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

March 29, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Mar-29 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 29 March 2004 Lundi 29 mars 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIANS

FOR A GENOCIDE MUSEUM

HATE CRIMES

FABRY DISEASE

CECILIA ZHANG

LAND USE PLANNING

THUNDER BAY REGIONAL

HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

HIGHWAY TOLLS

NEW CANADIANS

FEDERAL BUDGET

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MPP SALARY FREEZE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LE GEL

DES TRAITEMENTS DES DÉPUTÉS

SANDY'S LAW

(LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT), 2004 /

LOI SANDY DE 2004

(MODIFICATION DE LA LOI

SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL)

ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED GRAPHIC DESIGNERS

OF ONTARIO ACT, 2004

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MEMBERS' COMPENSATION /

TRAITEMENTS DES DÉPUTÉS

VISITORS

CECILIA ZHANG

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

TRANSIT SERVICES

AUTISM SERVICES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

TUITION

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

PROPERTY TAXATION /

IMPÔTS FONCIERS

EDUCATION FUNDING

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

IMMUNIZATION

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

WATER QUALITY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

PETITIONS

LANDFILL

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

AND HYDRO ONE

AUTISM SERVICES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

HOG INDUSTRY

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

LANDFILL

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

LIABILITY INSURANCE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY /

CRÉDITS PROVISOIRES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIANS

FOR A GENOCIDE MUSEUM

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise in the House today to confirm my support of Canadians for a Genocide Museum, a worthy organization

that held a reception last week here at Queen's Park. CGM was established to promote inclusive and equitable education on genocide. As their name suggests, CGM is also interested in establishing a

federally funded Canadian genocide museum.

This organization came to Queen's Park to raise awareness of genocide. In spite of the fact that genocide has occurred all too commonly throughout human history,

it is not included in our school curriculum. Attending the CGM reception was an eye-opening experience. Prior to this reception, I personally was not aware that so many different groups had been

affected by genocide. In fact, CGM itself includes membership from 43 non-profit associations, representing 27 ethnocultural Canadian communities.

Representing the PC caucus, I was pleased to speak at this reception and inform the audience of over 100 people that I'll work to ensure that Bill 4 is

reintroduced in the Legislature. Sponsored by former PC MPP Bob Wood, Bill 4 would have recognized the week beginning on the fourth Monday in March of each year as Genocide Memorial Week.

I reiterate my personal commitment to making sure that the fine work of Bob Wood is continued so that genocide and its everlasting impacts are never forgotten.

History has too often repeated itself with unforgivable acts against various ethnic, racial and religious groups in our society. These acts must be remembered in order for them never to happen

again.

HATE CRIMES

Mr Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I rise today to speak with some regret about recent hate crimes against the Muslim community in the

city of Pickering. Early last Thursday morning, vandals spray-painted graffiti and tried to burn down the Al-Mahdi Islamic Centre. If that was not enough, on Friday, the very next day, someone left

a message on their answering machine, calling the Muslim community "criminal."

The Al-Mahdi centre has been part of the community for more than 10 years, and I am proud to say that the broader community is standing by them at this terrible

time. Yesterday, I participated in a gathering at the centre attended by an overflow crowd, with community, government and faith leaders bringing messages of support and hope.

In the aftermath of last week's hate crimes against the Jewish community, it is clear that any cowardly attack against one community is an attack on us all. The

actions of a few, inspired by ignorance and hate, have no place in Ontario and no place in Canada. I want to assure the Muslim community that we stand by them at this time.

FABRY DISEASE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): On April 25, about 20 Ontarians suffering from Fabry disease, a rare and life-threatening genetic

disorder, will no longer have access to the enzyme replacement therapy Fabrazyme. On that date, their compassionate supply ends. Fabrazyme, recently approved by Health Canada, has significantly

improved the health, and quality and length of life, of these individuals. Despite the fact that many people have written to the Minister of Health, Mr Smitherman, for funding to continue

Fabrazyme, there has been absolutely no response.

Today, I have written to the minister on behalf of these Ontarians, to request that he follow the lead of Alberta and commit that treatment will not be

interrupted and that Ontarians receiving the products through compassionate supply will continue to receive coverage. Without this treatment, the lives of Fabry patients are at risk. As the disease

progresses, patients develop strokes, heart attacks and kidney failure, and will face premature death.

On behalf of all Ontarians who suffer from Fabry disease, I urge the Minister of Health to end the anxiety and make the commitment today to ensure the

continuation of ERT on compassionate grounds until such time that a final decision on approval is made. Please listen to the plea of one patient who writes, "Please help save my life." Minister,

will you take immediate action?

CECILIA ZHANG

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): It is with a heavy heart that I rise today. This weekend, more than five long months after she disappeared, Cecilia

Zhang's lifeless body was discovered in a Mississauga ravine. Tomorrow would have been the little girl's 10th birthday.

Cecilia, a bright, beautiful, smiling girl, was much beloved by her friends, neighbours and all who knew her. When she was abducted from her North York home in

October, her neighbours and her city pulled together, distributing yellow ribbons and missing child posters. Toronto police worked around the clock to find the little girl and bring her kidnappers

to justice. Generous Torontonians posted reward money to bring Cecilia home. Her family never gave up hope for her safe return.

Tragically, Cecilia won't be coming home. Our city has had to face too many tragedies in the last few years. Too many of our children have been taken from

us.

Earlier today, I met with Cecilia's parents and conveyed condolences on behalf of this Legislature. The family is struggling with the terrible, terrible grief of

losing a child, grief that most of us, thankfully, will never have to understand.

I know that I speak on behalf of David Caplan, the MPP for her community, and all members of the House when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with the

Zhang family as they begin to cope with their tragic loss.

LAND USE PLANNING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'm calling on the McGuinty government to stop construction of a new town on the Niagara Escarpment. Yes,

you heard me: a town on the Niagara Escarpment. We're talking about an international treasure, a UNESCO world heritage site. Yet, for the first time since the province began regulating land use on

the escarpment in June 1975, the Liberals are about to allow a whole new town to be built. Castle Glen Development Corp is poised to build 1,600 new residential units, plus 300 commercial

accommodation units and three golf courses in the town of The Blue Mountains. Three days before their term ended, Conservative appointees to the Niagara Escarpment Commission signed an agreement to

allow the new town, and it appears as though the Liberals are going to let it go ahead.

This is scandalous and has to be stopped. The Liberals promised to stop sprawl and protect the environment. They already broke their promise on protecting the

Oak Ridges moraine. But if this is allowed to go ahead, it will make their commitment to their new greenbelt legislation awfully hollow.

Environmentalists like the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment and Environmental Defence Canada, among others, have been desperately trying to stop it.

Unfortunately, the understanding is that while the new town is subject to an upcoming OMB hearing, the commission's agreement likely means the board will approve it. That leaves no choice but for

the Minister of Municipal Affairs to use a minister's zoning order to stop this potentially environmentally devastating development dead in its tracks.

THUNDER BAY REGIONAL

HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I rise today to pay tribute and offer my congratulations to the city of Thunder Bay, its residents, the

Thunder Bay Regional Hospital, the regional hospital foundation and the many residents, businesses and municipalities of northwestern Ontario.

In the mid-1990s, the Health Services Restructuring Commission tried to impose upon the community of Thunder Bay an ill-suited solution for the rationalization

of hospital services for Thunder Bay and the surrounding communities. Only after a long, difficult struggle and the efforts of many individuals and community groups did we win the ability to move

forward on a new hospital. Community leaders like Don Caddo and Keith Jobbitt, the regional hospital foundation, a city council that endorsed a plebiscite result to levy $25 million on to the

municipal tax base, strong leadership from hospital administration, the hospital boards, and the efforts of hundreds of other volunteers in our communities helped to move this project forward.

The regional health sciences centre opened its doors to patients on February 22, 2004. This regional hospital will have a catchment area larger than all of

southern Ontario, approximately the size of France, responsible for a population of approximately 275,000 people. Our region will have contributed in the area of $54 million to the construction of

this new facility, representing something in the order of $375 per person.

In an area facing some severe economic challenges and an aging and declining population, this contribution and fundraising effort was nothing short of heroic. We

recognize that there are significant ongoing challenges regarding health services within northwestern Ontario and we are committed to working toward sustainable solutions that will serve the needs

of all the residents of our region.

HIGHWAY TOLLS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Recently, while visiting Sudbury, the Premier suggested the need for a toll on Highway 69. This is a

statement coming from the same government that said during the election that there would be no tolls on highways that lack alternative routes.

I, like many of my constituents in the beautiful riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, am left asking some questions. For example, what is the alternative route to

Sudbury from Parry Sound? Is the expectation that people who don't want to pay the toll will make their way to Sudbury via North Bay? That doesn't sound like an alternative route to me.

What we have here is not only a serious threat to the well-being of the north but also another broken Liberal promise. The north has been left out of the

benefits of Ontario's economic development for too long. The north did not participate in the economic boom of the late 1990s that southern Ontario enjoyed. It faces many challenges to economic

growth.

Highway 69 is a vital link between the north and south, and the more accessible this highway is, the stronger this link will be. Our people rely on it, our

businesses rely on it, and the future of our economic development relies on it. A toll on Highway 69 closes the north off once again from economic development and will work against all other

northern initiatives of the future. Tolling Highway 69 not only represents backing out of an election promise but represents backing out of the north.

NEW CANADIANS

Ms Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I recently attended an event in my riding in which a woman leaned over to me and said, "This must be the

most enjoyable part of your job." And she was right. In fact, it was one of the most pleasant and meaningful events I have attended in the last six months.

On Friday, February 27, the Salvation Army opened the doors of its new and lovely facility on Winterberry Drive in Stoney Creek to 62 new Canadians and their

families. People from 26 different countries gathered to be sworn in as Canadian citizens. They came to Canada for many different reasons, some leaving behind family and friends to pursue an

opportunity, some fleeing situations and hardships that are unimaginable to many of us; each person coming for a different reason.

The judge attending was one Judge Frank Hayden. He spoke for about 20 minutes to the assembly. He talked of Canada's natural beauty and its resources, its

abundant infrastructure of support, its opportunities. He talked of the tolerance, the freedoms and the rights that we cherish, and he talked about responsibility -- the responsibility to uphold

and protect all that we hold dear and that we at times take for granted. Then he greeted each new Canadian. Each time his voice held a note of spontaneous delight and genuine delight. He shook each

one's hand warmly, asked where they'd come from and how they were faring here, exactly as we would all wish to be greeted upon arriving home.

