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

November 20, 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-20 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 20 November 2001 Mardi 20 novembre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY FUNDING

APPRECIATION OF POLICE

SMALL BUSINESS

EDUCATION FUNDING

FEDERAL CORRECTIONS SYSTEM

LONG-TERM CARE

DIWALI

CRIME PREVENTION

PAT AND ROSA SIMON

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(MOTORCYCLE AND BICYCLE

HELMETS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(CASQUES DE CYCLISTES

ET DE MOTOCYCLISTES)

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY GUARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES ENQUÊTEURS PRIVÉS

ET LES GARDIENS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO SECURITY

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

CHILD CARE

TAXATION

POLICE OFFICERS

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

ROAD SAFETY

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

HEALTH CARE

JUSTICE SYSTEM

HYDRO ONE

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

RACIAL PROFILING

PETITIONS

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

OHIP SERVICES

TENANT PROTECTION

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

DIALYSIS

HIGHWAY 407

CHILDREN'S MEDICAL SERVICES

HIGHWAY SAFETY

OPPOSITION DAY

TAXATION

Tuesday 20 November 2001 Mardi 20 novembre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY FUNDING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): For several years now, I've been very disturbed about the unfair proportion of provincial

highway infrastructure funding that's been allocated to northwestern Ontario. In fact, while new capital has been spent on expanding the highway system in other parts of the province, we've only

seen rehabilitation work being done in northwestern Ontario. As much as we appreciate those improvements, this lack of support for new highway projects has left us with rapidly increasing traffic

volumes on our increasingly dangerous roads.

In that regard, I will continue to push for the necessary four-laning of the highway between Thunder Bay and Nipigon, as well as the need for more paved

shoulders in passing lanes throughout the district.

But now, with an anticipated budgetary shortfall of perhaps $5 billion next year and the likelihood of reduced funding for highway improvements as a consequence

of that, I want to encourage the Minister of Transportation to provide the needed funding now for the projects that are on his own ministry's priority list.

Specifically, I would ask the ministry to speed up their plans for new passing lanes between Thunder Bay and the McKenzie Inn. This

section of the highway is a

virtual bottleneck that deeply frustrates drivers and quite frankly is a very dangerous part of the highway system. I would also ask the minister to move ahead with the construction of the Harbour

Expressway extension, the beginning of the Shabaqua Highway. This project is ready to go and it would alleviate a serious problem on Arthur Street and Dawson Road.

Not only would these projects stimulate the economy in the construction sector, they would also vastly improve safety on our dangerous roadways. Minister, these

are projects that are on your own list for completion. Do the right thing and give them the green light now.

APPRECIATION OF POLICE

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): Today I rise in the House, as I've done many times in the past, to recognize, acknowledge and thank police

officers for the work they do. Police officers work day in and day out to keep their communities and our children safe from crime. They do this continuously and it warrants mentioning again.

Today the Police Association of Ontario is representing the police officers of Ontario here at Queen's Park. I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome members

of the association to the House today.

I also wish to recognize the members of the board of directors of the Police Association of Ontario who are in the House today. They are Bob Baltin, president;

Terry Ryan, chair; Dan Axford, director; Dave Kingston, director; Jim Mauro, director; Brian Miller, director; Brenda Lawson, civilian director; and Bruce Miller, administrator. This board of

directors works for and represents over 13,000 police officers from municipalities across Ontario.

I know there are many municipalities, but I also wish to recognize members of the London Police Association: Bob Wilson, Doug Morton, Caroline Burge, Sam Cook

and John Veilleux, all very good friends and former colleagues of mine.

For the work the police officers and civilian police personnel perform each and every day in Ontario, I am proud to rise in the House and to thank and recognize

them.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): The recent economic statement by the Premier does absolutely nothing to alleviate the fears of small and medium

business owners in Ontario. Large corporations have mainly benefited from the tax cuts, and those benefits came at the expense of the success of small and medium businesses, leaving small business

owners to fend for themselves.

The Ontario's Edge package does not help small business to be more competitive either. While corporation taxes in Ontario are already lower than those of any

American state, the emphasis of the Premier's announcement was again aimed at pleasing big corporations.

Premier, in announcing a further $2.2-billion giveaway to big corporations, you are totally neglecting to assist the biggest job creators, the thousands of small

businesses in our province. Small and medium businesses cannot compete. They cannot compete with the big-box retailers. They cannot compete with a disproportionately lower tax rate in other

municipalities. They cannot compete with promotion and advertising. They cannot compete with new technologies, high rent and the very limited ability to access financial resources. The small

business community is in trouble and just managing to survive.

Premier, if you truly believe that small businesses create more than 75% of new jobs in Ontario, then I ask you to reconsider your recent $2 billion in corporate

tax cuts and pay attention to the call, the plight of the many thousands of small businesses in Ontario.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I'm standing today to ask the government again to reconsider your funding formula for schools. It has

failed enormously.

Two weeks ago I attended a meeting in my riding of the school accommodation review for Catholic schools in Beaches-East York. In my riding there are nine

Catholic schools. They are Canadian Martyrs, Holy Cross, Holy Name, St Aloysius, St Bernadette, St Brigid, St Denis, St John and St Joseph.

The meeting was called because at least two of these schools are going to have to be closed to accommodate the government's funding formula. At least two

communities are going to see their schools closed down. At least two communities are going to see their kids having to be bused. At least two communities are going to see their schools fragmented

and the teachers dispersed.

The Catholic board has set up studies to determine which two schools are going to close, but I will tell you that when that is announced, there will be people

angry from one end of Beaches-East York to another. They do not want to see this happening to their children. They do not want to see the dislocation. They believe that the government's funding

formula is totally to blame.

I ask the government to reconsider that formula, which is going to do so much damage to Catholic education in Toronto. I would ask the minister to rethink this

and do the appropriate thing.

FEDERAL CORRECTIONS SYSTEM

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): As you know, it's our nation's police forces that maintain peace in our communities. Every day these

special men and women put their lives on the line. They are the thin blue line, if you wish, which separates a peaceful, orderly country from one of anarchy and chaos. Yet, it would appear that the

federal government places very low value of the lives of the men and women in blue, our police officers. The Police Association of Ontario is outraged at the lenient treatment convicted cop killers

are receiving by Corrections Canada.

Yesterday it was reported in the Toronto Sun that Clinton Suzack, a vicious cop killer, was transferred to the William Head medium-security camp on Vancouver

Island, "`where inmates can go golfing or go fishing and watch whales swimming by.

"`The reality is this is a less-than-secure five-star resort. If it wasn't so sickening, it'd be funny,' PAO president Bob Baltin said."

I want to know how Clinton Suzack ended up in a medium-security facility and why he is being prepared for release, only eight years into a 25-year sentence. How

is it that the Liberals across the way talk about justice but they don't have the intestinal fortitude to reproach their federal cousins in Ottawa to urge changes to this?

I want to know why James Hutchinson, one of Canada's most notorious police killers, was able to literally walk away on a civilian escort.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Thank you. Your time has expired. Order. Nobody else is going to speak until there is quiet.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): "Long-term care in Ontario is in crisis." Let me repeat that: long-term care for our seniors, our

elderly, who have served this province to ensure that we can enjoy the quality of life that most of us are enjoying in this province, is in crisis. So says the Ontario Association of Non-Profit

Homes and Services for Seniors.

Many of us from all sides of the House had an opportunity to meet with this organization this morning, and they made it crystal-clear to us that the amount of

funding the province puts into long-term care is highly inadequate. As they state, "Government funding for the operation of ... homes for the aged and nursing homes is not keeping pace with the

changing requirements of residents who today are being admitted with far more complex health care needs. As a result, these facilities are now finding that their ability to provide adequate,

appropriate, quality care is being compromised."

There's a shortfall of $558 million. The homes currently are being paid only $62 per day, the lowest level for a patient anywhere in Canada. What is the result

of all that? The result is that the level of individual attention is desperately lacking.

I say to the members on the other side, get after the cabinet and have them increase the funding for the people who made sure we could enjoy the quality of life

that we do in this province.

DIWALI

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to draw to the attention of the House to the fact that over 800 million Hindus across Ontario and the

world celebrated the Festival of Diwali on November 14. The celebration took place November 16 this year in London.

Diwali, or Deepawali, the most pan-Indian of all Hindu festivals, is a festival of lights symbolizing the victory of righteousness and the lifting of spiritual

darkness. It commemorates Lord Rama's return to his kingdom Ayodhya after completing his 14-year exile. Twinkling oil lamps, or diyas, light up every Hindu home in India and fireworks displays take

place across the country.

The goddess Lakshmi, symbol of wealth and prosperity, is also worshipped on this occasion.

The festival also marks the start of the Hindu new year. At this time, most Hindu homes worship Lord Ganesha, the symbol of auspiciousness and wisdom. Spring

cleaning and decorative designs for homes are the order of the day. Family members come together to offer prayers, distribute candles and light up their homes.

Diwali has been celebrated for many centuries, but celebration this year is especially significant. Given the events of the past few months, surely it is

particularly important this year for all to celebrate the triumph of light over darkness and the triumph of good over evil.

I know that all members of this House would join with me in wishing Hindus across Ontario and the world a happy new year and a warm Namaste.

CRIME PREVENTION

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today to acknowledge, welcome and thank the presence of many good members of the Police Association of Ontario.

From ridings right across Ontario, these fine officers represent the hard-working and professional men and women who day in and day out keep us and our hard-working families safe and secure.

They are here to remind all the members in the Legislature that there is still work to be done, work that on this side of the House we understand and take very

seriously, and we are willing to put actions to our words. That's why it's important to point out that Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus have provided many ideas and concrete examples of what

needs to be done right now.

First, let me remind you that my leader offered the Ontario security fund $100 million worth of help instead of a measly $30 million from the Mike Harris

government. Our caucus has offered legislation on the replica guns, which they stole; on child prostitution, which they stole; on protecting police information from people stealing their

information, which they stole; on biker bunker mentality, which they stole.

We're awfully glad the Conservatives are finally getting tough on crime. We're glad you're going to start taking action that represents the ideas coming from

this side. We're trying to protect those police officers who keep us safe and secure every single day of the year. I thank them for it.

PAT AND ROSA SIMON

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I rise today to pay tribute to Pat and Rosa Simon. Mr and Mrs Simon were honoured recently by the city of Niagara

Falls with a plaque outside their restaurant that represents 100 years of the restaurant being at that location in the Falls.

