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

October 13, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Oct-13 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 13 October 2004 Mercredi 13 octobre 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GASOLINE TAX

STEEL INDUSTRY

PAT FORTUNE

WINE INDUSTRY

HINTONBURG COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

HEALTH PREMIUMS

NURSES

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT (FINES AND PENALTIES NOT DEDUCTIBLE), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS (AMENDES ET PÉNALITÉS NON DÉDUCTIBLES)

TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC

MATTERS ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE DES QUESTIONS D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

ORAL QUESTIONS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

TAXATION

HEPATITIS C

OMA AGREEMENT

HYDRO GENERATION

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

CLASS SIZE

ASSISTANCE TO DISABLED

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PETITIONS

TAXATION

OPTOMETRISTS

ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL PARKWAY

PROPERTY TAXATION

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

HEALTH CARE

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

LANDFILL

TUITION

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

SENIOR CITIZENS

EYE EXAMINATIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LIQUOR LICENCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GASOLINE TAX

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): As of this month, the provincial government is committed to turning over a portion of the provincial gas

tax to cities to finance their transit systems. Regrettably, this policy discriminates against people who live and work in rural Ontario.

We who live in rural and small-town Ontario pay the full 14.7 cents per litre of gas tax to the province, just like Ontario's urban residents do. How, then, can

the government possibly justify a tax rebate that benefits only people who live in the city? Most municipalities would not oppose using a portion of the gasoline tax to rebuild aging infrastructure

in their communities. But our rural residents know that any way you look at it, this policy is a special, exclusive deal for Ontario's cities.

Even the federal Liberal government, in promising to share a portion of the federal gas tax with municipalities, has said the money must be available to

municipalities large and small. This commitment was made by the Honourable John Godfrey in a speech to the Toronto Board of Trade on October 1. In light of the federal commitment, how is it that

the provincial Liberals can be so fixated on our cities, to the complete exclusion of rural Ontario?

In Waterloo-Wellington we have an answer: The town of Minto and the township of Wellesley have both passed resolutions on the sharing of the gas tax and they are

insisting on fair distribution based on a formula that would ensure that they receive equal treatment from this government. The municipalities in Waterloo-Wellington have outlined their

transportation priorities through their support of the Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan. There are over 40 projects in the plan, and transit is among them, but the majority of them

demonstrate the need to include rural Ontario -- its roads and bridges -- in any dedicated distribution of gas tax revenue.

Rural Ontario needs to speak up forcefully on this issue and the government needs to listen.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I rise today to call attention to a very important issue for my riding of Hamilton East and for the entire

province. It is the vital role of steelworkers and the steel industry in Ontario, past, present and future.

Last session, and especially during the by-election in Hamilton East, Premier McGuinty promised repeatedly that he would be there for Hamilton steelworkers, but

since then his Liberal government has done nothing to help them. There's no plan, there's no long-term strategy and no help for steelworker families and pensioners. Meanwhile, Stelco has just

barely avoided bankruptcy and its workers are facing uncertain futures: Will they have jobs? Will they have pensions? Will they have health benefit plans into their retirement years?

Today we find out that Stelco's bondholders, major global players like Deutsche Bank, want to buy up assets for less than they're worth. They're meeting behind

closed doors even though Stelco is a publicly traded company.

The government needs to take a serious look at where steel is going. The Premier, along with the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, needs to work in

partnership with the federal government to develop a new, comprehensive strategy for steel. We need a long-term strategy, but we also need immediate assistance and immediate government

involvement.

I call on the government today to act by immediately increasing the monthly amount guaranteed by the pension benefit guarantee fund from $1,000 to $2,500, and to

get actively involved in Stelco's current crisis. Stop hiding, stop dragging your heels, and come to the table now to save Stelco.

PAT FORTUNE

Mrs Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): As the MPP for Guelph-Wellington, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to an outstanding

Guelph-Wellington constituent who passed away last Monday. Pat Fortune was 71 years of age and just two days away from celebrating her 50th wedding anniversary when she lost her battle with

cancer.

Pat represents one of those constituents who gave you her best advice every time you met her, whether you really wanted to hear it or not. She was outspoken at

times, but always a defender of the less-advantaged in my riding. I am confident every Guelph-Wellington MPP and every MP over the course of many years knew her well, because she didn't back down

if she felt something just had to be changed.