FEDERAL BUDGET

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I want to say that Christina Blizzard was right in her column last week on the March 24, in an

article entitled

"Grin `n' Bear It: Shafted by Their Federal Cousins, Ontario Grits Put on a Happy Face." In the last federal budget from Ralph Goodale, not one dime of an increase in permanent health care funding

for the province of Ontario, no significant tax cuts, and what do we hear from Premier McGuinty? He grins and bears it.

I was on CityTV last week talking about the budget, and Finance Minister Goodale did come forward, and he said that the Canadian television fund would be fully

replenished. Well, it is a matter of setting priorities. I don't think there's going to be dancing in the streets over the Canadian television fund at West Lincoln Memorial Hospital when they want

funds to build the brand new hospital. I don't think they're raising a glass in a toast in the Niagara region, waiting since September or October for a promise to deliver ambulance dispatch to

Niagara. I don't think there's going to be dancing in the streets in Fort Erie and Port Colborne; they're desperately trying to recruit new doctors when not one dime of federal dollars for a

permanent increase in health care funding was part of that budget.

We heard a lot from Premier McGuinty that by playing nice with his federal cousins in Ottawa, Ontario taxpayers would be rewarded. Instead, as Blizzard said,

they've been shafted. What do the Liberals do? They put on a happy face. This leadership vacuum in Ontario has left our health care coffers empty.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that on Wednesday, March 24, the Clerk received the report on intended appointments

dated March 24, 2004, of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MPP SALARY FREEZE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LE GEL

DES TRAITEMENTS DES DÉPUTÉS

Mr McGuinty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 42,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act to freeze the salaries of members of the Assembly until the end of fiscal year 2004-2005 / Projet de

loi 42, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative en vue de geler les traitements des députés à l'Assemblée jusqu'à la fin de l'exercice 2004-2005.

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

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I will be delivering a more formal statement shortly, but

suffice it to say that this bill essentially provides that the salary of a member shall remain as it was on October 2, 2003, the date of the last provincial election, until April 1, 2005.

SANDY'S LAW

(LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT), 2004 /

LOI SANDY DE 2004

(MODIFICATION DE LA LOI

SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL)

Mr Parsons moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 43,

An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act by requiring signage cautioning pregnant women that the consumption of alcohol while pregnant is the cause of

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome / Projet de loi 43, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les permis d'alcool en exigeant que soient placées des affiches avertissant les femmes enceintes que la consommation

d'alcool pendant la grossesse cause le syndrome d'alcoolisme f_tal.

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

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): This bill amends the Liquor Licence Act by requiring all premises from which liquor is sold or served

to display signs cautioning women who are pregnant or who might be pregnant that the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy is often the cause of fetal alcohol syndrome, which can result in the

child being developmentally handicapped or having a reduced lifespan.

The

short title of this bill is Sandy's Law, in honour of our son Sandy, who died on January 29 from the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome.

ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED GRAPHIC DESIGNERS

OF ONTARIO ACT, 2004

Mr Peterson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr3,

An Act respecting the Association of Registered Graphic Designers of Ontario.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MEMBERS' COMPENSATION /

TRAITEMENTS DES DÉPUTÉS

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I rise to speak to a very important bill I introduced just a few moments

ago. This bill is about leading by example. It's about taking responsible action. Most of all, it's about doing the right thing. This bill, if passed, would have the effect of freezing MPPs' pay

from the date of the last election, October 2, 2003, until April 1, 2005.

Let me tell you what this bill is intended to do and what it is not intended to do.

L'objectif de ce projet de loi est de démontrer que nous, en tant que députés de l'Assemblée législative, comprenons très bien la

situation dans laquelle nous devons donner l'exemple.

The intention of this bill is to demonstrate that we as members of this Legislature understand the context in which we lead. Members will know that this

government inherited a deficit of $5.6 billion, plus additional risk of $2.2 billion for things such as hospital and children's aid society deficits.

Many of these risks are now materializing. As I've said in the past, this means we must all temper our requests of the public purse and the hard-working

Ontarians who finance that purse.

We did not create this context. Still, it is in this context that we must govern our province and it is in this context that we must govern ourselves.

I know that government members support this bill, following a discussion that I can say would have made Ontarians very proud. We're urging all members of this

Legislature to support the passage of this bill. This bill is our way, as legislators, of recognizing the fiscal reality facing Ontario.

There are some things that this bill is not, and I believe it's important to put them on the record.

It is not a signal that we are forevermore removing from the Integrity Commissioner the difficult task of setting MPPs' pay. We appreciate the commissioner's

work on this matter, but at this time, in this context, we have a responsibility as legislators.

This bill is not a signal that we intend to legislate wage settlements for our partners. We do not. We respect the collective bargaining process.

It is not in any way intended to undervalue the work of MPPs. Just the opposite is true: We believe it is a privilege and indeed a high honour to serve the

people of Ontario in this their House.

Mais avec les privilèges et les honneurs viennent les obligations de donner le ton en donnant l'exemple.

With that privilege and honour, I was saying, comes an obligation to lead and to lead by example. We simply cannot ask so many Ontarians to temper their

requests and give ourselves a raise of any size at the same time. In today's fiscal context, saying no to a pay hike for MPPs is simply the right thing to do, and this bill, if passed, will do just

that.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses? Member from Grenville.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Close, but no cigar.

It's always difficult to speak to the issue of MPPs' remuneration or benefits, as we all know it's awkward, to say the least. That's one of the reasons why

this assembly moved in the last term to remove those kinds of decisions from this place and from politics, if you will, not unlike the federal government, where they have tied salary increases, I

believe, to increases of the Supreme Court justices or one of the levels of the courts; I am not sure which it is. In any event, we know that it has been taken out of the hands of politicians and

politics, and for good reason: because we know how difficult it is to stand in our place and discuss this kind of an issue and make a case for any positive change to the remuneration or benefits

for members of this assembly. It is difficult, and I certainly know from personal experience of 23-plus years in this place that there is not a lot of political appetite for that kind of

conversation, to say the least.

In any event, the Premier and the Liberal government have made a decision. It's not a surprise to us on this side, given the government's alarmist rhetoric and

their unwillingness to make a sincere and concerted effort to balance this year's budget. What was a surprise was the Premier's initial support for the Integrity Commissioner's recommendations and

then the two weeks-plus it took him to perform another flip-flop.

Tellingly, this is the first time since the October election that Dalton McGuinty has made a decision on spending restraint, and a very modest attempt indeed.

This bill is evidence that the governing Liberals have no will, no plan, to deal with the alleged fiscal challenges, which they hide behind each time they defend breaking yet more Liberal

promises.

It has now been almost six months since the Liberals were elected, and in six months we have seen nothing but posturing, endless blame games and a complete

lack of leadership from the Premier on any issue. In six months, we have seen 20 broken election promises from the Liberals, and counting. There is endless talk from the government benches of

fiscal challenges, yet no action.

Taxpayers might well ask, "What does this legislation achieve?" This is a modest cost saving for the government and taxpayers -- less than $300,000 on a

$72-billion budget. This is essentially political window dressing. This is a relatively easy initiative for the government, given the fact that the vast majority of Liberal members have received

significant pay increases to recognize their roles as whips, members of cabinet, committee chairs etc. The real test will come in the weeks ahead, when they have to deal with the organizations and

the union bosses who supported them in the election and in getting into government. Then we'll see the real test, in terms of their commitment to fiscal responsibility.

I think it's only fair, in the minute left to me -- there was a column in the weekend Toronto Star written by Helen Henderson. Ms Henderson repeated and

reinforced misperceptions with respect to the remuneration, salaries and benefits of members of this House. I think what's occurred in this place over the past 10 or 11 years should be put on the

record.

Under the Rae government, MPPs took a 5% reduction in salary under the social contract. In the first year of the Harris government, members took another

reduction of 5%. We did away with committee per diems, tax-free allowances and with the defined benefit pension plan for members of the Legislature. I think those should all be put on the record,

because they're certainly not well recognized by the public.

If anyone is to blame for the situation, it's everyone who is party to the deliberations in the House. We're seeing the reaction from the government members

now. That's the reality. Members of this Legislature have shown remarkable restraint, given the economic challenges we've all faced. We've done a good job, and we're continuing to do a good

job.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Before the second response -- member for Kenora-Rainy River, bear with me a minute -- there is a lot of heckling coming from the

government side. I'd like to hear --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I don't need an echo from the opposition side either. I'd like to hear the member from Kenora-Rainy River's response.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): It's always useful to be able to recite a little history when events like this happen. I've always

believed that MPPs cannot contract out of taking responsibility for their own pay. I have always believed that we should never be allowed to say to the Integrity Commissioner or someone else, "You

fix the MPPs' pay," while the salaries of the lowest-paid remain frozen, while the income of those who have to rely on social assistance remains frozen, and while nurses and teachers and ambulance

attendants are told something like 2% or less. I've always believed that. But I want all those workers out there to know what the Liberals apparently believed.

Here is a quote from Dwight Duncan, who is now House leader and Minister of Energy. On June 19, 2001, he said: "We think it's unseemly that MPPs should be

voting for their own pay increases.... We believe the proper way of dealing with this is to have somebody make an independent and binding decision." That's what Dwight Duncan believed then. But

when you're Liberal, you can just change your opinion overnight; it doesn't matter.

Then there's David Ramsey, now Minister of Natural Resources. What did he have to say? "I'm glad, finally, we're having this debate, because for years that

I've been here, politicians have gone through the angst of how do you set your own salary. It's very unseemly...." That's what he believed then. Obviously he doesn't believe that now.

And then this quote from the now Premier, Dalton McGuinty, in the Canadian Press on August 6, 2003: "If Ernie Eves wants to ask the Integrity Commissioner to

review view MPPs' compensation, we will abide by the commissioner's decision." Or this quote: "Our bottom line is that this issue should be decided by an independent third party -- not by

politicians looking to score political points...." Who said that? Dalton McGuinty, in the Toronto Star on August 6, 2003. Quote: "I will not interfere with this impartial, objective third party."

Who said that? Dalton McGuinty, July 29, 2003.

You know what's nice about being a Liberal? What you said yesterday, if you don't like it tomorrow, you just ignore it.