Pat and Rosa have over the years been extremely generous to the community. At every event anyone attends in the Niagara region, one will find Pat with his camera

taking photographs of the people at the event. He's a chronicler of the history of Niagara.

Over the years, Pat and Rosa have also been generous with their restaurant in making donations to people in the community and those who come in the restaurant.

It's been a meeting place for many years on Bridge Street at the foot of the Whirlpool Bridge.

Over the years, many famous people have been in this restaurant. Those people include Sir Winston Churchill, the Pope, and a more recent famous person, the

Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris.

The community is very proud of Pat and Rosa Simon. They are a beloved couple. About a year ago now there was a surprise presentation for their many years of

service to the community by the chamber of commerce. A spontaneous outpouring of goodwill came from the crowd, with a standing ovation that lasted quite a long time.

I'd like to stand here today and congratulate Pat and Rosa on the 100th anniversary of the restaurant and thank them for all they've done our community.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Members, before we move to reports by committees, I would ask you to join me in welcoming this new

group of legislative pages serving in the second session of the 37th Parliament.

We are pleased to have with us Nicole Agro from Halton; Andrew Brett from Scarborough Southwest; Eric Brown from Windsor West; Kathryn Herbert from

Chatham-Kent-Essex; Edwin Horton from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant;

Maxwell Mausner from Parkdale-High Park; Kate McLeod from Peterborough; Andrew Persaud from Eglinton-Lawrence; Alim Remtulla from Trinity-Spadina; Hilde Romme

from Oxford;

Natasha Rupani from Nepean-Carleton; Erica Skinner from Markham; Adam Stanley from Don Valley West; Patrick Suter from Burlington; Heather Sutherland from

Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke;

Joanna Van Dorp from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound; Jacie Webber from Essex; Michael Weersink from Perth-Middlesex; Graydon Whalley from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock; and

Johanna Wilson from Leeds-Grenville.

Members, I present you with your new pages.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(MOTORCYCLE AND BICYCLE

HELMETS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(CASQUES DE CYCLISTES

ET DE MOTOCYCLISTES)

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 136,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to motorcycle and bicycle helmets / Projet de loi 136, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui

concerne les casques de cyclistes et de motocyclistes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member now has an opportunity to say a few words.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to require motorcyclists and bicyclists to surrender their helmets for

police inspections upon request. Presently, if a police officer pulls over a member of a motorcycle gang and asks to inspect his helmet, the member of the motorcycle gang can say no. The only way

the police officer is able to pursue the cause is by charging the member of the gang with obstruction. If this bill is passed, it will maximize police resources for policing as opposed to pleasing

motorcyclists in their effort to be disrespectful to police officers.

I look forward to quick passage of this bill, and I would like to thank Sergeant Robin Tiplady from the Sudbury Police Services and Constable Chris Hart, who

were instrumental in doing the research on this.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY GUARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES ENQUÊTEURS PRIVÉS

ET LES GARDIENS

Mr Levac moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 137,

An Act to amend the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act to require a minimum level of training for licensees and to require that uniforms

and vehicles of security guards be readily distinguishable from those of the police / Projet de loi 137, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les enquêteurs privés et les gardiens en vue d'exiger un

niveau de formation minimum pour les titulaires de licences et d'exiger que les uniformes et les véhicules des gardiens se distinguent facilement de ceux de la police.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Levac for a short statement?

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This is another action bill that we have presented as the Dalton McGuinty team that requires that applicants for

licensing as private investigators and security guards have a minimum level of training, to provide what they can and can't do as security guards, and not the action of a police officer. And they

must be licensed.

The bill also requires that uniforms worn by security guards and vehicles that are used by security guards and any other private investigators in the course of

their employment can be readily distinguishable from those of the police. This has been asked for by our police officers across the province. I am glad to bring this to the House and hope the

Conservatives will work with us to make sure that this bill passes.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO SECURITY

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Ontario's everyday heroes. They are found in every city and every

town and every neighbourhood. But they are far from common, because they are called to face uncommon dangers, make extraordinary sacrifices and risk their own lives. I am referring to the brave

women and men, the everyday heroes, of Ontario's police forces.

All across Ontario, these everyday heroes are in plain view. Our officers are always there for us to protect us, to uphold the law and to show us what bravery

and dedication and service really look like. Our officers remind us that safety -- the safety of our families, the safety of our communities -- must never be taken for granted. And sometimes that

safety comes at a very high price.

Ontario's police memorial stands just across the street from where I'm standing. It bears the names of 211 heroes in life, not death, officers who are known to

have lost their lives in the line of duty since 1804 in the province of Ontario, everyday names like William or James or George or Robert or Margaret, everyday names of mothers, of fathers, of

brothers, of sisters, of sons and of daughters, all loved and missed by the families they have left behind.

We have a responsibility to these officers and we have a responsibility to their families. We have a responsibility to support the men and women who continue

to serve our communities despite the danger involved.

We certainly have a responsibility to speak out strongly against Ottawa's outrageous decision to transfer Clinton Suzack to William Head. This is a

medium-security "Club Fed" facility on Vancouver Island. I want to thank the police association for watching out for its members and for bringing this matter to our attention. Suzack is the

convicted murderer of Sudbury Regional Police Constable Joe MacDonald. Today we join the association in calling upon Corrections Canada to immediately reverse its decision to transfer Suzack. We

call on Corrections Canada to ensure he serves the rest of his 25-year sentence in a maximum security facility, just as his trial judge recommended.

For more than six years now, we have worked hard to give our police the tools and the resources they need. We've allocated 1,000 new police officers, officers

who will work in communities all across Ontario. We've taken a tough new approach to organized crime by introducing civil measures to freeze, seize and forfeit the proceeds of unlawful activity.

We've responded swiftly to new threats to our safety. We've taken a lot of these actions in spite of the deficits and tremendous budgetary pressures that we inherited in 1995.

The world also changed on September 11. It changed for Americans; it changed for Canadians; it changed for freedom-loving people everywhere in the world. It

certainly changed for police officers, for firefighters, for emergency workers. Too many lost their lives that day. Those who remain must now face the possibility of new threats and dangers that

some say used to be reserved for Hollywood movies.

We must give our police the tools they need to respond. We must not let our police officers down, and I'm here today to say we will not let our police officers

down.

As members know, we appointed retired RCMP Commissioner Norman Inkster and retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie to advise us on security issues. We're helping

municipalities plan for emergencies, and we're conducting a comprehensive review of Ontario's emergency preparedness. We're providing $4.5 million to create a new rapid response team within the OPP

to work with and to assist local police forces to respond to terrorist threats; investing $3.5 million in a special unit to assist municipal and federal authorities to investigate and track down

terrorists and their supporters. We are ensuring that our front-line officers have the necessary equipment to respond to terrorists threats. We are building new facilities to train police officers,

firefighters and ambulance personnel to deal with terrorist threats and to manage emergencies.

In Ontario we pride ourselves on a culture that is welcoming and tolerant, but when people or organizations threaten that way of life, our police officers

stand ready to respond. They are our first line of defence. They deserve our thanks and they deserve our support and they deserve our respect.

Mr Speaker, there is something else we must do to protect our people and our way of life. We need a North American security perimeter to protect our citizens

and to protect our economic strength. Whether it's a terrorist threat from abroad or a more recognizable enemy here at home, we know that the good guys are our men and women in police uniform. Once

again, we will call upon our police to help because we cannot keep Ontario secure without their assistance. Once again, I know they'll face the challenges and they'll face the dangers ahead with

the same courage and determination that we are recognizing today.

So on behalf of the people of Ontario, I say thank you. Thank you for your bravery and for your commitment. Thank you for your professionalism. We have always

needed heroes, and right now we need you more than ever.

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): It is a privilege to join the Premier in paying tribute to the men and women in police uniform who put

their lives on the line every day to keep our streets and our communities safe. Like the Premier, I had the privilege to gather with the officers last May at the Ontario police memorial ceremony of

remembrance. We paid tribute to the men and women who died in the line of duty. We thought of the families they had life behind: the spouses, the children and the parents. We thought of the friends

who lost their companionship and support forever. We owe these men and women a tremendous debt. They have given their lives to keep our communities safe.

But we owe them more than gratitude and respect. We owe it to them to make sure the police officers who are safeguarding our communities have the tools to do

their jobs. This government is committed to putting those tools in place. The Premier spoke of some of them. I'd like to take this opportunity to outline for the House some of the other steps our

government has taken to make our communities safer and to help our police officers do their jobs.

We have seen that intelligence is essential to counterterrorism activity. And that's why we are enhancing the capacity of the criminal intelligence service of

Ontario to conduct counterterrorism intelligence activities. We are helping the federal law enforcement officials track down illegal individuals in the province. To achieve this, we are expanding

the mandate of the repeat offender parole enforcement unit, or ROPE unit. We have committed additional funding and staff to expand the Ontario Police College and also the hate crimes and extremist

unit.

Criminal activity by young people continues to be a challenge for communities across the province. That's why our government has dedicated $2 million a year to

the youth crime and violence initiative. This program supports police service programs that focus on youth crime. The initiative will also support partnerships between police and community groups

that assist youth at risk.

Tips to police about criminal activity are vital to the fight against crime. That's why our government has assisted the Ontario Association of Crime Stoppers.

We have provided three quarters of a million dollars over the last four years to support the Crime Stoppers call centre 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Yesterday in Hamilton I was pleased to announce an additional $200,000 for the Ontario Association of Crime Stoppers. This will help expand and improve Student

Crime Stoppers programs province-wide.

This spring our government acted where the federal government had failed. In April, we established Canada's first sex offender registry. It gives police the

crucial information they need about sex offenders living in our communities. This allows officers to better investigate and solve crimes of such a nature.

In response to the Campbell report on the Bernardo investigation, our government once again demonstrated its commitment to safe communities. We have invested

more than $25 million to establish a major case management system which was launched in May. This new tool allows police to more effectively investigate serial crimes that cross different

jurisdictions.

This government has not forgotten the debt we owe to these police men and women whose names appear on the police memorial. We can never repay them fully, we

can never truly comfort the loved ones they have left behind, but we can honour our obligations to them. We will continue to fulfill our responsibilities to the police officers who work so hard and

bravely so the rest of us can live our lives in peace and security. To these men and women, let me echo the Premier and say a simple, heartfelt "thank you."

