shall be authorized to meet outside of its regularly scheduled meeting times, but when

meeting in Toronto, not during routine proceedings, and that the committee be authorized to meet on November 28, 2001, until completion of clause-by-clause consideration.

That pursuant to standing order 75(c), the Chair of the standing committee shall establish the deadline for the tabling of amendments or for filing them with

the clerk of the committee;

That, at 4 pm on Wednesday, November 28, 2001, those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee

shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill, and any amendments thereto;

Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant

to standing order 127(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the

completion of clause-by-clause consideration, and not later than November 29, 2001.

In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be

deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at

such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

When the order for third reading is called, that 90 minutes of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, to be divided equally among all

recognized parties, and at the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or

amendment; and

That the vote on third reading may, pursuant to standing order 28(h), be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "Deferred Votes";

and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Debate?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm pleased today to speak on this time allocation motion concerning Bill 111, the Municipal Act, 2001. As I said when I

introduced the legislation, this has been a long time coming. The current legislation has its roots in the Baldwin Act of 1849. At that time, Upper Canada was still being settled and built. The

Baldwin Act created municipalities as democratically elected bodies with the power to levy property taxes, mainly to fund the construction of infrastructure -- roads and schools, for example -- to

serve a largely rural society.

Times have changed. Most of Ontario's people now live in urban communities, and the role of municipal government has gone through huge changes. The current

situation is that whenever a municipal council wants to take on something new to respond to some local need, the municipal lawyers have to look through hundreds of pages of law to see if the

authority is there. If the legislation doesn't say they can do something, they can't. The next step would be to come to this Legislature to ask for a change or an addition.

The result, after more than 150 years, is a body of legislation that is large and unwieldy. Parts of the current Municipal Act are redundant, referring to

municipal duties that have long since disappeared into history. It is little wonder, then, that municipalities have for many years been asking for a comprehensive overhaul. They asked the Liberal

government and they asked the NDP government. I'm pleased to say that this government has responded to their request.

In 1995, we made a commitment to bring forward a new Municipal Act. We promised

an act that would be modern, streamlined and easy to use. We wanted to

introduce

an act that sets out areas of responsibility for municipalities but does not tell them in great detail exactly what they are permitted to do and how to do it. At the same time, we wanted

to make sure to maintain the fine balance that has been established over the years among competing interests, a balance that gives municipalities the authority they need to meet local needs while

ensuring a dynamic, barrier-free Ontario economy in which towns and cities can maintain their competitive position.

The introduction of a new Municipal Act followed years of consultation, including the release of draft legislation in 1998 and countless meetings with

stakeholders and working groups. The government received over 300 submissions on the draft act from municipalities and major client associations, such as the Association of Municipalities of

Ontario and the Association of Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario. The former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ernie Hardeman, held 13 meetings with more than

20 stakeholder groups representing the municipal sector and the business community.

Technical working groups were established to study some of the key issues, such as licensing, user fees, corporations in debt, and investment. These groups

included nearly 50 municipal and business representatives, and their work is not done, as they continue to help myself and our ministry on the wording of these regulations -- not to mention that

both myself and the former ministers held personal consultation sessions with broad representation from right across the province.

In August of this year, I announced that legislation would indeed be introduced in the fall session of the Legislature. I released the New Directions paper

that set out in detail what the new act will contain.

The municipal sector and the business community have worked hard on putting this framework together, and they deserve our congratulations. They also deserve

our respect by acting on their request to make this bill a reality. The government will be helping municipalities with the transition, including education and training on the new act, if passed.

They have told us they need help with this, and we agreed. We certainly cannot expect to change the rules they live by and then not provide the education and training support. We simply need the

time in 2002 to do this.

Let me go over the highlights of this new Municipal Act. If it is passed by the Legislature, it would give municipalities the tools they need to tackle the

challenges of governing in the 21st century. A Toronto Star editorial said, "The new bill brings the legislation governing Ontario's municipalities into the 21st century."