I want to give some more context. Do you know what the Integrity Commissioner had recommended when Mr McGuinty and all the other Liberals said, "We're fine

with this"? He recommended a 25% pay increase. These people were prepared to continue to see a freezing of the minimum wage, a freezing of assistance for those who have to rely upon social

assistance. They were prepared to tell nurses and teachers and ambulance paramedics "2% or less," as long as they contracted their own salary out to the Integrity Commissioner, and if he ordered

25% or 20%, they were happy. They were very happy.

What we're seeing today is not a statement of principle from the Liberal government. It couldn't be that, because two weeks ago, when the Integrity

Commissioner announced 2.7%, they said, "That's fine." No, what happened is this: The light went on. They realized that if they accepted 2.7%, all those hard-working people out there, who in many

cases have had to do with 0% in some years or 1% when the inflation rate was running at 2%, were going to come back and say, "OK; 3% -- we take you up on that. Three percent this year, 3% last

year."

This isn't about a high-minded principle. This is again about a Liberal party and a Liberal government that, if it suits them, will change their promise

tomorrow, which leads me to ask the question, did you guys think about anything that you said before the election? We knew there was going to be a deficit. The now Chair of Management Board said

there was a risk of at least a $5-billion deficit. The now Minister Of Community Safety said there was a $5-billion deficit. The Fraser Institute said there was at least a $4.5-billion deficit.

You just change your mind whenever you feel like it. That's why this isn't going to work. People see through it.

VISITORS

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): On a point of order, Mr Speaker:

I'd like to welcome the mayor of Hamilton, Mr Larry Di Ianni, who's in the gallery.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I'd also like to welcome you too, and I was about to do that. Thank you very much.

13 students from Holland and 10 students from Vaughan Secondary School, I understand, are here with us today. Would you all join me in welcoming them?

Just so that I can more or less coordinate everything, those who would wish to have anyone recognized could pass it to me and, at this time, I will do the

recognition. I appreciate that very much.

CECILIA ZHANG

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am rising to seek unanimous consent as a

result of the incredibly sad news of the discovery of little Cecilia Zhang's body over the course of the weekend. Our hearts go out to the family of this wonderful and special child, and I request,

respectfully, unanimous consent for a moment of silence to remember this very short and precious life and to offer our thoughts and prayers to the Zhang family.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do I have unanimous consent for a moment of silence, recognizing that? At this time, we ask members to rise,

and people in the gallery to do so too.

The House observed a moment's silence.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is for my good friend the Premier and it concerns the ethical standards he sets for his

administration. Premier, I want to ask you a simple question: Do you feel that removing the Ontario Securities Commission from the jurisdiction of Mr Sorbara is a sufficient response to this

scandal?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Yes, I do, I say directly to the member opposite. Again, I'm quite

prepared to quote at length from the Integrity Commissioner's letter, but I will spare you that on this particular question. But, absolutely, I think that was the appropriate response, and it

happens to be that the Integrity Commissioner agrees with us.

Mr Baird: You say it's sufficient, but in a very public manner on February 26, you stripped your Minister of Finance of his responsibilities

for the Ontario Securities Commission. We now learn that under the cover of darkness, behind closed doors, you've also stripped your Minister of Finance of his responsibilities with respect to the

Toronto Stock Exchange. If your minister has done nothing wrong, as you have maintained throughout this entire scandal, why did you strip him of responsibility for the Toronto Stock Exchange on

March 4, a week after this issue became public?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I say to the member opposite, I understand that you have a continuing interest in this issue, but I honestly feel that under

all the circumstances, we have acted in the most appropriate manner, and it happens to be that the Integrity Commissioner agrees with us.

Mr Baird: It was you and your party who promised ethical, open and, most importantly, transparent government. Premier, you've broken all three

of those promises to the people of Ontario. We know that on February 26 you stripped your Minister of Finance of his responsibilities for the Ontario Securities Commission. We now learn, more than

a week later, that you also stripped him of his responsibilities with respect to the Toronto Stock Exchange. Why did you secretly and behind closed doors, with no notice to the investing public or

to the capital markets, strip your Minister of Finance of responsibility for the Toronto Stock Exchange if, as you maintain, he has done absolutely nothing wrong? Would you answer the question,

Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: It is interesting to note that the member now has a keen and apparently genuine interest in open, ethical and honest

government. I would draw to his attention their record with respect to Ontario Hydro. I want to provide the members opposite every assurance that we will not be using OPG or Hydro One as some kind

of a personal country club. It is not our intention whatsoever, in any way, shape or form, to hide from the public things that are taking place over at OPG and Hydro One. That's the kind of open,

honest and ethical government we're bringing to the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question, the member for Nepean-Carleton.

Mr Baird: This is about you, it's about your ethical standards and it's about the way you conduct the business of Ontario.

Premier, it gets worse. Not only a week after this whole scandal became public did you strip the minister of his Ontario Securities Commission

responsibilities, but you have also stripped him of his responsibilities with respect to the TSE. But it gets worse. You have not only stripped him of the OSC and the TSE, but you have also

stripped him of his responsibilities with respect to the Toronto Futures Exchange, its act and the Commodity Futures Act.

Last week, you said the Integrity Commissioner had ruled that Mr Sorbara had done nothing wrong. You said he was a man of impeccable integrity. You said he had

acted responsibly. If that is the case, would you stand in your place, would you address the question and would you tell us why, a week after you stripped him of responsibility for the Ontario

Securities Commission, you have stripped him of three more acts and other responsibilities? Would you address the question directly, Premier? Would you stand up and tell us why this order in

council of March 4 was done behind closed doors, in secret, under the cover of darkness, and why you didn't report it to the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again, this is a matter we've had the opportunity to discuss and indeed to debate at considerable length. This is all part

and parcel of the same matter. Nothing has changed. I continue to believe that our Minister of Finance is a person of the utmost integrity who acted appropriately in all the circumstances, and that

has been confirmed in writing by the Integrity Commissioner.

Mr Baird: The Premier continues to completely ignore the question. We know that on February 26 he carved off part of the Ministry of Finance

with respect to the Ontario Securities Commission. We know that a week later he carved up responsibilities with respect to the Toronto Stock Exchange. He's also done a further OIC on March 4 with

additional responsibilities. I say this very directly to the Premier: The Ministry of Finance is not some sort of Christmas tree that you can carve up day after day to hide the ethical standards of

your government. If this Premier continues to take action in this respect, the only thing his Minister of Finance will be responsible for is his own cheque book and a calculator.

Would you do the right thing? Would you stand in your place and admit you've made a mistake? It's still not too late to do the right thing. Would you fire the

Minister of Finance until these investigations are complete? Would you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Well, it is passing strange to see the member rising to the defence of the Minister of Finance. He says I should not be

removing from him certain responsibilities; they're all part and parcel of the same package. Again, we can spend as much time on this as the member opposite would like, but it's my sense from the

people of Ontario that they're very much interested in the upcoming budget, their schools, their health care and the quality of the environment. They're very much interested in a number of other

issues. This matter has been addressed time and time again, both by myself and the Integrity Commissioner, and my answers remain the same.

Mr Baird: Premier, you are correct: Your answers remain the same. You continue to stand in your place and stonewall us from answering simple

questions about the ethical standards of your administration. The capital markets are entitled to know, the investing public is entitled to know, and taxpayers and voters in the province of Ontario

are entitled to know. Why did you wait until March 4, a full week after stripping him of responsibilities for the OSC, to take responsibilities for the Toronto Stock Exchange away from this

minister?

I want to ask you another question directly. Did you at any time make any inquiries as to whether the Ministry of Finance, the minister or his political staff

intervened in any way, shape or form with the Toronto Stock Exchange and their whole involvement in this affair? Would you address the question directly, Premier? The people of Ontario are entitled

to know.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'm not sure if the fishing season has begun, but I certainly hope the member opposite has obtained the requisite

licence.

The long and short of it is this: The Minister of Finance has acted appropriately and responsibly in the circumstances. His behaviour has been approved in

every respect by the Integrity Commissioner. I understand that the member opposite has a continuing interest in this. I will continue to provide the same answers. At some point in time, it is my

sincere hope that the members opposite will begin to address those issues that weigh heavily on the minds of Ontarians, like their schools, health care and the quality of their environment.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of the Toronto subway system, the

TTC. Before the election last year, you and your good friend Paul Martin both said you would give two cents a litre of the provincial gas tax and two cents a litre of the federal gas tax for public

transit and municipal transportation. So far, neither of you have delivered.

We understand you're going to make an announcement on transit tomorrow, and my question is this, Premier: Are you going to deliver the two cents a litre of the

provincial gas tax or is that going to be another broken promise?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Let me say that we are keenly interested in developing a good, positive

working relationship with our municipalities. We've already made some significant inroads in laying down the groundwork to build on a positive relationship. We look forward to delivering on that

particular commitment that the member opposite has raised. The member will know that we specifically said we intend to phase in the two cents of the gas tax over the course of our mandate. We look

forward to doing that and look very much forward to making an announcement tomorrow.

Mr Hampton: So we know there won't be two cents a litre tomorrow. But since this government has a record now of breaking promises, I want to

be sure there is going to be any new money at all, because in 2001 someone named Mike Harris committed $100 million a year in new money to the TTC for 10 years. I want to be very specific, Premier.

The money that you're going to announce tomorrow: Is it going to be new money in addition to the $100 million a year, or are you once again trying to take a discredited Conservative program and

repackage it and try to pretend it's something new? Will there be any new money and how much, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I can understand the leader of the NDP's eager anticipation for this good news we'll be putting out tomorrow. Let me just say

this: We are working in a way that has not been witnessed in this province for 10 or 11 years now. We are working with the federal government and our municipal partners to ensure that they find

themselves, at the end of day, on a sustainable footing so they can support their own particular responsibilities. We intend to ensure, tomorrow and beyond that, that the city of Toronto in

particular has its needs met when it comes to ensuring that it can provide its own citizens with good-quality public transportation.

AUTISM SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Premier. Premier, before the election you promised to extend IBI treatment to

autistic children over the age of six. You said specifically, "I also believe that the lack of government-funded IBI treatment for autistic children over six is unfair and discriminatory. The

Ontario Liberals support extending autism treatment beyond the age of six." Then on Friday your Minister of Children and Youth Services delivered a severe blow to Ontario families by announcing

that your government now refuses to extend IBI funding to autistic children over the age of six. Premier, why are you breaking your promise to these families?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know that the minister who worked very hard on this issue is anxious

to speak to this.

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I'd like to thank the honourable

member for the question and I'd like to acknowledge her tenacity and her recognition of this issue. I know she cares a great deal.