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Further statements by ministries? Hearing none, the two opposition caucuses now have up to five

minutes each to respond.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Speaker, before I begin my formal response, I would like to rise on a point of order. I would

like to seek unanimous consent to move and pass the following resolution without debate:

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario offers its unequivocal support for the Joe MacDonald resolution adopted by the Police Association of Ontario and calls on

Corrections Canada to immediately return Clinton Suzack to a maximum security facility.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to introduce the motion? I hear unanimous consent. If the leader of the official opposition

would formally put the motion, please.

Mr McGuinty: Yes, I will. The Legislative Assembly of Ontario offers its unequivocal support for the Joe MacDonald resolution adopted by the

Police Association of Ontario and calls on Corrections Canada to immediately return Clinton Suzack to a maximum security facility.

The Deputy Speaker: The unanimous consent was without debate. Therefore, I will immediately put the motion to the House.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): Mr Speaker, on a point of clarification: Does that include

fulfilling the full term of his sentence?

The Deputy Speaker: There's no debate on the matter. If you're unclear, then I would suggest you may have to vote in the negative, but the

House has allowed --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: I suspected that. The House has allowed the motion to be put.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It's a very serious matter. The motion has been duly put. There will be no debate. I will immediately put

the motion to the House.

All those in favour of the motion, please indicate by saying "aye."

All those opposed, please indicate by saying "nay."

The motion is carried unanimously.

Hon Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the same spirit, then, would the House be willing to entertain an amendment to the

resolution to include the words --

Interjection: A further resolution.

Hon Mr Jackson: A further resolution -- thank you -- calling upon the federal government to ensure that Clinton Suzack fulfills his full term

in a maximum security prison.

The Deputy Speaker: I need that in writing, but there is a request that the House unanimously agree to allow that motion to be put. Is there

agreement? I hear no opposition, so if you can get that to me quickly in writing.

I'll ask the Minister of Citizenship to please read out the motion.

Hon Mr Jackson: A further resolution, Mr Speaker, that states that this House urges Corrections Canada and the federal government to ensure

that Clinton Suzack serves out his full sentence in a maximum security institution.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Sudbury.

Interjection: He's not in his seat.

The Deputy Speaker: Neither is the member for Niagara Falls.

Mr Jackson has moved that this House urges Corrections Canada and the federal government that Clinton Suzack serve out his full sentence in a maximum security

institution.

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

Any opposed?

Hearing none, the motion is carried unanimously.

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

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. You don't have the floor yet.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Using a piece of paper to hide your lips doesn't do it, John.

The member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Kormos: I seek unanimous consent to put a motion, to be determined without debate, that this House urges the federal government to restore

immigration and custom personnel staffing at our borders to an appropriate level, and I have written it.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the motion introduced by the member for Niagara Centre be allowed?

I heard noes. Let me test the House again. Is there unanimous consent to allow the introduction of the motion as presented by the member for Niagara

Centre?

I heard a no. We will therefore resume the response by the leader of the official opposition to the remarks of the minister and the Premier.

Mr McGuinty: Thank you, Speaker, and at the outset let me thank all members of the Legislature for their unanimous support of the

resolution.

What I really want to do today on behalf of the members of the Ontario Liberal caucus is to offer my words of support and thanks to the men and women of

Ontario's police services. Let me say directly to those officers present in the gallery today and to all those watching these proceedings on TV that for your courage, your sacrifice, your

dedication and your unwavering commitment to serving our communities, we thank you.

Words are important, but we in the Liberal caucus know that words alone will never be enough. We believe that fighting crime starts with actions, not

words.

That's why we took action by proposing a plan to protect the personal information of our police officers. Last spring, MPP Dave Levac, our colleague, proposed

a private member's bill that would have required the government to create a comprehensive plan to protect police officers and their families.

Again we showed that fighting crime starts with action, not words, when we took the lead on banning replica guns in Ontario. When Michael Bryant first proposed

this, the Solicitor General and Attorney General laughed. I am proud to say that the government eventually passed a law based on our proposal, and our police and the broader public will be the

safer for it.

Because we believe that fighting crime takes action and not words alone, we fought hard to end the Harris government's practice of allowing criminals sentenced

to jail for drunk driving to serve their sentences outside of jail in a place much more comfortable, like their homes. When we first raised this matter, the corrections minister said we were wrong.

After we provided additional evidence, it was the minister who was forced to admit that he was wrong. I'm proud to say that because of Ontario Liberals and the good work of my caucus colleague Dave

Levac, the drive-by window has been taken out of Ontario's jails.

Again this summer, Ontario Liberals showed that fighting biker gangs starts with actions and not words. We proposed legislation that would have allowed

municipalities to get rid of the barricades and surveillance equipment used to protect biker gang clubhouses. The government was slow to react, but they have recently tabled their own legislation

modelled on our proposal, and we look forward to passage of that bill.

There is so much more that this government might be doing to fight crime and make our streets safer here in Ontario.

For years now, Liberal MPP Rick Bartolucci has campaigned on behalf of legislation to get child prostitutes off Ontario streets. The government has promised to

follow Rick's lead and to pass legislation, and we look forward to passage of that bill.

We also urge the government to listen to our police, who oppose this government's plan to privatize our jails, because our police, like us, understand that

privatization means a greater number of escapes, putting our public at greater risk.

This government could adopt our post-September 11 proposal for the creation of a $100-million Ontario security fund to pay for security improvements. This fund

would help municipalities hire police officers and firefighters. In a post-September 11 world, that would be a very significant advancement.

There is much work to be done by the Ontario government to fight crime. Ontario Liberals have led the way, but our work is not yet done. We look forward to

working with the police, and we will continue to propose policies that ensure our communities are safe for our working families and all others.

Mr Kormos: New Democrats were pleased to be able to join representatives of the Police Association of Ontario today here at Queen's Park,

police officers from Sarnia and Sault Ste Marie, among others. We were pleased to be able to sit down and dialogue with them as they explained to us matters that are first and foremost among their

concerns currently in terms of the nature of policing in Ontario. We join every member of this Legislature in applauding our police officers and expressing gratitude in the modest way that people

can in view of the incredible service that police officers provide to our communities, big here in Toronto and, yes, small like so much of Ontario.

Quite frankly, at the end of the day platitudinous speeches don't cut it, and although we welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to our police officers who, in

solidarity with other front-line people out there like firefighters and emergency medical personnel, the people who are front and centre performing incredibly challenging jobs, incredibly difficult

jobs, increasingly over the course of decades incredibly complex jobs -- the demands on a police officer have never been higher. There are no two ways about it. The requirements of policing have

never been more demanding; no two ways about that. The challenges a cop out there in big-city Ontario or small-town Ontario faces have never been more daunting.

At the end of the day, all of the kind words, all of the congratulatory speeches, all of the platitudes in the world don't address what remains a very

fundamental crisis in policing in Ontario, and that is the underresourcing of police services boards, police forces in every community in this province. The bottom line is that there are fewer

police officers per capita today than there were six and a half years ago.

The reality about confronting crime is that it is the likelihood of apprehension that remains the single biggest deterrent. As long as crooks and thieves,

among others, in community after community can assess the status of the number of police cars, sometimes down to a miserable low of two or three in small-town Ontario patrolling huge, vast areas,

as long as the bad guys know there are only two or three police cars on a given midnight shift spread from one end of a huge geographic district to the other, those bad guys are going to feel

they've got licence to do whatever they want to do to your home, to your business, to your property and beyond.

The fundamental issue is one of ensuring that our police forces are adequately staffed, that they have the tools to do the job, that they have access to the

technology that permits them to do their job effectively and, yes, safely. It does no good to tell cops to go out there and bust the bad guys when crown attorneys, because of understaffing, are

plea bargaining away serious charges, plea bargaining away charge after charge. We've documented that phenomenon in this House and confronted this Attorney General with that over the course of the

last six years on a regular basis. It does no good for cops to be out there doing what they do and what they do well and what they're committed to doing when the courts are underresourced so that

sausage-factory justice results in guilty people being discharged or results in charges being withdrawn or results in yet once again more of this growing and pervasive phenomenon of plea

bargaining.

I want to speak to you also about the plight of police officers in remote areas of northern Ontario, in communities like Peawanuk, in communities like Fort

Albany, Ogoki or Attawapiskat. I've told you before how the member for Timmins-James Bay and I have travelled through those communities visiting native police services, one-person police forces

trying to conduct 24-hour-a-day policing; Attawapiskat -- virtually no holding cells available for their police officers to hold people in detention; in Peawanuk, the police boat on the coast, a

boat with no motor.

It's that phenomenon, it's that understaffing and that underresourcing, that's the fundamental issue that should be addressed. All the new legislation in the

world won't solve policing problems in this province until we recognize the need to adequately invest in police forces in every community of Ontario, until we recognize the need to ensure cops,

women and men out there on the front lines, have the tools to do their job and do their job effectively and safely for themselves.

VISITOR

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd ask all members to join me in welcoming the

mayor of Kenora, David Canfield, to the Legislative Assembly today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): That's not a point of order, but we all join in the welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Later this afternoon, we are going to be voting on

a resolution we've introduced which calls on the government to "forgo its $2.2-billion corporate tax cut rather than impose any new cuts to health care services, public education, environmental

protection or the introduction of new user fees." Quite simply, we believe that health care, public education and the protection of our environment are greater priorities than cutting corporate

taxes by an additional $2.2 billion. Our priorities are the priorities of our working families, and I'm asking you, Minister, on behalf of Ontario's working families, will you be supporting our

resolution?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The tax reductions that are spoken of by the member opposite extend from now to 2005

in the province of Ontario. Is the member opposite suggesting that all tax reductions in the province scheduled from now to 2005 should be cancelled? Does he seriously think that will assist

economic growth in the province of Ontario? Does he not understand the difference between a vibrant economy and a stagnant economy? Doesn't he realize what has happened in the past six years under

the leadership of Premier Harris, where we've seen the creation of in excess of 800,000 net new jobs? Does he not realize that tax savings are reinvested in the economy, creating investment, jobs,

new plants, new equipment? Does he not want prosperity for Ontario?

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you're telling us that we're looking into the face of a $5-billion deficit and, notwithstanding that, you want to cut

taxes. You're fond of looking into the TV camera. I want you to look into the eyes of Ontario's working families and I want you to tell them now that your corporate tax cut is more important than

hospital care for a sick family member. I want you to tell Ontario's working families that your corporate tax cut is more important than textbooks and smaller classes for our children. I want you

to tell Ontario's working families that your corporate tax cut is more important than home care for our parents and our grandparents. I want you to come clean. I want you to be honest with them and

tell them for the first time that you've never been on the side of Ontario's working families and that when it comes to corporate tax cuts, you're proving once again that when it comes to a choice,

tough choices, you're not choosing the needs of Ontario's working families.