Pat was a lifetime volunteer. For 25 years she volunteered at the Guelph Correctional Centre and was a very involved and passionate supporter of the Royal

Canadian Legion.

Pat was a school bus driver and a community leader on school bus safety issues. She continued her interest in traffic safety in retirement. Over 600 seniors have

attended the seniors' driving seminars that Pat initiated at the Evergreen Seniors Centre.

Pat was no stranger to this Legislature. During the 1950s, Pat was part of a group that picketed this Legislature to convince the government of the day to allow

residents of a Guelph housing development to purchase their own homes. Many seniors in Pat's neighbourhood are homeowners today because of Pat's efforts on their behalf.

Pat also took on Ford Canada when she felt her new car turned into a rust bucket too soon after she purchased it. Pat will --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you very much.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I rise today to express my concern about the Liberal government's lack of attention to the priorities of working

families in the Niagara Peninsula. It's been almost a year now and we've seen no movement on the mid-peninsula corridor -- in fact it has gone backward -- little help to relieve truck congestion

along the border, and not a single word of funding for the new West Lincoln Memorial Hospital.

One area I'd expect the government to move on, and it's an easy one that would help out with the greenbelt initiative, is Ontario VQA wine stores. I know, when

asked for his position on it, the Minister of Agriculture was supportive and other members were supportive, but we still have not seen it move forward as a government initiative.

I know the Minister of Consumer and Business Services has dusted off other projects that have been there from only a few months ago, taken them as his own and

moved them through the Legislature. Good for you, sir, but only one more initiative; I ask you to move this forward as well. It's good for the economy, it's good for jobs, it's good for tourism and

it's good for agriculture.

I know the minister will get all kinds of warnings about trade issues -- I've heard them before -- but in British Columbia, in November, they announced a 20%

increase in their VQA-only stores. I know states like Pennsylvania, New York and Virginia have unique stores highlighting their own locally grown wine.

It's time for the Ontario government to uncork the potential of our wine industry and open the VQA-only wine stores. If you pass it, it's also good for the

government. I don't mind sharing these ideas with you from time to time.

HINTONBURG COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I rise today to salute an amazing community builder in my riding of Ottawa Centre, the Hintonburg Community

Association. Many of us would be overwhelmed and perhaps even defeated by the torrent of drugs and prostitution in our neighbourhood, but not the residents of Hintonburg.

In recent months the Hintonburg Community Association leaders have organized walkabouts in order to pressure governments to clean up crack houses and to keep

prostitutes away from schoolyards and out of residential areas. They've also initiated Needle Hunters in Ottawa, where cleanup of drug debris from playgrounds takes place, and a community justice

forum to reconcile criminals and victims; and they've established Ottawa's first John school, whose attendees fund an educational program to help prostitutes reform their lives. If that were not

enough, they're also planning to strengthen the artistic and theatrical presence in their immediate neighbourhood. This is the Hintonburg formula for reclaiming their neighbourhood.

I say to them, your fierce persistence, community solidarity and unique spirit, forged in adversity, are turning Hintonburg around. Your energy and commitment

have made an absolute difference on Pinhey, Melrose and Wellington Streets and at Devonshire, Connaught and Saint-François-d'Assise schools. For an area that was fast becoming a sad blight,

Hintonburg is now a dynamic community that is determined to take control of its own destiny. To parents, volunteers and the feisty leaders of the Hintonburg Community Association I say bravo. You

are very special people indeed.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): What a shock it has been for members of our armed forces, of whom over 4,000 are stationed in my

riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, at CFB Petawawa, to find out that the McGuinty government was instituting a health tax, one which would be spent on any number of non-health-related projects,

and that the tax would be levied against them even though the province does not pay for their health care. This is yet another example of this Liberal government's insatiable addiction to taxation.

This government wants your money by any means. All Ontarians have come to realize that fact.

What a double whammy for our military and RCMP personnel to get the news that in spite of the fact that they do not receive their health care from the province,

they would still have to pay this tax. The health care of members of the military and the RCMP is the sole responsibility of the federal government. This wrong and punitive decision of the McGuinty

Liberal government, that is costing all working families in Ontario, is now forcing soldiers and police officers to pay twice.