We have worked very hard in my ministry to bring out the best possible plan based on research, based on best practices, for children and families with autism.

It is a four-point plan. We will double the transition coordinators so that children going to school will have more services, as well as increase the services and the training of people in the

schools. We will put $10 million for more therapy for preschool children because the researchers have told us that if they receive the IBI therapy at the preschool level, transition throughout the

rest of their lives will be easier. We will also increase capacity at the university and college level, and, starting next year, have 200 more therapists a year. As well, we will evaluate what we

do to see if we can generalize this approach for children with other special needs who are also out there suffering.

Ms Martel: The question to the Premier was, why is your government breaking a specific promise that you made to extend IBI treatment to

autistic children over the age of six? That's the type of discrimination that the Conservatives promised and that is the discrimination you promised to end if elected.

I've got families in the gallery today -- Norrah Whitney, Luke Burrows, Gail Geller, Sandy Velaconja, Tammi Starr, Elli Carey. All of their children were

receiving government-funded IBI and were cut off at the age of six. All of them saw their children making tremendous gains at age five and age six -- gains like starting to communicate, beginning

to speak, starting to focus, beginning to express their needs and their wants and their desires, beginning to interact with their peers, starting to respond to instruction and even beginning to

read and count -- all after the age that your so-called experts said IBI wouldn't work. Tell Luke Burrows, today age eight, why your government is going to continue to discriminate against him and

deny him the medically necessary IBI treatment that he needs. Tell him today.

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I thank the member opposite for the question. What the experts are saying is, if we provide the appropriate supports in

the school system for children who receive the proper therapy at the preschool level, the children will continue to prosper and grow. These "so-called experts," as you call them, are Gordon Floyd,

the executive director of Children's Mental Health Ontario, who says, "I am in complete support" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): She's reading the briefing notes from the Tories, Speaker. Tell her to draft new ones.

The Speaker: If you could draft yourself by not responding, maybe you would be able to hear what she's saying. Could I ask the members of the

third party to allow the minister to respond? Thank you.

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: The executive director of Children's Mental Health Ontario has endorsed this program and says: "I am in support of this

program. The minister clearly understands the challenges facing children, youth and their families living with autism." Peter Szatmari, world-renowned autism expert and acting director of the

Offord Centre for Child Studies: "It is a significant and positive step in the right direction."

I do acknowledge, member opposite, that one of the challenges is at the preschool level. Many of the children did not receive the IBI therapy. That is why we

are increasing capacity, so those children at the preschool level can receive the therapy so they can have proper transition to the school system.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Why did you lie to these parents?

The Speaker: Order. Order.

Ms Martel: Shame on all of you. Shame on all of you for denying --

The Speaker: I ask the member to restrain herself and to withdraw the comment she made.

Ms Martel: No, Speaker, I will not withdraw.

The Speaker: New question.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Premier. Usually in this province, the Minister of Finance has responsibility for market

integrity and investor protection through the Toronto Stock Exchange. This was true until the Premier and others signed this order in council on March 4, stripping the Minister of Finance of his

responsibility for the Toronto Stock Exchange.

The difficulty here is that the shares in Royal continued to trade during a period of more than 60 days from the time the Minister of Finance was informed of

the investigation, on December 22. In fact, on December 19, more than 2.6 million shares traded hands, according to the Globe and Mail Report on Business, seven times the average.

The Minister of Finance -- his ministry -- was informed on December 22. On that day, the Ontario Securities Commission informed Royal -- I'm sorry, the OSC

informed them -- that they should issue a public notice. They didn't do that. They appealed to the TSE, which permitted them not to disclose. The shares continued to trade for more than two months.

During that time, the Minister of Finance knew about the investigation, but investors in the province of Ontario -- who are outside investors, not insiders -- did not know about it. And what

happened to the stock price? It rose during that period of time, during that secret period of time, to over $17 by the end of the day on February 24.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question.

Mr Flaherty: Then disclosure happened that night, on February 24, and the investors lost 20% overnight. These are the outside investors. Do

you agree now, Premier --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to ask that members stop when I ask them to, or I will not allow the answer. You continue to make speeches.

I don't know whom you asked the question to, because you went on with this.

Mr Flaherty: The Premier.

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

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The reason I'm responding, of course, and I think it's very important that the

public understand this, is that the Premier assigned responsibility to me for all the legislation affecting securities regulation in Ontario. Naturally, the Toronto Stock Exchange would fall under

that.

I will simply repeat what the Integrity Commissioner said, having examined this matter thoroughly. He said that the Minister of Finance acted perfectly

properly. It would have been totally inappropriate for the Minister of Finance to make a disclosure that he was aware of an investigation until either the securities commission or the company

itself made that public. So the Integrity Commissioner has said the Minister of Finance acted entirely properly. In fact, he followed exactly the right procedure. Secondly, the Premier has assigned

to me, as I think the public would expect and frankly I think the opposition would, responsibility for all legislation affecting securities regulation in the province of Ontario, including the

Toronto Stock Exchange.

Mr Flaherty: The Chair of Management Board clearly has his facts wrong. He doesn't realize that there was a separate order in council done a

week or so later, after the OIC and after the letter to the Integrity Commissioner. This is the hidden OIC. This is the realization, Premier, that you and the Lieutenant Governor in Council had on

March 4, after the Globe and Mail in the Report on Business published news about the stock trading transactions and the responsibility for the TSE. After that you went, "Oops, we'd better take away

this and take away that."

I say to you, Premier, if you decided on March 4 that it was inappropriate for the Minister of Finance to be regulating the TSE, it was inappropriate on

December 22. It was a failure to protect investors in the province of Ontario for a period of time of more than 60 days.

Premier, are you going to apply the Gagliano standard here, or are you going to raise the standard of parliamentary democracy and ministerial

responsibility?

Hon Mr Phillips: I say to the public of Ontario, firstly, the Integrity Commissioner examined this matter in considerable detail and said the

minister acted properly. I would also say, and I'm somewhat surprised that the official opposition doesn't realize, that the appropriate thing to do is exactly what the Premier did. He assigned to

me the responsibility for administrating all of the securities regulations and legislation in the province of Ontario. It would have been absurd, frankly, to say, "Minister Phillips, you have

responsibility for the securities commission but not for the rest of the securities legislation."

The Premier acted entirely properly and, as I say, the Integrity Commissioner has said the Minister of Finance acted properly. The Premier did exactly the

right thing in assigning responsibility for all securities legislation to myself.

TUITION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Students in Ottawa are telling me

that they are worried about the affordability of their post-secondary education. I particularly heard from students in law and in medicine who have been saddled with tuition fees that have

spiralled out of control thanks to the former government's policy on releasing and deregulating these particular programs and, of course, the underfunding generally speaking.

According to Stats Canada, post-secondary tuition fees have increased by over 131%. That's the largest increase in all of Canada. So, Minister, I want to ask

you, can you confirm today whether the freeze that the McGuinty government announced in fact is truly coming to pass for college and university students, and would this freeze include deregulated

programs like law and medicine?

Hon Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I want to thank my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre for

that question. I have actually been dying to tell the House that we are unwavering. That commitment was made in November in the throne speech, and I am happy to say that the Premier and my

colleagues have been entirely behind adhering to that commitment. I am happy to tell the member and the people of Ottawa Centre, and in fact all of the people of Ontario, who I know are very

interested in this particular item, that we are committed to the freeze of tuition fees at the regulated and deregulated level.

Mr Patten: Thank you for confirming that. I know that many students throughout the province -- not just in Ottawa, where I speak to students

from the two universities that I have in my riding. But I'm sure you know that it's not only students, it's also the institutions knowing that if we have a freeze, they will in fact need some

compensation so that they will not be hampered and will not be continuing with the underfunding that they have received from the previous government. So I ask you, will our government be providing

our colleges and universities with compensation for this freeze?

Hon Mrs Chambers: I'm happy to respond to my colleague from Ottawa Centre. I'm also happy to say that, yes, there is good news on the way. We

governments followed. We will not undermine post-secondary education. Everyone has told us that quality requires compensation for the freeze. There is good news on the way. I am looking forward to

making that announcement in detail very shortly.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Premier. It relates to his Minister of Finance. I wonder if the Premier fully understands

what the role is of the chair of the audit committee of a public company. If he does, we have to wonder why he ever appointed Greg Sorbara as Minister of Finance for this province.

I refer to an October 24 report in the National Post. It speaks very clearly to the fact that Royal Group "admitted that it was in compliance with only about

half of the Toronto Stock Exchange's guidelines for corporate governance." That same

article makes reference to the fact that your Minister of Finance was chair of the audit committee, who

ultimately had responsibility for ensuring compliance with these kinds of regulations.

Can the Premier tell me today, tell the House today, how he can continue to have confidence in Mr Sorbara as the Minister of Finance when he did the kind of

job that he's reported to have done at Royal Group, who were offside with more than half of the governance regulations for the Toronto Stock Exchange? Is that the reason that he stripped him of

those responsibilities?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Let me just say that I completely reject the innuendo and scurrilous

allegations found within the confines of that question. If the member opposite has self-deputized himself as an adjunct member of the RCMP, then perhaps he should inform the House.

But as far as I am concerned, as far as the Integrity Commissioner is concerned -- well, why don't I quote again from the letter. He says specifically, "I see

no violation of the Members' Integrity Act ... rising out of the judgment call that you made on this issue.... I do not think that you were in a position of conflict."

Again, we believe the matter has been addressed.

Mr Klees: From the very beginning, we were not suggesting that Mr Sorbara is offside with the Integrity Act, and that is precisely why the

Premier continues to return to that famous letter. We're talking about parliamentary convention. We're talking about standards of ethics for ministers of the crown. That's what we are talking about

here.

That same National Post

article makes reference to the fact that Royal Group "spiralled out of control" as to compensation for its executives. "And as audit

committee chairman, it's a mess Mr Sorbara is, in part, responsible for." This is the same individual who is in the process of drafting a budget for the province of Ontario. Is he going to do the

same for Ontario as he did for Royal Group?

I would ask you, based on the kind of history that your Minister of Finance has as the chair of the audit committee of a corporation that is now under criminal

investigation, do you have that same confidence that this man will bring in a credible budget for the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Yes, I do.

PROPERTY TAXATION /

IMPÔTS FONCIERS

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Ma question s'adresse au ministre des Finances. Minister, many constituents of mine have

been contacting my office regarding the reclassification of their property assessment. More specifically, maple syrup producers were told that new rules would permit MPAC to reclassify small maple

syrup producers from agricultural to industrial. This change would likely put family-operated maple syrup producers out of business, thus weakening an important part of a Canadian heritage, our

ever-so-popular maple syrup.