Hon Mr Flaherty: Looking at the Leader of the Opposition, let him come clean with the people of Ontario when he says, "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." Will you, Leader of the Opposition, stand up and tell the people of Ontario that you

will reverse all of the tax cuts, contradicting what you've said before? What's the truth? What would you actually do? Would you reverse the tax cuts? I don't think you have the guts to do it.

That's what you said before in Ottawa. What are you saying at Queen's Park today?

Mr McGuinty: I'm flattered that the Minister of Finance is looking to me for guidance with respect to financial policy, quite flattered. It's

obvious that the minister is having some considerable difficulty coping with the changing economy.

My advice to him is to look for a good example to Ontario's working families. Our families are doing everything they can to protect the essentials. They won't

be cutting the food budget, they won't be cutting winter clothing for their kids and they won't be cutting accommodation costs like rent and mortgage. They're protecting the essentials, and they

expect that you will do the same thing in government, that on behalf of our working families you will protect their essentials: you will protect health care, you will protect education, you will

protect our environment.

So I'm asking you, Minister, to look for a good example to Ontario's working families. Why won't you do that, Minister? Why won't you do what families are

doing in their homes today? They're protecting the essentials.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I note that we did not get an answer from the Leader of the Opposition about whether he would reverse the tax cuts. We did

not get an answer from him. I don't know which to believe. But we do know that Mr McGuinty has always indicated that he --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Order. Minister, take your seat, please. Let's just calm down. I can't hear the minister. I want

to hear the minister. Minister, if you would please answer.

Hon Mr Flaherty: This is about tax cuts and the Leader of the Opposition. We don't know what he believes today. Here's what he believed in

1996 on TVO. He was asked by Steve Paikin, "Would you raise taxes a bit?" Mr McGuinty: "No, I don't think so. No." Mr Paikin: "Not income taxes? Would there be other kinds of taxes?" Mr McGuinty:

"No. Well, I mean that's something that I'd consider. It would depend on the financial situation that obtained at the same time. We'll have to wait and see." We don't know where he stands.

The Deputy Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mr Flaherty: We don't know if he's for tax increases or against tax increases. We know at election time he changes his tune.

The Deputy Speaker: New question, the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: My second round of questions is for the same minister. Minister, yesterday you said our taxes were still not competitive in

comparison to the US. But this is what you say as your pitch in this booklet that's distributed to Americans when you're soliciting business, Here's Where You Should Be Doing Business: "In the area

of corporate income tax, manufacturing and processing companies located in Ontario enjoy an advantage on average of close to 4 percentage points compared to their US counterparts."

Your corporate tax cut isn't about competitiveness. We're already very competitive in comparison to our American counterparts. It's about ideology. Why are you

putting your ideology ahead of the needs of Ontario's working families?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I don't want to talk about ideology. I'll let the Leader of the Opposition talk about ideology. I want to talk about small

business, reduction in taxes for small business in Ontario, and where the jobs are created in Ontario. You'd think the Leader of the Opposition would know by now that most jobs in Ontario are

created by small business. We support entrepreneurship. Why doesn't the Leader of the Opposition? Why don't the Ontario Liberals support entrepreneurship? Why don't you support small business? Why

do you want to make it more difficult for them to grow and to invest and to hire more people in Ontario? Don't you realize that's where the jobs come from? Don't you realize that the tax reductions

that are before the House right now would reduce the small business income threshold to 6%, the small business rate? Are you against that?

The Deputy Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mr Flaherty: What do you think about increasing the threshold to $280,000? What do you think about eliminating the capital tax for 11,000

small businesses? Is that what you're against?

Mr McGuinty: We have a much broader and more ambitious vision when it comes to competitiveness, much broader and much more ambitious. We

understand that in the new economy the most highly prized and sought-after commodity is the skilled worker. The skilled worker still lives in a family, and skilled workers' families want -- in

addition to competitive taxes, which we already have -- the best schools, the best health care and the best protection for our environment. That's what we mean when we talk about competitiveness.

With your bent for proceeding with a corporate tax cut that will make our corporations pay taxes at a level that is 25% below their American counterparts, you are compromising our true

competitiveness. So I ask you, Minister, why are you bent on proceeding with this corporate tax cut and thereby compromising our true competitiveness here in Ontario?

Hon Mr Flaherty: If ever there was a time when we need to keep up with our competitors, if ever there was a time, it's in a time of economic

slowdown. We need to stay competitive. We need to stimulate the economy in Ontario.

I understand the Liberals don't agree with that. I understand they want to raise taxes. I understand the way they governed in the province from 1985 to 1990:

big government, big spending, big taxes, increase the sales tax, increase the gasoline tax, increase personal income tax, increase the corporate tax, increase taxes on small business, increase the

payroll tax. That's what you believe in.

You don't understand that when you reduce taxes, that money goes into the economy. It helps to create jobs. It actually creates more income for government, $15

billion more in Ontario today than six years ago, thanks to the leadership of Premier Harris.

Mr McGuinty: Better be careful whose coattails you hang on to over there, Minister. You might just need a parachute, hanging on to Mike

Harris's coattails.

Minister, I think we should cut to the chase. This reckless corporate tax cut was not your idea. The fact is that you inherited this mess from Ernie. I mean,

this wasn't even part of the party election platform. We both know that, as Minister of Finance, Ernie Eves made a lot of mistakes. He borrowed $10 billion for a tax cut. He added over $20 billion

to the debt. Ernie Eves then hopped into the getaway car, and he left this minister holding a $5-billion-deficit bag.

The minister is looking for every opportunity to distinguish himself from his predecessor. Here is an opportunity, Minister. Tell Ernie Eves to take his

corporate tax cut back to Bay Street and that you're going to do something that nobody in your government has yet to do: you're going to stand up for working families and you're going to say no to

this corporate tax cut.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The Leader of the Opposition seems to think -- I think I understand him today -- the way you help working families in

Ontario, hard-working working families, is to increase their taxes. That's what he believes in. He believes that you help people by increasing their taxes.

Well, let me tell the Leader of the Opposition that the people of Ontario don't agree with you. They don't think that the way to be helped is for you to put

your hand in their pocket. They had enough of that from 1985 to 1990. You want to talk about Ernie Eves and Mike Harris. Look how you left the government of Ontario in 1990. Look what you left for

the NDP government. Look at the condition the economy of Ontario was in when you left it like that, in a shambles, a disaster in 1990. You should be ashamed of yourself. We're not going down that

road again. We've learned better.

CHILD CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will know that today is

National Child Day.

Yesterday you refused to rule out cutting $200 million from child care and family resource centres across Ontario. At the same time, your Minister of Finance

confirmed that he intends to proceed with $2.4 billion in corporate tax cuts, another $1-billion tax reduction in income taxes for the well-off and a $300-million tax break for private schools:

$3.7 billion in tax reductions or tax breaks for your friends while you cut $200 million from licensed child care. Can you tell the people of Ontario why children matter so little to your

government?

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

affairs): I reject the premise of the question by the member opposite.

What was reported yesterday was that a preliminary draft discussion paper with some options was presented, was written by someone in the ministry. It is

something which was seen to be of such little consequence it didn't reach my desk.

I can't say what will be or what won't be included in the budget process in March or April or May of next year in options for finding efficiencies and ensuring

that we can honour a commitment that we made -- I think that all members made in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario -- to bring in a balanced budget. What we won't do is turn our backs on a sound

economy. We won't turn our backs and watch an $11-billion deficit once again ravage this province.

The real tragedy of the economic situation of the province is that we'll spend $7.8 billion on social services but we'll spend $9 billion on debt interest, run

up by your government in the years of waste and wild spending. We will not allow the clock to be turned back.

Mr Hampton: Minister, while you try that answer, you might want to explain to people how from 1995 to 1999 you borrowed money to finance tax

cuts. You racked up debt to finance tax cuts.

But the question is about all those children and all those parents across the province who rely upon secure, licensed child care to help look after children,

the hundreds of thousands of parents, and the tens of thousands of parents who are on a waiting list for safe, secure, licensed child care.

If this is just a suggestion from an underling in the ministry, then you as minister on National Child Day can stand in your place today and say it won't

happen; you won't give away $3.7 billion in tax reductions for the well-off and corporations and at the same time cut $200 million from child care. Say that today as the minister who's supposed to

be looking after children.

Hon Mr Baird: I think I was very clear yesterday, when I said that this draft preliminary report with some options to create a children's

benefit was not something I'm considering.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Let me remind the minister of the government's legacy so far with respect to child care that you've cut the

budget for regulated child care by 15% since 1995. You've cancelled all funding for capital for new centres, for renovations and for playground equipment. You've capped proxy pay equity funding for

child care workers at December 1998 levels, but centres still have the obligation and many are going to go under because of that liability. You've capped funding for subsidies for low-wage parents,

you've capped wage enhancements for child care workers, and you've downloaded 20% of the whole child care budget on to municipalities. In the face of that, you have $2.3 billion to give to your

friends in the corporate sector.

Minister, the question is simple: if you are not going to proceed with a $200-million cut to regulated child care and family resource centres, denounce the

plan today and guarantee that you will protect the current level of child care funding and family resource program funding in this province. Will you do that today?

Hon Mr Baird: I have already said that the proposal that was released in the leak is not something I am considering. I don't know how much

more clear I can be on that.

The member opposite talked about legacy. I'll tell you the legacy. We're spending more than $700 million supporting parents and their child care needs. That's

more than any Ontario government's history. That's more than the government with which she was a member of cabinet, I'll remind her.

She also talks about pay equity. This government has an unprecedented financial commitment to pay equity. We will spend more money supporting pay equity than

any government in Ontario's history.

If you measure compassion by how much money you spend, by your own measure this government is showing more compassion.

The member opposite wants to talk about legacy -- high debt, high taxes and high unemployment, and that led to despair in this province. We won't turn back the

clock.

TAXATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Finance. When economists across the province heard that you were

looking at cutting $5 billion from health and education and environmental protection and a host of other services in the midst of a recession, they couldn't believe it themselves.