This legislation would allow municipalities to organize and deliver their services as they see fit, involving the private sector where appropriate, in keeping

with local needs. It would give municipalities broad, flexible authority in 10 broad areas of jurisdiction. It would also give them natural person powers, to be used in areas in which they have

authority to act. Those are the same powers a person has to conduct day-to-day business without the need for specific legislative authority. As well, this proposed legislation would maintain

certain municipal government powers such as the authority to tax, to regulate or to license certain activities. The legislation proposes some limits on these general municipal powers. For example,

a municipal bylaw would not be permitted if it conflicts with a provincial law.

Some matters are of significant provincial as well as local interests. They include the natural environment, health and safety and nuisance. In these areas,

the proposed act sets out municipal powers in more detail. Provisions governing these powers would be streamlined. This broader authority would be balanced by a substantial accountability

framework.

Municipalities are already subjected to a great many accountability measures including, of course, elections every three years. The proposed legislation would

add a few more. For example, licensing and user-fee processes would be made tighter and more transparent. Municipalities would be required to report to taxpayers on improvements in the efficiency

and effectiveness of their service delivery. They would be required to pass bylaws setting out procurement and hiring procedures. These measures are already standard practice in many

municipalities.

The proposed new act also includes measures to give municipalities more authority to make their communities safer. It would respond to municipal requests by

enhancing municipal powers to deal with crack houses, adult entertainment parlours and other problem properties as public nuisances by allowing municipalities to pass bylaws on matters which, in

the council's opinion, are or could be nuisances and ask the courts to close down these problem properties. Such a request would be made after giving notice to the Attorney General, and with the

agreement of the police in order to avoid the possibility of jeopardizing an ongoing police investigation related to the property.

The proposed new Municipal Act would give municipalities authority to better manage raves and adult entertainment parlours by clarifying that municipalities

can seek community views before making related licensing decisions. Community input could help them identify conditions to attach to a licence and determine whether conditions are being met.

The bill also helps municipalities deal with heavily fortified buildings used as clubhouses by motorcycle gangs or others by allowing municipalities to enact

bylaws to address the excessive fortification of buildings.

The proposed Municipal Act would also contribute to smart growth by giving municipalities more authority to set up corporations and involve private sector

partners in financing and undertaking public projects.

Bill 111 formally recognizes the importance of consultation between the province and municipalities on matters that directly affect them. This new Municipal

Act, if approved by the Legislature, would become the cornerstone for a new, more mature, more productive relationship between Ontario's municipalities and the provincial government.

I talked a few minutes ago about the long consultation process leading up to the introduction of this act and the support we have received. Let me tell my

colleagues about some of the reaction to the legislation when we introduced it on October 18.

The president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Ann Mulvale, called the day of introduction an historic day for municipalities and predicted the

proposed act would improve provincial-municipal relations.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion said, "Now municipalities have greater flexibility to make decisions regarding services directly relating to them with more

latitude and self-determination than before."

Kenora Mayor Dave Canfield said, "The most important thing was the consultation with AMO," and that he's confident the consultation process means the best

possible new act is being proposed.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce said in a news release that Ontario businesses had been worried that municipalities would have greater access to user fees and

licensing fees as a source of revenue. However, spokesperson Ron McNeill said in the release: "The new act strikes a balance on these issues. Today's announcement indicates that the minister is

listening to the concerns raised by the business community."

The president of the Toronto Board of Trade, Elyse Allan, said in a news release, "The proposed legislation gives municipalities better tools to manage their

responsibilities and at the same time enhances accountability for the taxpayer."

This legislation clearly has the support of the people who will be most affected by it. Everywhere I go, whether it is in urban or rural, northern or southern

Ontario, municipal leaders tell me now is the time to act. It's a big step forward for Ontario municipalities and the people they serve. I believe they have waited long enough.