On behalf of rural Ontarians -- more specifically, the good constituents of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell -- can you please tell the House what is being done for

maple syrup producers in Ontario who still fear the possible reclassification.

L'hon. Greg Sorbara (ministre des Finances): Je suis très content de répondre aux demandes de mon collègue de

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

I should say first of all that I want to publicly thank my parliamentary assistant, Mike Colle, who accepted our colleague's invitation to come to the riding

and hear very specifically the concerns of those who own and produce that wonderful spring syrup called maple syrup.

On March 10, we made an announcement that took some immediate steps in response to what we felt was the inappropriate classification and assessment of maple

syrup bushes. We have suspended any further classification. We've invited those who have already been reclassified to make an appeal of those classifications. We are bringing the parties together

to develop new criteria to make sure that in future the classification and the assessment are appropriate.

Mr Lalonde: Thank you, Minister, for reassuring maple syrup producers, and a special thanks to your PA, Mike Colle, for taking the time to

listen to my constituents. It is clear to me that the McGuinty government is listening by working with Ontarians.

Minister, trailer park owners are also concerned that they are assessed for each individual camper and trailer in their park on a yearly basis even though some

of these trailer parks are open only five to six months a year.

Ceci étant dit, serait-il possible que le ministre des Finances étudie la possibilité que les --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I'm having difficulty hearing for the shouting matches that are going across here and I'd like to hear

the member. May he proceed, then, and I ask for co-operation on both sides.

M. Lalonde: Merci, monsieur le Président. Je vais répéter ma question.

Ceci étant dit, serait-il possible que le ministre des Finances étudie la possibilité que les évaluations foncières futures

reflètent la réalité que certains terrains de camping ne sont pas ouverts à l'année longue?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I would love to be able to blame all the problems I inherited as Minister of Finance on the previous administration, and in

this case I can, because they allowed the retroactive assessment and taxation of trailer parks over the past --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I don't think they want to hear this, sir.

Over their cacophony, let's summarize what we did. We have suspended the assessments. We have said that the assessments will apply for the first time in this

taxation year, and we are taking steps to make sure that those assessments are fair, that they're done in a timely fashion and that they're done in advance so that the owners of these lands can

pass on appropriate costs to the users of the trailers who place their trailers on these lands. I think that's progress.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Premier. Before the election, you crowned yourself as the education Premier. You

said that kids couldn't wait for safer schools, more textbooks or help in the classroom, and parents agreed.

People for Education recently announced that unless you keep your promise and put more money into education right away, we will see a bigger crisis under the

Liberals than we saw under the Conservatives. The Toronto Parent Network says that students are starting this school year with less. Premier, will you put $1.5 billion in education now, or will you

break your promise to parents and children of this province?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the member for his question. It's with a great deal of

pride that I can remind him not only of the fabulous work being done by the Minister of Education but of some of the initiatives we have already taken. We have cancelled the private school tax

credit -- which, by the way, this member and his party voted against. In addition, we've invested $112 million in literacy and numeracy programs for those children who are most at risk. We restored

local democracy in Toronto, Ottawa and Hamilton. There is a lengthy list. I look forward to a supplementary from the member.

Mr Marchese: You said you were the education prince. You said you would match Rozanski and do better. Above and beyond, you guys said, "We

need $1.5 billion to match Rozanski." But last week in the finance committee Liberals MPPs voted down $1 billion for education. Now you will have us believe that $112 million will solve

the problem. Look, $1.5 billion is what parents are asking for; $1.5 billion is what schools need. Kids can't wait. When you were in opposition you and your minister used to say that kids couldn't

wait for the extra money. Are you now saying they can?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I appreciate the elevation to some kind of royalty. Let me provide the member opposite every possible assurance that over the

ensuing four years our children in their public schools will find themselves in a significantly better position, whether we're talking about test scores, class size or the morale of those people

who earn their living day in and day out teaching inside our schools. At the end of the day, the people of Ontario will be blessed with a public education system which inspires the confidence not

only of parents but the teachers who earn their living there every day.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): My question is to the Premier. What process have you put in place to immediately be informed should your finance

minister, his actions or his decisions as a member of the board or chair of the audit committee of the Royal Group come under investigation by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the RCMP or the

Ontario Securities Commission?

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): We want a hydro question.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Ask about hydro.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can understand why the members opposite are reluctant to ask about

hydro, for example.

I will assure him again that I have taken a good deal of time to look at this matter. I believe that I have acted responsibly, as did the Minister of Finance,

and that has been confirmed by the Integrity Commissioner.

Mr Hudak: Premier, let's be frank. Other than your morning newspaper clipping service, you've made no effort whatsoever to stay on top of the

developing scandal or new revelations concerning your finance minister or the criminal investigations into the Royal Group. Your finance minister himself had a self-imposed, self-determined

blackout period on telling you what was up. If it wasn't for the morning newspapers, you never would have known. Your approach to maintaining the integrity of the position of finance minister in

your cabinet is to firmly shut your eyes and cover your ears.

It's time to show leadership, to open your eyes. I ask you to put a process in place today and sign a letter to the Integrity Commissioner, Justice Coulter

Osborne, that the moment the finance minister, his actions or decisions as a member of that company come under investigation by any of the three agencies, you would know immediately and the

Legislative Assembly would know immediately. We need to maintain the integrity of the position of finance minister in this House. Will you sign the letter, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The member is critical of the Minister of Finance for failing to disclose that he had been made aware of the OSC

investigation. I want to remind the member of the specific treatment of that particular issue by the Integrity Commissioner. He said: "Put bluntly, it would have been manifestly wrong for you to

involve yourself or your ministry in any aspect of the OSC's investigation of Royal, or in any OSC investigation. In particular it would have been wrong for you to have taken it upon yourself to

disclose, or to cause the disclosure of the OSC/Royal investigation." The minister did the right thing in the circumstances. I believe that is what he did, as did the Integrity Commissioner.

IMMUNIZATION

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): I rise to ask a question of the Honopurable George Smitherman, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Immunization is widely considered to be a cost-effective health intervention for improving health, reducing suffering and preventing premature deaths -- something I can speak to personally, having

vaccinated thousands of children over the past decade and a half.

Several months ago, the Provincial Auditor expressed concern about immunization levels in Ontario, noting that some 15% of children in this province had not

received all required immunizations by the age of seven. I know our government is taking a more proactive and preventive approach to health care than previous governments and that we are also being

more co-operative. What are we doing to ensure that our children are protected from preventable diseases?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): This government has identified the challenge of making Ontarians the healthiest

Canadians. To do that, we need to invest more of our resources in community-based services and in preventive measures like immunization.

It's right to say that the Provincial Auditor has commented on Ontario's immunization and suggested there is more we can do. This party and this government

agree. We made immunization a centrepiece of our campaign platform, and I'm pleased to say to the honourable member that as a result of recent funding announcements from the federal government, I

feel a good deal of assurance that we're going to be able to move forward quickly to offer our kids the necessary protection that immunization offers.

Mr Qaadri: A supplementary question to the Minister of Health: What specific illnesses can children across the province expect to be immunized

against in our new immunization program?

Hon Mr Smitherman: The immunizations we've committed to and intend to offer in addition to those that already exist are two: for forms of

meningitis and for chicken pox. To put this in layperson's terms, someone told me that the efficiencies of these vaccines will have an impact for our kids similar to the introduction of mandatory

child seats. I think that makes the point rather well. This is an appropriate protection that we should offer to all the children in our society, and therefore we will.

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Premier. During the election campaign, and subsequently in the throne

speech as well, you talked about a democratic deficit. You made certain commitments in your election platform that you were going to encourage greater participation on the part of backbenchers in

the decisions and business of the Assembly. I have to say that the early signals are not very positive.

Last week at the government agencies committee, a unanimous consent motion was made to call the new vice-chair of the Ontario Securities Commission before the

committee for review. That was turned down by the government members of the committee. You've appointed a government member as chair of that committee.

The member for Toronto-Danforth has a resolution coming before general government this week, calling on the Minister of Finance to appear before that committee

and explain his activities and the actions surrounding the Royal Group Technologies issue.

Premier, I'm asking what the position of your government members will be in terms of approaching that issue. Will you allow the committee to review that

matter?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the member is not suggesting that I should somehow interfere in

this process.

What I can say with respect to democratic renewal is that we have a minister who has been working very hard to inspire greater confidence in the people of

Ontario. We have, in fact, established a Democratic Renewal Secretariat, which is positively revolutionary. We have already introduced legislation that is going to require cabinet ministers to

attend at least two thirds of question periods in this House. Beyond that, we have broadened the powers of the Provincial Auditor, who was constrained under the auspices of the previous government.

We have done much with respect to democratic renewal, and we look forward to doing so much more.

Mr Runciman: Our party attempted during the fall session to try to work with the government House leader with respect to a programming motion

to make this place work better. We respected the position taken by the government in terms of trying to improve the matters around this House.

When I posed this question over a week ago, we were all also concerned by the government House leader's reaction, which was quite comparable to the Premier's:

not committing to the review, even though the Minister of Finance has said he was willing to appear. It seems like a lot of rhetoric. The chief whip for the government, Mr Levac, has been quoted as

being taken to the woodshed for his comments to a local paper criticizing the Ontario gaming commission. He said he forgot he was now a member of the government and he should have checked with his

minister first before commenting.

This is not new business; this is business as usual. We're looking for a change, an improvement in terms of the role of backbenchers and the processes around

this place. Is the Premier going to be true to his word and meet his commitment with respect to the people of Ontario, enabling members to have a greater role in the business of this place?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Let me take the opportunity to say how proud I am of every single member of our caucus and how I impose on them a heavy

responsibility to represent the views of their constituents. At the end of the day, with respect to the Minister of Finance and as to whether or not any particular committee is going to address any

particular issue, that is up to the members who sit on that committee.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Most recently, Ontario's rural municipal

leaders met in Toronto at the fifth annual combined Rural Ontario Municipal Association and Ontario Good Roads Association conference, a conference designed to bring together over 1,200 municipally

elected officials and staff to discuss common issues.

At this conference, it struck me that many municipalities, including the municipality of North Dundas, which is in my riding, had concerns about the cost of

water testing. In North Dundas, for example, this community now spends $1.2 million yearly to meet the new provincial requirements, with two thirds of the remedial costs being funded by the federal

and provincial governments. This means that the municipality's share exceeds half a million dollars in a community of just 12,000 citizens.