Toronto-Dominion economist Don Drummond says it would be "draconian" to pull that much money out of the economy. "It would lower the growth rate.... There

would be fewer dollars and cents flowing around the economy because every government dollar ends up in some citizen's pocket." He said, "I wouldn't recommend they take $5 billion out of the economy

next year."

Minister, rather than making the recession worse, rather than killing more jobs, would you kill your corporate tax cuts and your $300 million for private

schools so that the services people depend on can continue and we won't be forced to take $500 million out of circulation?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Again, I'm disappointed that the leader of the third party is off his tax-cutting

stance on the retail sales tax and now he's back on increasing taxes, as the Leader of the Opposition is. They labour under the assumption that increasing taxes, increasing the size of government,

increasing government spending make for a better Ontario. They did that from 1985 to 1995, and they left the province with an $11-billion deficit for that particular year. As the Minister of

Community and Social Services has just said, what it means is very substantial interest payments every year on the public debt, in excess of $9 billion this year, that isn't available to pay for

health care and education.

What tax decreases create is more revenue, more investment for the government -- indeed, $15 billion more revenue today than six years ago in Ontario, after

all those tax reductions. That's why we can spend record amounts on health care, record amounts on education in Ontario: because of the tax cuts.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you might want to check the record since you became Minister of Finance, since after all of your tax cuts you have now

lost over 27,000 jobs in the province during your reign as Minister of Finance.

My point is simply this. Withdrawing and cutting another $5 billion from health care, from education, from protection of the environment, from child care is

neither good for the services people depend on nor is it good for our economy, because taking $5 billion out of circulation will mean a loss of jobs. It will mean more economic dislocation. Will

you recognize that? Will you cancel your corporate tax cuts, cancel the further $1 billion in income tax cuts for high-income people, cancel your $300 million for private schools, maintain the

funding in our health care system, our school system, environmental protection and child care, and maintain some continuity in our economy?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The member opposite misses something in his equation. He misses the fact that when you reduce taxes, that money goes into the

economy. That money gets invested. It creates jobs. It purchases equipment. It expands businesses. Indeed, in the last six years in Ontario more than 800,000 net new jobs have been created. Surely

the hard-working families of Ontario welcome jobs, welcome pride in their families. We should celebrate their successes. We should welcome tax reductions as a way of creating wealth and creating

jobs in Ontario.

I know the member opposite doesn't understand that. I know he was part of the government from 1990 to 1995: big spending in a time of economic slowdown. I know

he was part of the government who thought they could spend their way out of an economic slowdown, resulting in an $11-billion deficit in 1995-96.

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Solicitor General. Two weeks ago, on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals, I

introduced Bill 128,

An Act to permit the naming of highway bridges and other structures on the King's Highway in memory of police officers who have died in the line of duty.

Most of the members from the Police Association of Ontario who are delegates to their convention have a copy of this private member's bill. The

preamble to it

says, "We, the people of Ontario, are forever grateful to the dedicated police officers who have courageously and unselfishly given their lives in the line of duty." You and the Premier reaffirmed

that, along with my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and the leader of the third party.

Today, Solicitor General, will you please give your commitment to the PAO and the Ontario Provincial Police Association that you will ensure that this bill

becomes law before we break at Christmas?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): I join the gentleman across the floor in saying what an incredible job the police do. We all share in

the absolute tragedy of officers being slain in the course of duty. Clearly, I am supportive of anything to recognize our police officers.

I presume that you will have a follow-up question. So far as the naming of highways is concerned, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation,

and so I would suggest that perhaps the member may want to address his follow-up to the Minister of Transportation.

Mr Bartolucci: I don't think that answer is satisfactory to the Police Association of Ontario or to any police officer. If you are committed,

as you say you are committed, this is a simple act. You can do it by way of order in council, as you know. You have never, ever done that. That is the reason for this bill.

Mr Solicitor General, the reality is that Sergeant Rick McDonald was killed 12 feet away from an overpass. Constable Joe MacDonald was killed hundreds of yards

away from the Lasalle Extension. What we are asking for is very simple. We believe there should be lasting tributes for police officers. Will you give your undertaking and your assurance to the

Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario Provincial Police Association, in fact all police officers in the province of Ontario, that you will ensure and your government will ensure that this bill

receives second and third reading, along with royal assent, before we break at Christmas?

Hon Mr Turnbull: I'm very sad to see this member playing politics with a very important issue. This is the party, the Liberals, that spoke out

against the expense -- they didn't want the expense of building a police memorial. It is absolutely outrageous --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Stop the clock. All right, please come to order.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Kingston and the Islands.

Start the clock. Solicitor General, you have the floor.

Hon Mr Turnbull: I actually believe it was Mr Colle and Mr Caplan who in fact spoke out against it. In point of fact --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Stop the clock. What is the point of privilege?

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister is talking about playing politics and saying that I opposed

the police monument. I never did such a thing.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Take your seat. Take your seat immediately.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The House will come to order. Start the clock. Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Turnbull: I believe it was also the Liberal government, when they were in power, that refused to go to the funeral of a slain

officer.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Stop the clock. The House will come to order.

New question.

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, on your visit to Rouge Valley Health System

in Scarborough on November 14, you announced that the hospital will be the site of a stand-alone angioplasty service, to be up and running by April 2002. Granting Rouge Valley Centenary the

stand-alone angioplasty service will lead to dramatic improvements in quality of cardiac care in Scarborough East, and in fact in points east of Scarborough. Minister, can you please confirm your

announcement of a stand-alone angioplasty service at the hospital and provide the members of the House with further details about the government's timeline for implementing this very significant

advance in cardiac services?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member from Durham for asking the question. I was in a

position last week to announce, and I wish to share with this House, that this government is committed to providing the patients in the Rouge Valley Health System with the first pilot stand-alone

angioplasty program. I have directed the ministry to work with the Cardiac Care Network and Rouge Valley Health System to implement this stand-alone program.

The honourable member is right; we have some clinical requirements that we have to work through. I am confident that we will. According to our estimation, we

will have the program in place by the spring of 2002, with the terms of reference being established early in the new year. That is good news. It means access to quality cardiac services, which is a

top priority of this government, and we will continue to make similar investments so the people of Ontario have the assessment and the care and the treatment they require.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for that, Minister. I, along with Phil Diamond and other members of the community, applaud your initiative here. The

stand-alone angioplasty program is one of the many initiatives this government has made to enhance services not just at Rouge Valley Health System but indeed across Ontario. Can you please expand

on some of the other announcements you have made recently, in fact in my riding of Durham?

Hon Mr Clement: I should incidentally state for the record that the member for Durham, the member for Scarborough East, the member for

Pickering-Ajax and other members on this side of the House have been very relentless in their advocacy for the angioplasty program. Of course, at that time I was also able to see the placement of

the new MRI at the same institution.

I can say that on the same day that I attended with the honourable member in Bowmanville, we were able to also announce a hospital on-call agreement with the

local physicians to ensure access to quality emergency services in that hospital for extended periods of time, with remunerated staff according to the amount of effort they were putting into that,

which was also announced on the very same day. The honourable member attended with me. It is another example of our ability to place the resources that are available to us through taxpayers' money

for these kinds of investments in our local community. Again, the honourable member from Durham is doing his job as a local member to ensure that health care is looked after in his community.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Today you will be aware that I sent a letter to the Premier

with evidence of his involvement in the Ipperwash situation. He has said to the Legislature that he gave no direction, gave no influence, left it entirely to the OPP. The evidence that I sent to

the Premier today shows that on the day of the shooting he met with 14 people, including an OPP inspector and an OPP sergeant. He told that meeting that he wanted the protesters removed in 24

hours. The Deputy Attorney General argued against rushing in, but according to the evidence we have, the Premier and Minister Hodgson came out strong, and when the OPP found out what was happening,

they were caught off guard and said that's not what they wanted; they wanted more time.

My question to you is this: with this clear evidence that contradicts the Premier's statement, will you now agree to do the right thing and call a public

inquiry?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'll refer it to the Attorney General.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As we've talked about in this Legislative Assembly on numerous

occasions, usually on matters raised by the very same member, there is a pending court case. There is a court case that will ultimately be adjudicated by an independent, impartial judge. All of the

evidence will be placed in front of that judge. Ultimately that individual, he or she, will make a decision. It is not for any member of this assembly to make that decision. Members in this

assembly, including the member who posed the question, are motivated by a political agenda. The judge who ultimately rules in this case is not so motivated. The judge will be independent and will

be impartial and I, for one, look forward to having the matter placed in front of that judge so that we can get a decision from an independent, impartial individual, not from the member opposite,

who is attempting to advance a political agenda in a very serious matter.

Mr Phillips: The brother of Dudley George, Sam George, is here in the gallery today. He has begged you to drop the civil case and to call a

public inquiry. Tomorrow, the Premier will appear in private. We will not have access to this. He will have three days of discovery. None of the public will see or hear about that, all done behind

closed doors.

The Premier has spent $700,000 on outside lawyers attacking the George family's case. This is not a fair fight. The province is using millions of dollars of

tax money fighting the George family. The Premier tomorrow, behind closed doors, will be giving testimony that should be done in a public forum, just like Walkerton.

So I say to you again, on behalf of the Premier will you do the decent thing? Stop dragging the George family through turmoil and bankruptcy. Will you do the

appropriate thing, drop the civil case and call a full public inquiry so we can finally get at the truth about what happened at Ipperwash?

Hon Mr Young: Let's be perfectly clear. The civil case was instituted by the George family. It is not for the defendants to drop the case. It

simply is not that simple.

The other thing that needs to be said loudly and clearly is that there is nothing sinister, nefarious or untoward about a matter being in front of the civil

courts of this province. It happens every day. Litigants from across Ontario turn to the civil courts of this province for a decision in matters in dispute.

But somehow or other, and likely because my friend is trying to inject some political agenda, some political purpose into this very serious matter, he wants to

remove it from the civil courts, in spite of the fact that the matter is well advanced and that it is going forward to an examination for discovery, which is an appropriate pre-trial procedure

where the parties will be examined under oath. By the way, in this instance, the matter has been placed in front of a judge for case management at the request of the defendants. The judge has

ordered where, when and how the discoveries are to proceed; that's what we asked to happen and that's what's happening.

But somehow or other, that doesn't agree with my friend's political agenda, so he objects to it on a regular basis in this Legislature. Let the defendants have

their case and let them have their day in court.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation. Last spring, Bill 33, the Outside Riders Act, was

not passed as it lacked unanimous support for third reading. This bill would have increased road safety and helped to decrease the number of fatalities on Ontario roads. Why members of this

Legislature who claim to have a social conscience would be against road safety is difficult for me to ascertain.