This act, if passed by the Legislature, will lead to better governance in our communities throughout Ontario, and it's got the support of the business

community. It's a balance we worked hard to maintain before we brought this act into the Legislature. I encourage everyone to support this.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Well, here we are, another day and another closure motion. Let there be no mistake: everyone should understand that

all a closure motion is is a motion that will cut off democratic debate.

It's ironic and passing strange that, as the minister noted, after 160 years there was a promise made in 1995 to bring in a new Municipal Act. Well, four years

passed after that. Then, I guess the promise to bring in the act continued, and another two years have passed. Now we're down to the point where we have about 35 minutes to discuss, or continue to

discuss, a 320-page piece of legislation.

You know, some people might be frustrated by that, and on occasion I feel frustrated that we aren't given the opportunity of full debate, the opportunity to

put our ideas forward in addition to those brought forward by the government, and an opportunity for our municipalities -- who only received this bill, I believe, a week or so ago, if in fact

they've received a copy of it at all -- particularly in my riding, where my interest is, to respond to this bill.

During the minister's remarks, the word "accountability" was used a couple of times, as well as "trust municipalities." The minister wants to build trust with

the municipalities. I only have to go back a little while ago to when this government brought in legislation that even told municipalities what they could put on their assessment notices. Where's

the trust when this minister and this government won't let a municipality design or print its own assessment notice? I'll tell you why: there are some things municipalities would like to inform

their taxpayers about that this government doesn't want them to know. So I suggest that accountability and trust are not really foundations of this bill. But democracy is. Democracy means you have

the opportunity, as a legislator, to express the feelings of your constituents. Part of that expression -- for example, where the minister talks about spending wisely -- would be to express my

constituents' outrage at the way spending in the political side of the Premier's office has gone up some 113% in the last few years.

Accountability would be what my constituents have brought to me: that they're shocked to hear that this government, during its early years and so far in its

governing life, borrowed some $20 billion, $10 billion of which was for tax cuts; and the way this government continues to give tax breaks to profitable corporations -- in the near future, some

$2.5 billion. Think of how that money could be spent by municipalities on infrastructure in these tough economic times. But we heard today in the finance minister's economic statement, as he called

it, that there is no additional spending for municipalities. In fact, the question was raised by my leader, Dalton McGuinty, that in the area of security an additional $30 million was going to be

spent, and yet we look at the Solicitor General operating expenditures that were tabled today, and there's only an increase of $12 million. As a matter of fact, when the question was raised to the

Minister of Finance, he couldn't whip his head around quickly enough to the Solicitor General to find out what the answer was.

I don't know where the trust is in this bill, in the economic statement that was made today or in some of the questionable spending that this government has

managed to accomplish over the last few years.

There's one thing I want to touch on too. It's constantly brought forward to us that the federal government should contribute more to our health care, and yet

I think it was a former finance minister who complimented the federal government on balancing its budget. When the federal government this past year in fact did give Ontario an additional $1.2

billion in transfers, what did this government do? It spent it on health care, all right, but it didn't add another nickel to it.

When you on one hand compliment a level of government for balancing their budget and then on the other hand say, "In these tough times, we think you should

give us in the province of Ontario another $2 billion and you should give provinces across this country an additional $7 billion," it just doesn't add up, because federal government revenues are

shrinking as well as the provincial government's are. If the federal government were to go into deficit, who would be the first one to howl but the provincial government of Ontario? Or maybe they

wouldn't howl. Maybe they'd say it's OK for the federal government to go into deficit, but the provincial government is not going to because we have to take $2.5 billion and give it to already

profitable corporations.

There isn't time to go into it today because, as I said, we only have 34 minutes in which to debate this closure motion. But I don't hear this provincial

government speak an awful lot about tax points, about a method by which the provincial government gets money that formerly went to the federal government, that was agreed upon by the provinces, and

this province in particular; tax points that give additional money -- not a cash transfer, not a lump sum amount of money that can be budgeted each year, but tax points, additional money that

certainly in good times this province would have benefited from to a great extent. We don't hear about that. I'm disappointed that on occasion we're accused of not telling the whole story, so I

turn around and say to you that it's merely like the pot calling the kettle black.