Our government is committed to providing Ontarians with safe, reliable drinking water and upholding the recommendations of the O'Connor report. However, in

doing so, many smaller municipalities are struggling with financial and social implications, as outlined in the recommendations the representatives from North Dundas provided to you, Minister, at

the ROMA-OGRA conference. Minister, what will our government do in order to aid these smaller municipalities in ensuring they have safe, reliable drinking water?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): The member from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh has asked a very important question. At

the ROMA conference, I had the opportunity to meet with over 40 municipalities that came to me on a variety of environmental issues. Most definitely, many of them are concerned about their ability

as municipalities to provide safe drinking water in some of their community facilities. I was able at that time to restate this government's commitment to safe drinking water in Ontario and that we

will be implementing all of the Walkerton inquiry recommendations.

Mr Brownell: Minister, I need not remind you how important it is that we heed the concerns of the smaller rural townships of Ontario in terms

of financial and social burdens the new water testing legislation may impose.

I am happy to hear that our government is committed to providing all Ontarians with safe, reliable drinking water and that we will work with Ontario

municipalities to ensure they may deliver it to their residents. The township of North Dundas thanks the minister for taking these recommendations under consideration and look forward to the

ministry's response. Minister, as you take these recommendations under consideration, can you please update the House as to the progress of implementing the recommendations from Justice O'Connor's

report?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: I want to perhaps finish the first thought, that this government is also committed, as are municipalities. Our goal is to

ensure that water out of all of the taps in Ontario is safe. They provided to us some of the areas where they are having a challenge in accomplishing this. My ministry is committed to reviewing the

issues they have brought to our attention and hopefully working with them so that we can arrive at a solution that will enable them to do exactly what they want and what this government wants.

Our commitment to implement all of the Walkerton recommendations is firm and steadfast. I am happy to report that at the present time 35 recommendations have

been implemented; another 49 are being implemented through legislation such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Nutrient Management Act and the Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act; and,

finally, our source protection initiative that is underway -- the implementation committee, the technical experts committee, as well as the white paper that is out there where Ontarians are

providing us with their input on how we can best protect water sources in Ontario -- will enable us to meet another 37 recommendations from the Walkerton report.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Premier and it's about the promise of democracy that you made to the people of the

city of Kawartha Lakes. You will see in the gallery today that many of them are here to hear your answer.

Before the election, you told them that you support local democracy. You promised them that if they voted in a referendum to de-amalgamate, you would honour

that referendum. You said, "We believe that the best solutions are local solutions and that local residents should have the right to decide on the future of their municipality." Well, Mr Premier,

on November 10, the people voted on that future. They voted against their amalgamated city and in favour of returning to their pre-existing local government. But you, sir, have changed your mind.

You have said no to de-amalgamation, but more importantly and more tragically, you have said no to democracy. Tell the people of Victoria county here today and those watching on television, why

have you broken your promise to them?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Municipal Affairs has much to say on this.

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I thank the member for his question and I

also welcome the people of Kawartha Lakes who are here today. As I indicated to the council, both when I met with them here in Toronto and later, when I went to Kawartha Lakes on February 18, our

primary responsibility is to make sure that our municipalities in Ontario are financially sustainable. I will quote from a letter I gave to the council and an open letter that I wrote to the

citizens as well: "It is my responsibility to help ensure that all of Ontario's municipalities are viable, financially sustainable and capable of delivering the services the public deserves. I have

reason to believe that a number of the former 16 lower-tier municipalities would experience significant financial challenges, given the present-day roles and responsibilities." I made it quite

clear to the council that we are always willing to look at new and innovative methods of delivering services to the people of this province.

Mr Prue: Minister, the people of Ontario expect their government to respect democracy, first and foremost, even when you might not like the

result and even when you think it might cost more money. Before the election you said, "Local residents should have the right to decide on the future of their municipality." In your platform, on

which you were elected, you said, "We will put an end to dictated municipal amalgamations," and that the only amalgamations you would support would be those approved by a binding local referendum.

You also said, "Democracy is rarely convenient and tidy," and that "at its heart, it means that people must have a say in how they are governed and on the future of their communities." Now you've

turned your back on these lofty words and you have broken your promise with respect to the will of the people of Kawartha Lakes.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question.

Mr Prue: I ask you again not about whether this is saving money, but why you have broken your promise. Why have you broken the democratic will

of the people of that city?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: Let me repeat once again for the member and for the people of Kawartha Lakes: As I stated in my letter quite categorically,

I remain open to considering a proposal from the duly elected council of Kawartha Lakes -- who are just as democratically elected as the referendum that you spoke to -- that would meet the

reasonable criteria of property tax fairness to all residents and assure fiscal sustainability of all resulting communities.

We are always willing to look at new ways of delivering services to the people of this province so that they can get both the provincial government and the

locally elected governments they deserve and demand.

The Speaker: New question.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I'm going to resist jumping into that fray on amalgamation.

I want to come back to a very serious issue where the people of Ontario and their elected representatives are entitled to a specific answer from the Premier.

Premier, I have two OICs bearing your signature, dated February 26 and March 4. I asked you earlier in question period if you felt that removing Minister Sorbara from his responsibilities at the

OSC was sufficient. You stood in your place and smugly said it was. I want to know why you took another week to remove the Minister of Finance from another central agency in this scandal. Would you

stand and specifically address that question?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): This is all part and parcel of the same package, I say again. The

Minister of Finance has assumed his responsibilities in a most capable manner. We're very much looking forward to the presentation of his first budget. I can assure you, the member opposite, and

the people of Ontario that he will continue to act in a responsible manner as a person of the utmost integrity.

Mr Baird: Premier, you've got the big job. You have the corner office. You have the car and driver. One of the responsibilities that comes

with the job is that you come into this place and answer questions to the people of the province of Ontario. What we are seeing is the end of responsible government in the province, where you don't

feel a responsibility to answer or to account for any action on the ethical lapses in your government.

Premier, I want to come back to the question that my colleague from Erie-Lincoln asked you. You won't know specifically if your Minister of Finance is under

criminal investigation. You won't know if his actions are being reviewed by OSC and Revenue Canada today. So I want to ask you a specific question -- and I'd like a page, if I could. Will you sign

a letter to the Integrity Commissioner, Justice Coulter Osborne, asking him to contact these three agencies and to inform you and this assembly if in fact the scope of their investigations has

changed? Will you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Thank you very much. I appreciate the offer but, no, I will not sign this letter. The matter has been addressed, both by

myself and by the Integrity Commissioner. As far as I'm concerned, the matter has been dealt with.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. The previous government replaced many civil service

functions with outside consultants and in many cases those consultants were expensive and of questionable value to the taxpayers of Ontario. Mr Minister, I'd like to know, in light of the previous

government's exhaustive spending on outside consultants -- which for the most part provided no benefit to the taxpayers of Ontario -- what you are doing to reduce the amount spent on outside

consultants by this government.

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The public should be aware that over a four-year period the previous government

took outside consulting spending from $250 million a year to $660 million a year, a 250% increase. We've tightened the rules on consulting contracts and we've tightened the way these things are

priced. Obviously we look in every case to see if our own public service can do this job. We've moved in three significant areas to try and reduce that $660 million dramatically so the taxpayers

will see value for their money.

Ms Wynne: This is a particular area of irritation among my constituents. I'm just wondering if the minister can provide us with some specific

examples and details of how he is moving toward eliminating this wasteful cost.

Hon Mr Phillips: Again, I remind the public that the $660 million of outside spending on consultants was up 250% over a four-year period.

Among the things we did: We insist now on contracts having a fixed price rather than these open-ended per diems. We simply will not allow this running on of open-ended per diems. There has to be a

start and a finish to consulting projects.

We insist on a request for proposal; that Ontario taxpayers get the best possible per diems, what's called the favoured client price.

We also obviously look at, "Does it make sense for this to be done outside?" We've looked now at three specific examples where consulting work was done outside

where it could be done within the public service dramatically cheaper -- 30% to 40% cheaper -- and we've moved on those three specific projects. As soon as we took office, we began looking at how

we can dramatically reduce that $660 million, and we will.

PETITIONS

LANDFILL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the county of Simcoe proposes to construct a landfill at site 41 in the township of Tiny; and

"Whereas the county of Simcoe has received, over a period of time, the necessary approvals from the Ministry of the Environment to design and construct a

landfill at site 41; and

"Whereas, as part of the landfill planning process, peer reviews of site 41 identified over 200 recommendations for improvements to design, most of which are

related to potential groundwater contamination; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has on numerous occasions stated her passion for clean and safe water and the need for water source protection;

and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has indicated her intention to introduce legislation on source water protection, which is a final and key

recommendation to be implemented by Justice Dennis O'Connor's report on the Walkerton inquiry; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has announced expert panels that will make recommendations to the minister on water source protection legislation;

and

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment will now be responsible for policing nutrient management; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario will be expecting a standing committee of the Legislature to hold province-wide public hearings on water source protection

legislation;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment to immediately place a moratorium on the development of site 41

until the water source protection legislation is implemented in Ontario. We believe the legislation will definitely affect the design of site 41 and the nearby water sources."

I'll sign my name too.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada,

raise their families, educate their children and pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and

managerial talent from practising the professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their county of origin; and

"Whereas Ontario, its businesses, its people and its institutions badly need the professional, managerial and technical skills that many newcomers to Canada

have and want to use;

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

"That the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and the other institutions and agencies of and within the

government of Ontario, undertake specific and proactive measures to work with the bodies regulating access to Ontario's professions, trades and other occupations in order that newcomers to Canada

gain fair, timely and cost-effective access to certification and other measures that facilitate the entry or re-entry of skilled workers and professionals trained outside Canada into the Canadian

workforce."

I affix my signature with those of the others.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

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

"Whereas Ontario's seniors have worked long and hard to build the outstanding quality of life achieved in our province; and

"Whereas seniors' drug benefits enable older persons to live healthier lives and avoid more extensive care in hospitals and nursing homes; and

"Whereas, in addition to their taxes, many seniors already contribute toward their prescription drugs through deductibles and dispensing fees; and

"Whereas many seniors on fixed pensions already face higher costs through property taxes" and now their electricity bills;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not eliminate or reduce the provincial drug benefits provided to seniors."

I'm pleased to sign and support this on behalf of my constituents of Durham.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Michael Prue, the New Democratic Party member from Beaches-East York, has asked me to present this petition.