Minister, can you tell this Legislature and the constituents of mine who have lost sons in truck accidents what plans, if any, you or your ministry are

currently considering to ensure that this piece of proposed legislation does in fact become law?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank my colleague for his question. I want to commend the member for Northumberland

for drafting this important piece of legislation. The bill was drafted in response to a terrible tragedy that took place in the member's riding. Recent studies have shown that people who ride in

cargo areas of vehicles are 26 times more likely to be ejected than passengers riding in the cabs of the pickup.

Several provinces have now some form of legislation that makes riding in the backs of pickup trucks illegal. Ontario has the safest roads in Canada and the

second safest in North America. We are hoping this House will support this bill and enable it to get past third riding this session.

Mr Galt: While we're on the topic of road safety, could you please explain what's being done on the issue of occupant protection in motor

vehicles? Minister, we know that seat belts save lives, we know that air bags save lives, we know that improved vehicle design saves lives and we know that improved highway design saves lives.

What steps are you taking to ensure that occupants of vehicles are indeed protected on Ontario roads?

Hon Mr Clark: The very heart of this matter is seat belt use itself. Twenty-five years ago Ontario took a major step in improving road safety

by becoming the first province in Canada to make seat belts mandatory. In 1986 it took another big step by making child seats mandatory. Have these laws made an impact? Yes, they have, where it

counts most, on the roads.

On September 28 we launched our province-wide fall seat belt campaign with the support of police services. I can't say enough about the importance of buckling

up properly, especially where children are concerned. I encourage everyone with children to spend the extra few seconds before each trip to ensure your child is buckled in properly. It could mean

the difference between life and death.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Minister of Correctional Services: When you announced the appointment of an American private

for-profit operator of the Penetanguishene superjail, you talked about improving public safety. Today, after last weekend, the people of Penetanguishene certainly don't feel safe, because with less

than 70 inmates out of the total capacity of 1,000, the American operator just doesn't seem to be in control. Are you prepared to admit today that it is wrong to turn Ontario public correctional

facilities over to private American operators?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): I'm prepared to admit today that what's appropriate for corrections in Ontario is to

focus on results and to focus on safe, secure, effective and publicly accountable institutions, which is what we are trying to do across all institutions in this province, including the one that's

brand new in Penetanguishene.

The member referred to an event that occurred over the weekend in Penetanguishene at the brand new institution that was opened just last week. What clearly

happened, according to the on-site correctional monitor we have, the board of monitors of their local citizens and the individuals in the institution, is that the inmates, who came into a new

institution, tried to test the limits of the security of that institution and tried to test the limits of the people who run it. Thankfully that operator followed the procedures set out in the

contract and in our governing manuals that cover all institutions and the incident was dealt with, as it would have been dealt with, by the way, I say to the member opposite, if that had occurred,

and it does many times, in publicly run institutions.

Mr Kormos: There were only 67 inmates out of what is intended to be, when it is full, 1,000, and on the weekend with only 67 inmates all hell

broke loose, a riot over basic needs like blankets, heat and food. The deputy mayor of Penetanguishene has expressed grave concerns about the private American operator's ability to run that

facility. If the operator can't do it with 67 inmates, how is it going to run safely with 1,000 inmates? How can the people of Penetanguishene feel safe when that capacity of 1,000 inmates is

achieved with the American operator you've got in there now who can't handle 67?

Hon Mr Sampson: I say to the member opposite that not too many weeks ago we had many fewer inmates destroy an entire publicly run jail in

Peterborough, to the point that we can't even open it again. That was a publicly run institution. Is that OK? Is it OK if it happens in a public institution? The answer clearly, if you ask any

reasonable individual, is no. It's not OK if it happens in any of the institutions in this province, which is why we focus on how -- I say to the member opposite, who is ideologically bent, that's

why we have chosen not to go there. That's why we focus on the results of institutions. We ask all operators --

Mr Kormos: Sixty-seven inmates.

Hon Mr Sampson: I'm sorry if the member doesn't want to talk about results and safety and security of institutions. We do. It's an important

part in the operation of correctional services across this province that jails be safe, whether they're privately operated or publicly operated.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday you responded to the parents of Joshua Fleuelling

by assuring them that if their son had been in an ambulance today, the nearest hospital would have had to take him in. What you don't say is that for every new critical care patient that's taken

in, someone else has to wait even longer. Telling hospitals that they have to take patients in when they're already full, I suggest to you, is no answer.

The crisis of hospitals stretched beyond their capacity just goes on and on. A week ago Saturday, a Scarborough woman pregnant with twins went into premature

labour. There was no place for her in a Toronto hospital; there was no room for her in London; there was no room for her in Hamilton. She was airlifted to Kingston, where her babies are in care

today. Minister, how will you reassure this young mother that everything is fine in Ontario hospitals today?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Clearly I'm not familiar with the particular circumstances the honourable member

mentions. I can say, because the issue came up yesterday, to the family of Joshua Fleuelling that I believe his death was not in vain, that there are 30 recommendations with respect to that

particular inquiry that relate to the Ministry of Health, and with respect to all 30, we are making progress on them. This includes a commitment for $4 million annually for asthma prevention and

management research.

With respect to the honourable member's question directly, we've got the new patient priority system that went into effect on October 3, so our hospitals can

actually talk to our ambulance drivers, can actually talk to our dispatchers. Of course there are the new investments we've made to increase hospital capacity, including $63 million on emergency

service strategy, which includes new beds, new transitional beds and new flex beds, and new discharge planners and new regional coordinators.

The obvious answer to the question is that more has to be done, but I can tell you we have made great progress and great strides reinvesting in the health care

system and in the emergency services system in this province.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, Ontario has the fewest acute care beds in the country. In Toronto, paramedics are waiting in hospital corridors for over

an hour just to transfer the care of their patients to overburdened hospitals. Hospitals are getting mixed messages from you about whether they're supposed to cut more services or run deficits, and

that's just acute care hospitals. An independent review of long-term care in 10 jurisdictions put Ontario last in meeting the needs of residents in nursing homes and homes for the aged. Community

care agencies are cutting services to the frail elderly and to people discharged from those overcrowded hospitals.

In the face of all this, you refused yesterday to rule out the possibility of making more cuts to health care to pay for your government's corporate tax cut.

Your answer, as Minister of Health, is to say that you want to cut another half a billion dollars in taxes if you become leader of your party. You're supposed to be the Minister of Health. Why do

you keep putting tax cuts as a priority over health care for people in this province?

Hon Mr Clement: Of course nothing could be further from the truth, but then we're left answering the honourable member's question when her

leader does not know where he stands on these important issues. I can quote from September 22, five years ago, where he said at that point, "I am convinced there is enough money in the system. I

don't think we're spending it as effectively as we can." When asked the same question this year, it's "More money, more money, more money."

Since he said that in 1996, we, as members of this government, have invested billions more dollars. Incidentally, they are 100% provincial dollars. They sit on

that side of the House, married philosophically and strategically to the federal Liberal Party, which has cut and cut and cut again when it comes to health care spending, not only in the province

of Ontario but throughout the Dominion of Canada. Shame on you, shame on your leader and shame on the Prime Minister.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Attorney General. Your ministry is known for providing front-line justice services such

as the prosecution of criminal offences and the administration of the courts. It is also known to provide support to victims through all stages of the justice system by introducing new programs,

streamlining existing ones and expanding victim support programs. An example in my riding was a pilot for the victim/witness assistance program, now to be expanded to every court in the province

over the next three years. Minister, can you tell the House how your ministry informs and educates the people of Ontario about these important services?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for her question, which is just another

example of that member's deep concern about justice in this province. Let me say to you that my ministry has initiated and partnered in a number of public education projects focused primarily on

family breakdown and domestic violence. We have produced a number of publications. We have arranged for personnel to be available in the court and we have videos for participants in those sorts of

very difficult court cases to view and to benefit from.

A couple of the examples have been well received, particularly by children who find themselves involved in domestic disputes or family breakdown situations.

There is one entitled "Where Do I Stand: A Child's Legal Guide to Separation and Divorce," and the other is "What's My Job in Court?" which is an activity book that is provided to children prior to

their taking the stand to testify.

Mrs Munro: Thank you for that answer, Minister. This government has proven its commitment to providing accessible support within the justice

system for families in Ontario. To have an effective justice system and one that is accessible to its citizens, the Ministry of the Attorney General must not be isolated. Will you please tell the

House how you and your officials work effectively with schools to bring legal education to young people in Ontario?

Hon Mr Young: Again, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this very important project. Courtrooms and Classrooms is a program that was

initiated by one of my predecessors, the current Chief Justice of the province of Ontario, the Honourable Roy McMurtry. It's a program that the Minister of Education and I have supported in many

different ways. It's a program that contributes greatly to public education, particularly of teenagers. It allows them to experience what it is like being in court, as an observer in these

instances, to understand what the jobs of the various participants in the court process are and to better understand just how the justice system works. It is essential that that understanding be

there at an early stage and that's why I'm so proud to be a participant in this program that I referenced earlier.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Energy and it concerns the future of Hydro One. The minister

will know that there has been an active discussion in at least one of our national newspapers over the last few days about an apparently vigorous debate now occurring inside the Ontario government

about the future of Hydro One. My question to the Minister of Energy in this House this afternoon is simply this: what is your view and where do you stand as Minister of Energy about the future

ownership and structure of what we now call Hydro One?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I'm going to refer the question to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): No decision has been made with respect to the disposition or possible disposition of

Hydro One or of the other successor company, OPG. As you know, SuperBuild, which I'm responsible for as minister, is tasked with looking at any and all opportunities for efficiency and

effectiveness. We want to maximize efficiency and effectiveness for the taxpayers of Ontario. We continue to look at all publicly owned entities to ensure that their level of efficiency and

effectiveness is maximized.

Mr Conway: I will agree with the minister that no decision has yet been made. My question to the Minister of Finance is twofold. First, what

is your view as Minister of Finance for Ontario as to what the future ownership and structure of Hydro One should be and, second, given the fact that the Ontario government will make few decisions

with such important consequences for Ontario citizens, Ontario business, Ontario electricity consumers, when will Ontarians and this Legislature get an opportunity to assess in some detail your

government's future plans for this enormously important and valuable public asset that we know as Hydro One?