This decision is at the very least a violation of the spirit of the Canada Health Act. Both British Columbia and Alberta, two other provinces that charge health

care premiums, specifically exempt members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP from paying these premiums. I insist that the McGuinty government reverse this decision and exempt those who put

their lives on the line for us every day from paying for a service that they do not receive.

NURSES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): On August 19, the Premier visited the Windsor Regional Hospital to mark a turning point in Ontario's health care

system. He was there to talk about nurses who were coming back to Ontario to work in their field instead of heading to the US.

Those nurses were part of a group of 14 new, full-time nurses who were hired with the funding this government has provided province-wide. The government is

investing $50 million in more full-time jobs for nurses. That means full-time jobs for new nurses and part-time nurses. Having more nurses means that the people in Windsor-Essex are getting the

care they need when they need it. It means fewer bed shortages and shorter wait times.

The same is true for cities across Ontario. More full-time nurses means that I can tell nursing students in Windsor-Essex who have come to me with their concerns

about the availability of full-time work in Ontario, and who would choose to stay, work and live in Windsor-Essex, that the opportunities exist for them.

I say, don't make any plans to head south just yet. Things are changing for nurses in Windsor and across the province. The Windsor Regional Hospital is a living,

breathing, nursing proof that there is more work for full-time nurses in Ontario thanks to the McGuinty government.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I want to take this opportunity to express my dismay with the irresponsible comments made yesterday by a

member of the NDP regarding the government's new ODA legislation. He called the legislation a PR exercise. He said it didn't offer optimism to the disabled. Clearly, he wasn't listening to any

actual members of the disabled community.

David Lepofsky, chair of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, called the new legislation very good because it "requires standards" and "provides a time

line in which it has to be done. This law requires things to get started now."

Mr Lepofsky said the legislation "includes the key ingredients that we have been working for." He said the legislation "keeps the Premier's promise" to "sit down

and work with the disabilities community, with the business community and the municipalities to develop legislation." He concluded that the Premier "promised the legislation will be brought forward

within a year [and] that's what's happened today."

Shame on the NDP for not listening to the disabled community, but instead, engaging in the politics of irresponsible opposition. I would like to point out that

when the NDP was in government, they failed to make any improvements for people with disabilities in this province. Had their government addressed this issue then, disabled people across this

In contrast to their party, in contrast to the party opposite, the McGuinty government is delivering real results. We're listening to Ontarians. The NDP should

do the same.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I am pleased to rise today to assist the member from Burlington with his revisionist history. Yesterday, our government

is a fact."

How wrong can he be? Or maybe he has just forgotten that since he has been a member for a long time, he hasn't been a minister. So let me remind the member of

what actually happened.

In opposition, my friends Steve Peters and Ernie Parsons worked long and hard to fix your legislation. We brought in over 100 amendments to try to help you fix

your bill, but you wouldn't listen and you voted all of them down. You had your chance and you failed. Now the disabled community doesn't have to wait any longer.

The member from Burlington might want to hear what the disabled community had to say about this piece of legislation and the McGuinty government's legislation.

Yours, they say, was totally unenforceable. Ours has the enforcement mechanisms built in. Most of them told us, "This bill is actually a very good bill. This bill includes the key ingredients that

we have been looking for. This bill keeps the Premier's promises."

To the member from Burlington, I would like to have had you accept those amendments in 2001 instead of voting against them. The disabled community would have

been further ahead. But today they will be, thanks to the McGuinty government.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I would ask all members to join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving in the first session of

the 38th Parliament. They are: Arif Ali from Sarnia-Lambton, Emilie Brent from Kingston and the Islands, Ashley Casey from Hamilton East, Alexander Cassels from Nepean-Carleton, Kathryn Clark from

Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Otto Cortés from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Rachele Fischer from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Justin Forster from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, Brendon Holder from

Whitby-Ajax, Taylor Lew from Don Valley West, Emma Mauti from Eglinton-Lawrence, Anmol Metley from Brampton West-Mississauga, Alyscha Mottershead from Brampton Centre, Geneva Neal from Huron-Bruce,

Norah Paton from Ottawa Centre, Anthony Praill from Chatham-Kent Essex, Inez Roelen from Elgin-Middlesex-London, Gabriella Silano from Oak Ridges, John Steadman from Halton, and Chris Thompson from

Kitchener Centre.