I do so with great pleasure. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas in the interest of true democracy the Minister of Municipal Affairs put the following question to the voters of the city of Kawartha Lakes: `Are you

in favour of a return to the previous municipal model of government with an upper-tier and 16 lower-tier municipalities?'; and

"Whereas the voters, by a clear majority on a provincially mandated ballot, answered in the affirmative;

"The undersigned demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario act to respect the will of the people as expressed in a democratic vote, and restore the

former municipal structure as stated in the minister's question."

That is signed by thousands of persons. I have signed it as well. What riding are you from, Mark?

Interjection: Brampton Centre.

Mr Kormos: Mark from Brampton Centre is going to deliver this to the clerks' table. Thank you kindly.

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

AND HYDRO ONE

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition to present to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I have signed it as well

and agree with it. It reads as follows:

"Whereas lucrative contracts totalling $5.6 million were awarded for various jobs at Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation by the previous Conservative

government;

"Whereas these contracts were awarded not based on the principles of merit but on the practice of patronage;

"Whereas the amount of money paid out in these contracts to these friends of the Conservative Party was excessive and explains why Hydro One and Ontario Power

Generation are in such poor fiscal shape;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to order a public inquiry into how these contracts were awarded and what measures can be taken to

ensure such abuse of the public purse doesn't reoccur."

Michael from --

Interjection: York South-Weston.

Mr Berardinetti: -- York South-Weston will deliver the petition.

AUTISM SERVICES

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am pleased to rise today and present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It

reads as follows:

"Whereas our new Premier, Dalton McGuinty, and his Liberal government made a campaign commitment to expand funding for valued therapy for autistic children;

and

"Whereas the families of autistic children continue to call upon the province to extend funding to children six years and older who will benefit from intensive

behavioural intervention (IBI) funding; and

"Whereas the new Premier has admitted, `We simply don't have enough people right now with the skills to help those children under six, let alone those over the

age of six'; and

"Whereas the Liberal Premier, Dalton McGuinty, described the current cut-off age as unfair and discriminatory;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to force the government to live up to its promise and extend funding to children six and

older who will benefit from intensive behavioural intervention (IBI) treatment."

I've got over 800 signatures here. I affix my signature.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): A petition to the Ontario government:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario and Canada, draw the attention of this House to the following:

"Whereas the Canadian beef cattle, dairy, goat and sheep industries are in a state of crisis due to the BSE problem;

"Whereas the aid package to the industry is inadequate as it does not deal with the extremely low prices nor the imminent collapse of key sectors of the rural

economic community;

"We, the undersigned citizens of Canada and Ontario, urge the federal government to work with the province and their counterpart, the United States of America,

to reopen the border to Canadian cattle now and to develop a long-term solution -- an economic relief package -- that is fair and recognizes the essential nature of these industries to Canada and

Ontario.

"Furthermore, we urge the provincial agriculture minister to call on the federal government to work with the provinces to enable this crisis to come to a

timely conclusion."

I will put my name on this one. Victor, you are from?

Interjection: Scarborough-Rouge River.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals by no means campaigned on raising the rates associated with the Ontario drug benefit program; and

"Whereas the majority of seniors, many of which live on a fixed income, cannot meet the expense of higher costs for essential medication; and

"Whereas seniors in Simcoe-Grey and across Ontario should never have to make the choice between eating and filling a prescription;

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

"To cancel any plans to raise costs for prescription drugs for our seniors and to embark on making vital medication more affordable for Ontarians."

It's signed by several hundred people in my riding of Simcoe-Grey, and I too have affixed my signature.

HOG INDUSTRY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I have a petition from concerned citizens of the village of Curran.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, as citizens of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, are opposing the industrial hog factories planned for the area within the Nation municipality, of Pendleton,

Ste-Rose-de-Prescott and St Albert.

"Whereas similar hog factories are not permitted in Quebec;

"Whereas farms are an essential component of our rural communities and must be protected; ...

"Whereas Ontario is still addressing environmental laws and health issues associated with industrial hog factories and the spraying of pig manure;

"Whereas the South Nation River water pollution concerns are not yet resolved;

"Whereas an environmental assessment of aquifers and groundwater has not been done; ...

"Whereas waste/sewage from pigs potentially endanger the water supply and soil;

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

"To ensure the safety of the citizens of Glengarry and united counties of Prescott-Russell will be protected against the known dangers associated with

industrial hog factories....

"We also ask that no further industrial hog factories be allowed in our area before environmental health studies are completed.

"We ask that hog factories be designated as industries and not as agricultural."

I gladly sign this petition.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition from my constituents in Parry Sound-Muskoka.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the community of Yearley, Ontario, within the electoral district of Parry Sound-Muskoka experiences frequent and prolonged power outages; and

"Whereas the power outages have become a health and safety issue to the residents of the community and the students who visit the outdoor education centre;

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

"That the Minister of Energy instruct Hydro One to conduct an investigation of the distribution and feeder lines that serve Yearley and take the necessary

steps to ensure reliable energy through ongoing forestry maintenance and required line improvements."

I agree with this, and I attach my signature.

LANDFILL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): "Whereas the county of Simcoe proposes to construct a landfill at site 41 in the township of Tiny; and

"Whereas the county of Simcoe has received, over a period of time, the necessary approvals from the Ministry of the Environment to design and construct a

landfill at site 41; and

"Whereas as part of the landfill planning process, peer reviews of site 41 identified over 200 recommendations for improvements to the design, most of which

are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has on numerous occasions stated her passion for clean and safe water and the need for water source protection;

and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has indicated her intention to introduce legislation on water source protection, which is a final and key

recommendation to be implemented under Justice Dennis O'Connor's report on the Walkerton inquiry; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has announced expert panels that will make recommendations to the minister on water source protection legislation;

and

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment will now be responsible for policing nutrient management; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario will be expecting a standing committee of the Legislature to hold province-wide public hearings on water source protection

legislation;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment to immediately place a moratorium on the development of Site 41

until the water source protection legislation is implemented in Ontario. We believe the legislation will definitely affect the design of Site 41 and the nearby water sources."

I'll sign my name to that too.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario and Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

"Whereas the Canadian beef cattle, dairy, goat and sheep industries are in a state of crisis due to the BSE problem;

"Whereas the aid package to the industry is inadequate as it does not deal with the extremely low prices nor the imminent collapse of key sectors of the rural

economic community;

"We, the undersigned citizens of Canada and Ontario, urge the federal government to work with their counterparts in the United States of America to reopen the

border to Canadian cattle now and develop a long-term solution and an economic relief package that is fair and recognizes the essential nature of these industries to Canada and Ontario.

"Furthermore, we urge the provincial agriculture minister to call on the federal government to work with the provinces to enable this crisis to come to a

timely conclusion."

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition to present to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as

follows:

"Whereas the Liberal government has said in their election platform that they were committed to improving the Ontario drug benefit program for seniors and are

now considering delisting drugs and imposing user fees on seniors;

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

"To halt the consideration of imposing an income test, delisting drugs for coverage under the Ontario drug benefit plan or putting in place user fees for

seniors, and to maintain the present Ontario drug benefit plan for seniors to cover medication."

I support this and I affix my signature.

LIABILITY INSURANCE

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have another petition from constituents of Parry Sound-Muskoka. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas liability insurance is a necessary coverage;

"Whereas the rising cost of liability insurance is of great concern;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to review liability insurance rates and take steps to ensure reasonable rates, now and in the

future."

I support this and attach my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY /

CRÉDITS PROVISOIRES

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I move that the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other

necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing April 1, 2004, and ending June 30, 2004, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation for the 2004-05 fiscal

year following the voting of supply.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Mr Sorbara has moved government notice of motion 16. Mr Sorbara?

Hon Mr Sorbara: It's my pleasure to begin the debate on interim supply this afternoon. As you know --

Applause.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I hear the sound of just two hands clapping, but that's enough.

I note that my parliamentary assistant will be speaking on this motion as well. Just to set the interim supply motion in some context, sir: As you know, all of

the money that we raise through our various taxation mechanisms, and, more important, the way in which we spend those funds is done by the authority of this Parliament. The motion on interim supply

is one of the mechanisms under which this Parliament votes the appropriation, payment of funds through the consolidated revenue fund to all of the various agencies and individuals that look to us

for support. That's what's called interim supply.

This interim supply motion is dealing with the period from the beginning of the new fiscal year on the first day of April until the end of June -- a

three-month period. You might ask, "Why are we dealing with a three-month period?" The answer is really quite simple: because during that period, sometime in the middle of May, later on in the

springtime, I will have the honour of presenting our government's first budget in this Legislature. I know the whip is looking forward to that, as am I, as is the province, as are we all. With the

budget, the budget papers are presented and the bills and the supply motions that will cover that fiscal year are presented.

I want to spend my time in this interim supply debate talking about some of the work we have done on this side of the House and in government in preparation

for that budget. Specifically, I want to talk about the opportunity I had over the course of the past six weeks to participate in pre-budget consultations that took me into 10 different communities

in 14 separate consultations with the people of Ontario. This is first time I've done this. It's the first time that a Liberal government has done this in 13 years.

I should say, before we set out, that I was a little bit apprehensive because of the amount of time and the commitment involved, not just on my part -- I'm

here to give my time to this kind of exercise -- but to the various people in the ministry who organized these consultations. We were in Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Ottawa, and we had a marvellous

ordinary men and women across this province gave of their time to come and engage in that process.

I have to tell you that, as I said, going in I was somewhat reluctant. It is perhaps the most important thing I've done as Minister of Finance in the several

months that I've occupied and had these responsibilities. In every single one of those consultations a new theme was identified, a new reminder about the way in which we need to be concerned, and

not just with the major issues of fiscal balance and figuring out a way to live within our means. That's very important and it was part of consultations.

For example, let me tell you about our consultations in Thunder Bay. To be reminded about the extent to which the northern part of this province has been

excluded from the economic growth that inspired the southern part of the province really does focus one's attention; to hear individual after individual stand up during the three hours that we were

together to say that somehow the north had been left out, that in northern Ontario there's no concern about property assessments going up and building new highways and roads, that the concern is,

"Our children are leaving us. The opportunities are not here" -- all of us from the ministry had an opportunity to hear that firsthand. It focuses one's attention, and one realizes that one has to

respond to those needs in presenting a budget.