Hon Mr Flaherty: My view is certainly that we need to have the most efficient and effective operation, and not only in Hydro One but also in

OPG. It's crucial that the people of Ontario are served well by those companies and by their successor companies, if any. We were looking at this issue carefully through SuperBuild. We're examining

various alternatives. There are a number of possible alternatives. We're doing all of the due diligence work in that regard and taking advice in that regard from excellent sources of advice.

Once that process is completed, then I'm sure the matter will be formalized and we'll be in a position to offer a decision.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Minister, we know that the

McMichael gallery is a cultural icon and treasure in this province. In fact, I used to attend many school trips with my children when they were little to visit the McMichael gallery. We in my

riding were all very concerned to hear that the gallery was seriously in debt about a year ago and that while attendance was down, expenses were up.

You can imagine that I was delighted when our government passed the McMichael Canadian Art Collection Amendment Act, 2000, to address these particular issues,

and I'm wondering, Minister, if you could tell this House what progress the McMichael gallery has made since the passage of the legislation a year ago.

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation): I'm very pleased to report back about considerable success and progress at the

McMichael gallery. Since Minister Johns, my predecessor, introduced the act, we heard the usual gloom and doom from the opposite benches, but in fact the results are quite the opposite of what we

heard at the time.

Attendance is up, costs are down, the agency is back in the black and major exhibitions are attracting record crowds to the McMichael. Last year attendance was

about 112,000 people. This year we're on track to surpass 125,000 people, a more than 10% increase in attendance. The Carr, O'Keeffe and Kahlo exhibition was a huge success, with between 5,000 and

6,000 visitors coming per weekend to see that exhibition.

To quote Peter Worthington, who wrote in the Toronto Sun, the new CEO Vincent "Varga and the McMichael are on a roll. Every day the McMichael is crowded. A new

board of directors under David Braley has revived the gallery." Good news.

Ms Mushinski: Minister, that is indeed very good news, and I'm very pleased to hear that the McMichael gallery is thriving. We can all be very

proud of this provincial treasure.

Minister, I believe it's important that the McMichael success continues over the long term so that future generations can visit the gallery and learn about the

development of Canadian art. Could you elaborate on how the McMichael was able to revitalize itself and what plans there are to ensure its stability into the future.

Hon Mr Hudak: Certainly a McMichael gallery in debt and in decline was no way to protect this Canadian cultural jewel. Bringing more

entrepreneurship, a business approach to McMichael and encouraging new exhibitions have turned this around, as I said, already surpassing the 125,000 target in only eight months' time. In fact, in

the past two years in addition, the province has supported capital improvements at McMichael, about $2.7 million in total.

New initiatives like Art2Life, an integrated multimedia Web-based learning tool for grades 7 to 12, has 35 galleries participating; and certainly to those

listening today, the current exhibition, Traces of Colour: A Celebration of the Season, going on until November, and the Carmichael and National Gallery of Canada collection running December to

February.

Again, I want to congratulate the leadership of Minister Johns and the Mike Harris government, Braley and the board. Of course, it is home to Tom Thomson, with

the Group of Seven and First Nations artwork like that of the Haida represented.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): I'll take a point of order. Take your seat, please.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: After checking Hansard yesterday and previous Hansard records regarding a discussion

the Minister of Correctional Services had with me, he indicated that I, along with the Liberal caucus, voted against the pedophile bill. Quite clearly, that did not take place, and I would assume

the minister would correct that record.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Start the clock again. The leader of the third party has the floor.

RACIAL PROFILING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): A question for the Deputy Premier. Last night, over 300 people came to our civil liberties forum at

Toronto city hall because they are concerned about their freedom and about their security. Among those who came was Mr Bhupinder Singh Dhanoa, a Sikh man who nine days ago was forced off his

airplane flight because another passenger felt Mr Dhanoa was staring at him. This was pure and simple racial profiling, and he's been told that. Your government's security adviser, Lewis MacKenzie,

says he is in favour of racial profiling, the same racial profiling that affected Mr Dhanoa, an innocent, law-abiding man.

Can you tell us, Deputy Premier, what is Lewis MacKenzie doing to protect Mr Dhanoa's right to security and the rights of all those Ontarians who today are

being unfairly targeted because of their race or religion?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the Minister of Citizenship.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I want to assure the member opposite that his line of

questioning is out of line. The Premier, as well as myself and several officials of this government, met with leaders of the Muslim community. The issues around racial profiling were clarified. The

Premier has been very clear on this issue. In fact, I want to reassure the member opposite that under no circumstances is racial profiling an issue. It would appear, however, that there are some

concerns being raised about racial profiling by the federal government at this time, and he may wish to raise that issue.

I have referenced in this House that one issue on racial profiling I've been able to uncover was that up until recently, the NDP Web site asked people what

their ethnic origin was before they'd let them join the NDP. I'm pleased to see that as leader, you had that removed.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Hold on. We have a nice lineup of points of order. I'll start with the one I heard first, Don

Valley East.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): Thank you, Speaker. In response to a question from the member from Sudbury, the Solicitor General

attributed comments to me which are untrue. If he had an ounce of class, he would withdraw them.

The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): This is a legitimate point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, when a Liberal

member raised a point of order during question period, you had the clock stopped. I thought it was a rule of the House that Speakers would not stop the clock if points of order were raised during

question period, and I'm looking for clarification.

The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that. The reason I did that was that one of the important aspects Speaker Carr focuses on in question period

-- there are many, but one of them is to ensure that the third party gets their fourth question in if at all possible, if reasonable. We were down to final moments and it was one of the opposition

parties, not the third party itself, that could have seen the clock expire, and they would have lost that question. Therefore, to ensure that didn't happen, I stopped the clock and took the point

of order.

Hon Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I obviously don't want to debate this with you, but I think it should be raised with the House leaders. If that

is the case, if that is occurring, I think the Speaker should ask for consent to allow them to have that final question. I have a problem with this game being played. Speakers in the past have

quite clearly stated that this would not be allowed.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Hold on. The matter, of course, has gone now. I would suggest, if your House leader feels as strongly as you, that indeed

they take it up at House leaders and convey any message they might have to the Speaker.

I have another point of order here with the Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, the member for Don Valley East has suggested that something in my reply was incorrect. In point of fact, let me

quote from a newspaper from September 25.

The Deputy Speaker: You don't have a point of order, Minister. Please take your seat.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Turnbull: He said it was a lie.

The Deputy Speaker: I didn't hear it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Hang on. Order, order, order. What on earth are you doing?

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Just stop. If somebody said something unparliamentary, I didn't hear it. I would give them an opportunity now to withdraw

it.

I'm not hearing anything. Therefore, there is at this exact moment -- are you going to withdraw?

Mr Caplan: I never said anything unparliamentary.

The Deputy Speaker: All right. There's nothing out of order at this moment. Therefore, I would ask everybody to come to order. The time period

for oral questions has expired. It is now time for petitions.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: We almost got there. We're trying. A point of order here.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I just wanted to make reference to the discussion of the police memorial. According to Hansard, on

November 15, 1999 --

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Please take your seat.

Minister of Correctional Services on a point of order, I would imagine.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister of Correctional Services): This might be a valid point of order. The member for Brant rose to draw my attention to

my response to his question yesterday. I will now correct my record and stand corrected by his comment.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That was a point of order; you're right.

We're now in petitions. I'm sure I have somebody with a petition. The member for Brant has the floor to present a petition.

PETITIONS

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): A quick comment: I thank the minister of corrections.

The petition is to the provincial Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas puppy mills and other cruel animal breeding activities are unregulated and unlicensed in the province of Ontario;

"Whereas the Ontario SPCA needs more power to inspect and control animal kennels or breeders;

"Whereas Ontario consumers have no way of knowing if the animals they purchase as pets have been abused;

"Whereas there are no provincial penalties to punish people guilty of abusing animals that are bred and sold to unsuspecting consumers;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the province of Ontario pass legislation that outlaws puppy mills and other cruel animal breeding activities and also strengthens the powers of the

Ontario SPCA to establish a provincial registry of kennels and breeders subject to SPCA inspection, and to allow the SPCA to impose fines and jail terms on those found guilty of perpetrating

cruelty to animals for the purpose of selling these animals to an unsuspecting public."

I sign my name to this and support this petition.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a petition which reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in Ontario, adopted adults are denied a right available to non-adoptees, that is, the unrestricted right to identifying information concerning their

family of origin;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child;

"Whereas these rights are denied to persons affected by the secrecy provisions in the adoption sections of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts of

the province of Ontario;

"Whereas research in other jurisdictions has demonstrated that disclosure does not cause harm, that access to such information is beneficial to adult adoptees,

adoptive parents and birth parents, and that birth parents rarely requested or were promised anonymity;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to permit adult adoptees

unrestricted access to full personal identifying birth information; permit birth parents, grandparents and siblings access to the adopted person's amended birth certificate when the adopted person

reaches age 18; permit adoptive parents unrestricted access to identifying birth information of their minor children; allow adopted persons and birth relatives to file a contact veto restricting

contact by the searching party; replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas

schedule 5 physiotherapy clinics provide the only OHIP-covered physiotherapy to people in need, like seniors on fixed incomes and others that do not

have private health insurance coverage;

"Whereas the Ontario government is being forced to consider changes in funding to

schedule 5 physiotherapy clinics because of the federal government's refusal

to pay its fair share of costs for medical care;

"Whereas in 1985 the Brian Mulroney government paid 18% of Ontario's total health care costs, but today (2001) the Jean Chrétien government pays less than

14% of Ontario's total health care costs;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government continue to strongly insist that the

federal government pay its fair share of medical costs, including

schedule 5 physiotherapy."

I'll sign my name to that as well.

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I have a petition here with in excess of 1,000 names that was presented to me by Roseanne Boucher of

the London Transplant Gift of Life.

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre is a world-class academic health sciences centre serving people throughout southwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has forced the London Health Sciences Centre to find $17 million in annual savings by 2005; and

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre has agreed to cut 18 programs in order to satisfy directions from the provincial Ministry of Health; and

"Whereas these cuts will put the health of the people of southwestern Ontario, and particularly children," -- and individuals with transplants -- "at risk;

and

"Whereas these cuts will diminish the London Health Sciences Centre's standing as a regional health care resource; and

"Whereas these cuts will worsen the continuing physician shortages in the region;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government take immediate action to ensure

these important health services" -- such as the transplant program -- "are maintained so that the health and safety of people throughout southwestern Ontario" -- and the over 1,000 people who have

signed this petition -- "are not put at risk."