Will you all join me in welcoming these new pages.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated October 13,

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr O'Toole moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 121,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act / Projet de loi 121, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

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

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My constituents in the riding of Durham, our leader, John Tory, and our Speaker expect no less than decorum and

behaviour in respect for the traditions of this House. This bill goes a long way to making sure this place is a better place for all Ontarians.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT (FINES AND PENALTIES NOT DEDUCTIBLE), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS (AMENDES ET PÉNALITÉS NON DÉDUCTIBLES)

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 122,

An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act to provide that fines and penalties are not deductible / Projet de loi 122, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur

l'imposition des corporations afin de prévoir que les amendes et pénalités ne sont pas déductibles.

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The other title to this bill is the Make Polluters Pay Act. I entitled the bill this because I don't know

if you're aware, but right now, if environmental firms are fined under the Occupational Health and Safety Act all of those, they can get the fines back through a loophole in the taxes. What this

bill does is close the tax loophole.For instance, when the government recently announced higher fines for polluters, the reality is that they can get that money back through their income tax. This

bill will change that once and forever.

I would ask for unanimous consent to pass this bill right now.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Second and third reading.

Ms Churley: Yes, unanimous consent for second and third reading right now, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Ms Churley has moved for second and third reading. Is there consent? I do not hear consent.

TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC

MATTERS ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE DES QUESTIONS D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

Ms Di Cocco moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 123,

An Act to require that meetings of provincial and municipal boards, commissions and other public bodies be open to the public / Projet de loi

123, Loi exigeant que les réunions des commissions et conseils provinciaux et municipaux et d'autres organismes publics soient ouvertes au public.

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

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): The bill designates certain public bodies and requires those designated public bodies to give

reasonable notice of their meetings to the public and ensure that the meetings are open to the public. The bill establishes procedures by which a person who believes a designated public body has

contravened or is about to contravene the bill may make complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. And the bill authorizes the commissioner to make certain orders after a review,

including an order to void the decision made by a designated public body at a meeting that did not conform to the requirement of open meetings.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. Today I'd like to revisit an issue raised with you

yesterday by the member for Whitby-Ajax, and that is the Ministry of Finance's 60-page costing of the Liberal Party's election promises.

You and your Minister of Finance have followed the advice of your spin doctors and your new media guru and portrayed the document as meaningless and demeaned

the civil servants who prepared it. Premier, can you advise us why a document you believe is worthless, prepared by people your finance minister scoffingly described as mid-level bureaucrats, was

kept under lock and key for a year? Why do you fight tooth and nail to prevent disclosure of a worthless document?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): If this is the single, most pressing issue that weighs heavily on the

minds of Ontario families, then I will be delighted to address it again.

What I said, to be perfectly clear, is that, to use the words of the Deputy Minister of Finance, to tally up the figures presented in that document would be

wrong and misleading. He specifically said in addition to that, "So if somebody were to go through and just add up the columns -- that can be done -- it would be information that's actually

meaningless." That's what the Deputy Minister of Finance said. I attach a heavy weight to the advice and the opinion and the independence of our public service, but particularly the Deputy Minister

of Finance.

Mr Runciman: Clearly, there was no answer to my question in that response.

We believe this document is critically important in exposing the modus operandi of this Liberal government. They're already tarred with the brand "Fiberal,"

and their handling of this issue reinforces that description.

The Minister of Finance, while dismissing a document he fought to keep out of public view for a year, says he never saw it. He wants us to believe he prepared

his budget in total ignorance of his own ministry's costing conclusions. Nobody told him. He was kept in the dark. What he was in was deniability mode: "Tell me, but don't show me."

Premier, will you advise us who in your government, including your transition team, actually had the courage to review the document last fall?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'll tell you, when this member tells us that somehow we should have some courage over here, they should have had the

courage, they should have had the gumption, they should have had the honesty to own up to the fact that they saddled the people of Ontario with a $5.6-billion deficit. Now we have to clean up their

mess, and we will do that as diligently and responsibly as we can. But when it comes to admitting what it is we had by way of information, we'll take no lessons from this former government, which

hid the fact from the people of Ontario that they had a massive deficit.

Mr Runciman: Another refusal to answer a question. Check the calendar. You've been in office for a year.