We were in Stratford. It was a wonderful afternoon in what I describe as the entertainment capital of North America because of that wonderful festival. We were

reminded over and over again that the circumstances of small municipalities have been ignored over the past eight years by the demands to repave roads, repair bridges and maintain health care

services handed down to them in that great Who Does What exercise are all burdens that are quite significant. In Stratford we had the opportunity to hear from Ontario's great agricultural

communities. If you had any doubt about the special circumstances of Ontario farmers and of those who grow the food that feeds all 12 million of us, then you wouldn't have any doubt after you

participated in that pre-budget consultation.

We continued that discussion in Casselman, when my friend for Perth-Middlesex helped organize that -- I see him sitting over here and I want to thank him

publicly for making that pre-budget consultation in his riding so successful. I was with the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell in Casselman, the first time ever that this government held this

sort of ministerial pre-budget consultation in French. Perhaps for some that's not a significant event, but for me and my ministry, and for la francophonie de la province de l'Ontario, c'était

une occasion très importante.

J'étais très fier d'être le ministre qui a commencé le processus de consulter la population de l'Ontario au moins une fois en

I'll never forget the farmer who said to me, "I have framed a cheque I recently received for the sale of one of my cattle." The cheque was in the amount of 16

cents. This really focuses how severely mad cow disease has decimated an industry. I know that my colleague in Ottawa the finance minister took some initiatives to deal in part with the impact of

mad cow disease on agriculture, but more certainly needs to be done.

Of course the consultations around the greater Toronto area reminded me -- as if I needed reminding -- of the great burden of responsibility we have to start

to build a new generation of infrastructure, whether in transportation or affordable housing or water mains or sewers, all that sort of stuff, the foundations upon which the next generation of

economic growth will be based in this part of the province, which is growing so rapidly.

In Ottawa I heard one individual stand up and say, "Mr Sorbara, while you are considering all of the big issues of balancing and taxation, do not forget that

the most vulnerable in this province are looking to you and your budget for some gesture, some small reflection that you understand the plight of our province's most vulnerable and that you will be

responding."

It was a marvellous opportunity, and I can assure the people, through these remarks and during the course of this debate, that the material that was brought to

us and the time those individuals who participated gave to those consultations will be reflected. As I said at the close of almost every meeting, it is my hope that the individuals who participated

will be able to see the issues they brought to the consultation reflected when we present the budget.

But in the meantime, we need to do some work here. We need to ensure that we can pay our bills in a timely fashion. That is why we are bringing forward this

interim supply motion. It gives me great pleasure to speak to it and to express my hope that all members will support interim supply when comes to time to vote.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am very pleased to join in the debate following the Minister of Finance with respect to this

interim supply motion. It is a very important issue, obviously, in terms of the finances of the House.

I want to speak on couple of matters, because this is a debate where we can discuss a number of areas. One is that I am very pleased about a letter I received

from the Minister of Transportation just last week with respect to GO Transit. As everyone knows, GO Transit is something the city of Barrie and the town of Innisfil have been after for many years,

since it was taken away from them through budgetary measures by the NDP government in 1992. We've been diligently working to get it back into our area.

I want to read the letter from the minister with respect to this issue, because I asked him about the status of GO Transit rail service from Bradford to

Barrie. He reported, "I have met with His Worship Robert Hamilton, mayor of Barrie, and several city staff members to discuss the GO Transit extension to Barrie. I indicated to the mayor that the

government is committed to the project and that issues such as cost-sharing will need to be resolved in the near term."

I would just move away from the text. It is very good to know that the government of the day is committed to this project, because it is a very important

project.

"As you are aware, consistent with the approach for all municipalities serviced by GO Transit, there is a requirement for the municipality to contribute one

third of the costs for service expansion.

"The property appraisal for the rail corridor from Bradford to Barrie, owned by Barrie, has been completed and will be sent to Barrie shortly. This appraisal

was deemed necessary to allow for a fair and accurate evaluation of the corridor.

"One of the important next steps is to determine how Barrie wants to proceed in resolving its financial contribution. One option would be for the city to

transfer its ownership of the corridor to GO Transit."

I move away from the text again. As I understand it, GO Transit is in the process of doing an environmental assessment as we speak. Also, I know that the city

of Barrie has identified, in conjunction with GO Transit, a location for the GO Transit service.

Back to the text. He says, "Alternatively, Barrie could retain the corridor and develop an access-lease agreement with GO Transit to use it.

"MTO officials are now finalizing a Canada strategic infrastructure fund agreement with the federal government that includes funding for the GO Transit

expansion to Barrie.

"Thank you again for bringing your concerns to my attention."

I want to thank the Minister of Transportation for showing, I would say, prudence and also some leadership in dealing with this particular issue. It is an

important issue in my riding. Back in 1996, CN, in their plans to get out of the rail service, were going to be taking up the tracks, but we, as the government of the day, were able to work with

the city of Barrie and contribute $2 million toward the $3.1-million purchase price of the track and maintain those lines. It's important for the area and for transportation in general that you

have GO Transit service up to the city of Barrie because of the tremendous population growth in the area. It'll allow Highway 400 pressures to be relaxed. There are also environmental concerns.

It's just better urban planning to have GO Transit come to a community that's growing as much as the city of Barrie is and the respective communities all the way up there.

Another issue I want to deal with is the announcement by the government last week with respect to funding for autistic children. As we know, we had questions

today by the member from Sudbury with respect to the announcement. In essence, the announcement made by the government was to increase funding for the IBI program as it currently exists, treatment

for children up to the age of six. There was no commitment to funding for children six and older, notwithstanding that the Premier made a commitment during the election that there would be funding

for those children over the age of six.

That's a petition I've been presenting in the Legislature for the last couple of weeks, or since the Legislature has been open, with respect to the Premier

living up to the commitment, because he was quoted as saying on this issue, "We simply don't have enough people right now with the skills to help those children under six, let alone those over the

age of six." That was a quote from him last session during the fall, but he did make a commitment during the election last year to fund IBI for children over the age of six. Now we find, based on

the announcement made last week by the minister for children, that they're not going to live up to that commitment.

There's an

article about this today in the Barrie Examiner. The headline is, "Family Confused by Autism Plan." It says, "This is not going to help our kids

today." There's a picture of a mother, Donna Currie, playing with her autistic son Joshua, age five, "who has been waiting for treatment for two years."

This issue obviously is very important, and it's important for two reasons: first, because of the waiting list that exists for children six and under, which

has impacted young children like Joshua with respect to this issue, but also, because of the government's position that they will not fund or provide IBI treatment for children over the age of six,

it certainly leaves a lot of parents in fear about what's going to happen.

Looking at this particular news release, she states, "Next year, Joshua goes to school full-time and the plan is to take him out of class three afternoons per

week for the one-on-one therapy with the worker. Right now the education system won't accommodate the worker in school."

We don't have the Minister of Education here today, but the Minister of Education says a lot of things and doesn't follow up on any of them, as far as I know.

Last week I was talking about getting a meeting with the Prince of Wales school with respect to the statement he made about closing schools. I have yet to get a date from him with respect to a

meeting with the Minister of Education.

But here we have a situation where it looks like we've got children slipping through the cracks. We have a Minister of Children who is supposed to look after

autistic children, and we have a Minister of Education who is dealing with no support plan for autistic children at all. So they're not only falling through the cracks but it seems to be that one

ministry is not talking to another ministry. We've got waiting lists with respect to children six and under, and we don't have an education system that is set up to help these children.

The announcement last week was, "Ontario is spending an extra $120 million over the next three years to fund autism treatments and increase the number of

therapists, but the move Friday was criticized as falling short of meeting the needs of kids with the learning disability.

"Last year, the province spent about $41 million on autism, including funding special intensive behavioural intervention treatment for kids under six."

That's the situation in my home riding of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. The Toronto Star reported, "Autism Aid Cap Stays at Age 6; Liberals Double Program Funding

but Older Children Still Face Cut-off."

This is certainly not a good day with respect to parents who have children who are dealing with autism. Because the ministry has increased funding, I don't

know how that is going to address the waiting lists with respect to children of six and under who need it. From the situation we have with Joshua, we do know that he is going to be going to school.

The education system does not provide anything for that, yet the child is going to school.

Certainly this government has not addressed the issue, and they are certainly not living up to their promises. Again they're not living up to their promises

with respect to what they said with respect to autistic children over the age of six. It's too bad, not only on a human tragedy basis in terms of not caring about people who have needs which the

Liberal government has chosen not to meet, but also because certainly the mark of a society is in dealing with people who really do need care. Here we have a situation with respect to autistic

children, and the government does not address that; they decide to sabre-rattle. The Attorney General has still got his troops out there with respect to dealing with children over the age of six in

terms of a litigation issue. How it's a litigation issue -- I don't know why he would continue to deal with it that it way. But that's how they decided to deal with it.

Another issue that I find perplexing, because the Liberals aren't living up to their promise, is something in terms of their own management, how they screwed

up the MPP birth certificate. We have this update. I got my number 9 MPP birth certificate update. I can tell you, I've been a member for nine years, and I have never seen the problems with respect

to birth certificates, and we handle them right out of my own office. We did it ourselves for many years, and then they moved it over to the registry office.

Interjections.

Mr Tascona: If I'm going to be allowed to speak, because I guess everyone over on the other side is bored, I'm going to read this number 9 MPP

birth certificate update. I really appreciate this. It is talking about operational improvements and the minister's message here. He is very pleased to keep me informed about their progress. I just

wish they could solve the problem so I wouldn't have so many problems. I have people phoning me all the time; I have two staff dedicated to dealing with birth certificates. Before the kafuffle when

they took over government here, I didn't have any staff working on it, because everyone went to the registry office. Now all of a sudden the registry office says, "Go see your local MPP because the

government has made some changes with respect to this program," and I have to deal with it. The last I read, there was a birth certificate backlog of about 70,000. Now, he is not addressing

that.

What he says here is, "The March break peak travel period is now behind us and the ORG is currently processing on average 823 birth certificates per day, up

from an average of 734 per day last week." He is talking about the staff working overtime on the processing.

What we have here is a real problem. He says, "Our current call volume has increased by 60% over previous years. The ministry is currently examining ways to

improve this service. For now, we suggest people call during off-peak hours to get through to the office more quickly," and he gives the best times to contact the office.

I really appreciate this update. I guess when I get to update number 30, we'll see what's going to be happening with respect to the MPP birth certificate

update. I really appreciate that. What I'd like the minister to do is solve the problem and quit putting people out with respect to how to deal with these issues.

I don't have th