We have to be fair to everybody and we have to explain where all out finances come from and we have to respect, I think, each other's ability to pay. As has

been said time and time again in this Legislature, there is in fact only one taxpayer. In this time of economic downturn I think ahead, where municipalities and the social services they're

responsible for are going to have a tough time. They're going to have a tough time just like the provincial government and the federal government are going to have, and yet there was nothing in

today's economic statement that would assist these municipalities.

We are standing here today debating a motion that we've debated time and time again, and that is one to limit debate. I started at the outset saying how

frustrating it can be and how some may feel on given days that, what the heck, you might as well give up; there's nothing we can do about it, the government has a majority and so be it. It is the

undemocratic practices of this government that keep me coming back to this place. I will continue to fight the types of motions like that which is put before us today. Consequently I can't support

it.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise too with some very real concerns about limiting this debate. We have present and extant a law that

goes back 149 years. Some 149 years ago, before Confederation, in the Legislature of Upper Canada as it existed then, a bill was passed to regulate municipalities. The regulated municipalities were

very small by today's standards, and there were very few of them. Now 149 years have passed with that same legislation, with some amendments. It has served the people of this province, sometimes

well, sometimes not. It has lasted for 149 years.

In all that period of time, what have Canadians, Ontarians, Torontonians and people in other cities and towns seen? They've seen a whole world change. They've

seen Confederation. They have seen Queen Victoria come and visit and people come from all around the world to visit our country. They have seen the First World War, the Second World War and Korea.

They have seen a man land on the moon. They have seen the Berlin Wall rise and fall. They have seen a whole history that has spanned not one, but two, three or four lifetimes of experience.

In all that period of time, we had a bill, a law that was extant that governed municipalities. Now we have a new law being proposed. It is -- and I have said

this before -- better than the old law. It has gone from 1,100 pages down to 350. It is eminently more readable. But I do have some difficulties when we have a law that has existed for 149 years, a

law that still continues to serve the people in the cities in this province, and suddenly a new one has come along to take its place and we are given but three weeks to make legislative changes to

improve upon that bill.

On the last occasion I spoke about the bill -- and I'd like to speak a little bit more. I'd like to focus in on what I think are some of the problems and what

people need to address and would address if they were given the time, if they were given the opportunity, if they were given a location, if they were given some real power to persuade this

government, to persuade the Legislature to make the necessary changes.

First, this bill proposes that the municipalities be given natural person power. We all agree that municipalities should have that kind of power: the power to

litigate; the power to go to courts; the power to do what any one of us would be able to do within the legislative framework, within the jurisdiction of the courts; the power -- which goes slightly

beyond that -- to tax. The problem is that what is proposed in this particular legislation is very narrow and restricted. The natural person power does not extend in all respects because of

circumscribed sections of the act, does not extend and give the full range of natural person power.

I believe that if this went out to public debate and if municipalities, 447 of them, were allowed to speak, if people who worked in the municipalities or their

unions were allowed to speak, if senior bureaucrats or the lawyers for the municipalities were allowed to speak, if social agencies that work within the municipalities or get funding from them were

allowed to speak or even if other people who are even more marginal than that but who are concerned about the state of municipalities were allowed to speak, that the whole question of broadening

the narrow, restricted jurisdiction of the natural person power would come into question, that the government might be able to see that there should not be as many restrictions on that natural

person power as they have proposed in those 365 pages and that they might just make the necessary amendments that would improve the bill.

Second, there is the whole question of the memorandum of understanding. The memorandum of understanding is very good. It's about time there was a memorandum of

understanding between the provincial government and the municipal governments of this province. For too long there has been no formal recognition of what they do, and they do a tremendous amount of

good in this province. They regulate and run all of the municipal services that I think people come to take for granted, services like roads and