I am in full agreement and have affixed my signature hereto.

OHIP SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the assembly and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government's decision to delist hearing aid evaluation and re-evaluation from OHIP coverage will lead to untreated hearing loss; and

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

"Whereas OHIP will no longer cover the cost of miscellaneous therapeutic procedures, including physical therapy and therapeutic exercise; and

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magnetotherapy,

nerve therapy stimulation and biofeedback; and

"Whereas one of the few publicly covered alternatives includes hospital outpatient clinics where waiting lists for such services are up to six months long;

and

"Whereas delisting these services will have a detrimental effect on the health of all Ontarians, especially seniors, children, hearing-impaired people and

industrial workers; and

"Whereas the government has already delisted $100 million worth of OHIP services,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately restore OHIP coverage for these delisted services."

I have signed my name to this, and I agree with the petitioners.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we the residents of 145 Liberty Street South in Bowmanville wish to continue to rent our apartments and are not interested in purchasing condominium

units; and

"Whereas we the residents of 145 Liberty Street South in Bowmanville have invested considerable amounts of money in decorating, upgrading their apartments;

and

"Whereas we the residents of 145 Liberty Street South in Bowmanville were of the understanding that this was a rental property, not a condominium;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to review this matter and request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

or any other relevant ministry investigate these concerns to ensure that the residents of 145 Liberty Street South in Bowmanville can continue to rent their apartments."

I am pleased to support my constituents in this issue: Wilma Paul and others at 145 Liberty Street.

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

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

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre is a world-class academic health sciences centre serving people throughout southwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has forced the London Health Sciences Centre to find $17 million in annual savings by 2005; and

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre has agreed to cut 18 programs in order to satisfy directions from the provincial Ministry of Health; and

"Whereas these cuts will put the health of the people of southwestern Ontario, and particularly children, at risk; and

"Whereas these cuts will diminish the London Health Sciences Centre's standing as a regional health care resource; and

"Whereas these cuts will worsen the continuing physician shortages in the region;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government take immediate action to ensure

these important health services are maintained so that the health and safety of people throughout southwestern Ontario are not put at risk."

It's signed by many people from Tilbury, Blenheim, Wheatley and Chatham.

DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition which says:

"Whereas there is limited dialysis treatment available in the Cornwall area and the Cornwall dialysis clinic's waiting list continues to grow; and

"Whereas this lack of medical treatment forces dialysis patients throughout Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and beyond to drive to Ottawa, Kingston or Brockville

several times each week, even during dangerous winter driving conditions, to receive the basic medical attention and, at the same time, incurring unnecessary stress, cost and inconvenience; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has been presented with a proposal that could drastically reduce the number of kidney patients that are

forced to travel to receive this life-saving medical treatment; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care could temporarily increase the number of patients receiving treatment at the Cornwall dialysis clinic until

such time as the dialysis unit at the Cornwall General Hospital is up and running;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that increased patient treatment places are opened at the Cornwall dialysis

clinic."

I've also signed the petition.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

vibrant public golf course;

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

preserving this highly regarded public facility patronized annually by thousands of residents of Durham region," which may include my constituents and myself, "and the GTA."

I'm pleased to sign and support this petition.

CHILDREN'S MEDICAL SERVICES

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

"Whereas the recent events at the London Health Sciences Centre, where 18 programs have been lost due to funding shortages, and in particular, the Children's

Hospital of Western Ontario, cause us to be concerned that we may lose medical and surgical subspeciality pediatric services for ourselves and our children;

"Whereas southwestern Ontario is a vital region of the province of Ontario that requires urgent access to pediatric subspeciality services and to travel to

other children's health facilities in Ontario would result in serious personal hardship and risk to our children. Further, that families would not be eligible for travel grants similar to those

provided in northern communities;

"Whereas we have greatly benefited from the expertise in pediatric care provided by Children's Hospital of Western Ontario over the years and we appreciate

that we may not be apprised of all the reasons for these physician losses. However, our children deserve to continue to receive the pediatric subspecialty care from the London Health Sciences

Centre and Children's Hospital of Western Ontario that our region has depended on for decades;

"Whereas the loss of these services will result in great hardship to the families and seriously endanger the health of our children, we look to you as leaders

to address this issue immediately and thoroughly. These times of great uncertainty about children's access to health care is a significant stress to ourselves and our families;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to demand that our government respond immediately to restore these critical services to

the citizens of southwestern Ontario."

This is signed by a number of residents from Paincourt, Chatham, Thamesville, Wallaceburg and Wheatley.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

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

"Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

"Whereas traffic levels on all sections of Highway 401 continue to increase; and

"Whereas Canada's number one trade and travel route was designed in the 1950s for fewer vehicles and lighter trucks; and

"Whereas road funding is almost completely paid through vehicle permit and driver licensing fees; and

"Whereas Ontario road users pay 28 cents per litre of tax on gasoline, adding up to over $2.7 billion in provincial gas taxes, and over $2.3 billion in federal

gas taxes;

"We, the undersigned members of the Canadian Automobile Association and other residents of Ontario, respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to

immediately upgrade Highway 401 to at least a six-lane highway with full paved shoulders and rumble strips; and

"We respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario place firm pressure on the federal government to invest its gasoline tax revenue in road

safety improvements in Ontario."

This is signed by a number of residents from Chatham, Oakville, Wallaceburg and Tilbury.

OPPOSITION DAY

TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I move that the Legislative Assembly call on the government to forgo its $2.2-billion corporate tax

cut rather than impose any new cuts to health care services, public education, environmental protection or the introduction of new user fees.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: To begin debate on the issue of the postponement, delay or stopping of the corporate tax cut, I think everybody in Ontario is

aware, and most dramatically aware in the last few days, that we face a significant fiscal challenge in the province now.

We've been blessed over the last five or six years in Ontario and Canada. Indeed, North America has had an almost unprecedented run in terms of strong economic

growth. Ontario's been fortunate to participate in that, I would argue heavily, because of the terrific increase in our exports to the US, but regardless.

But we are now into a different period. The government had predicted, if you look at the budget that was presented just six months ago, faster growth in the

second half of 2001 and then a very buoyant 2002. That was just six months ago where the government based its plans on real growth next year of 3.5%.

The government has acknowledged, in a statement just two weeks ago today that was presented in Ontario's Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review, that growth next

year, rather than the 3.5% that had been predicted, is going to be more like perhaps 1%. Two weeks ago the government said, "While we have some challenges next year, they appear relatively

manageable." Then, in to me quite an amazing turn of events, just yesterday, or perhaps Sunday, the government said, "No, we've got a much bigger problem than we thought just two weeks ago." They

talk now about a $5-billion gap in their budget and the minister has been saying we have now got a $5-billion gap to close.

If it's done on the expenditure side, I would just remind all of us -- the budget in Ontario is about $53 billion exclusive of public debt interest charges,

which are relatively fixed -- to find $5 billion across the whole budget you're talking a 10% cut in the budget. If you exclude health care and find it everywhere else, it's about a 17% cut in the

budget. So if in fact what we're being told by the government is true, that we have a $5-billion problem, we have a very significant problem. I personally think the government is somewhat

exaggerating the magnitude of the problem, but nonetheless we have, I would suspect, a $2-billion to $3-billion problem for next year.

Job growth in these two years, 2001-02, of about 320,000 jobs was what the budget was based on, 320,000 jobs over a two-year period. Now, just in the statement

released two weeks ago, it's not going to be 320,000 jobs; it's going to be 120,000 jobs in two years. I'm using the government's projections. So suddenly we're going to see 200,000 fewer jobs in

the province of Ontario. As a matter of fact, since this budget was presented in May, Ontario actually has lost 29,000 jobs. We've got 29,000 fewer jobs in Ontario than we had when the budget was

presented.

That leads to the key point in our motion, and that is that the government must make a decision on the corporate tax cut, to not proceed with it. I want to

remind Ontarians that this corporate tax cut is not designed to get us competitive with our major competitors; it's designed to get our corporate taxes 25% lower than our major competitors. There's

no doubt that our major competitors now are Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota. This tax cut is designed to get us 25% lower, and I say, in the opinion of the Liberal Party

and Dalton McGuinty, it is not a long-term sound economic strategy to say we're going to compete on the basis that we're going to have corporate taxes 25% lower than our neighbouring states,

because I'll tell you what they're doing and what we have been trying to compete on.

I carry this document around with me. It's called Doing Business. It's an Ontario government document and it's the selling document of why companies should

invest in Ontario. We all should read it, because it points out, in my opinion, the major reason that companies do want to locate in Ontario. It talks about "exceptional workforce," and it points

out here that, "Ontario's workers are well educated. Sixty per cent of the 1998 workforce attended university/college, 30% earned diplomas/certificates." It points out that Ontario -- well, they

talk about Canada -- "spent 7% of its gross domestic product on education. That was more than the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Italy or the United Kingdom." In other words, one of the key

reasons that companies should invest in Ontario is because of the quality of our workforce, because of the quality of our education system, and one of the reasons the quality is there is because

we've chosen to spend money on it.

Right at the start of this document it says -- big selling point -- "Ontario is also one of North America's most peaceful and secure communities, and our

remarkable health and education systems are publicly financed and open to everyone." It goes on, in the cost section, to point out another enormous advantage of coming to Ontario. It says, "US

manufacturers pay, on average, more than $3,100 per employee for the kind of health care coverage provided by Canada's publicly supported system,

whereas Ontario employers pay about $540." In other

words, we have a cost advantage of $2,500 per employee in Ontario. And so I say, if indeed we believe these are the competitive advantages that Ontario has had to attract industry -- to use the

language in the government's own document, "our remarkable publicly financed health and education system accessible to everyone" -- that, "Come to Ontario. Locate your plant here, because it will

cost you $2,500 per employee less on health care than it does in Michigan or Illinois or Pennsylvania," how is that possible? There's no magic to it. We have chosen to fund our health care system

in a unique way. We've chosen to have in Ontario and in Canada a publicly funded health care system financed through no magic, primarily through taxes. We've chosen to impose taxes to pay for

that.

We're all, I think, reasonable sensible people here. Tell me again how we are going to be able to compete long-term for our quality health care system and

quality education system with taxes 25% lower than in the US. I come from a business background, as do many of the people here. I always believed that you compete by having a superior product at a

competitive price. If you have an inferior product at a very low price, frankly in my experience, you're not in business long-term. Yet, that's what the government has decided to