Premier, we all know you've broken significant and solemn promises that you made to the people of Ontario. You are now mistrusted by many Ontarians. Your

reaction to this document, first to attempt a cover-up and, when that fails, to dismiss and demean its conclusions and its authors, simply re-enforces a growing view that your party was elected on

false premises. It re-enforces the view that your extravagant election promises were purposely and dramatically underestimated to hoodwink voters. It raises alarms that you prepared and presented a

budget that dramatically increased spending, knowing your promises could cost three to four times as much as you told voters. Premier, will you commit to the members of the House and to the

citizens of Ontario that your government will not exceed your campaign commitments, not a penny more? Will you do that?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The member opposite refuses to acknowledge, understand and accept that the authors of this same report have described it as

wrong and misleading and that it would be, again, meaningless to tally up the numbers found within that document.

What the Conservatives would like us to forget is that they actually promised to outspend us. Just so the record is clear, in their platform they promised to

outspend us in both health care and education. They also said they were going to cut taxes by another $5 billion. They also said they were going to find another $5 billion to pay down the debt.

They said all that notwithstanding the fact that they were hiding a $5.6-billion deficit from the people of Ontario.

I leave it to you, Speaker, and the good people of this province to draw their own conclusions with respect to who is telling the truth when it comes to the

numbers.

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

Interjections.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister of Tourism, who really wants to be the minister of other things.

But I'm glad you're here. It's good to see you.

The Speaker: And the question is?

TAXATION

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is not to the Minister of Tourism but to the Premier, and it's about your promises and the economy

of the province of Ontario, which is a serious matter. We know your $5.9-billion, fully costed 231 promises are now more like $18 billion, according to the Ministry of Finance. We know your promise

number 65 to balance the budget and keep down taxes has been broken, that number 226 to hold the line on taxes has been broken, that 227 not to raise the debt has been broken. The whopper, of

course, the pledge you signed at the Sheraton Centre in Toronto not to raise taxes, has also been broken. We have had the fact of the largest single tax increase on one day in the history of

Ontario by your government in its first year in office. We have a new so-called health tax, but we have fewer health services. So the motto now is, "Pay more, get less in Ontario."

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question?

Mr Flaherty: My question is, will you now stand in your place and assure the people of the province, heavily taxed as they are today, that

during the course of your mandate there will be no more tax increases?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Not surprisingly, this particular member is so negative when it comes to

Ontario and our opportunities and potential. There are a couple of numbers I'm sure he would be interested in, reluctant though he may be to accept their validity. Since we've been on the job and

formed the government, some 80,000 new jobs have been created in Ontario. I am also very pleased to report that this month we have the lowest unemployment rate in Ontario in three years. We've only

just begun.

Mr Flaherty: There's no assurance to the people of Ontario that there will not be further tax increases, so they might as well get ready for

that.

It doesn't take any skill, of course, to raise taxes. Anyone can raise taxes. It does take skill to control spending. We look at your first year in office and

what we see on the spending side is health spending at $29 billion, the two education ministries $13.8 billion, community and social services -- they add up to $51 billion in spending. Health care

spending is growing at 8% per annum. On top of that, you decided to go on a more than $4-billion spending spree. You know the average revenue increases, according to your own document, your own

economic projection, are about $4 billion. You squandered that on a spending spree.

My question to you on spending is -- your Minister of Finance talks about cost containment after a loss in year one -- what is your plan for the people of

Ontario to control costs in these three large areas during the course of your second year in office?

Hon Mr McGuinty: It's not surprising that this member in particular takes great issue with our investment in better-quality public services.

He objects to investing, for example, in hiring more meat inspectors, in hiring more water inspectors. He objects to our initial investment in nurses. We hired 1,100 new teachers on the job this

September.

By way of cuts to government expenditures, we are proud of the fact that we have cancelled corporate tax cuts to the tune of some $2.5 billion, we have

cancelled investments in private schools, we have cancelled expenditures on partisan political advertising. We will continue to make investments where they count. We will make them in such a way

that we can get measurable improvement, actual results. For example, we have smaller classes in close to 38% of our elementary schools as of this September, 1,100 new teachers on the job, close to

8,000 new lead teachers working inside our elementary schools. Those are the kinds of investments we're making, and we're getting real results for the people of Ontario.

Mr Flaherty: What we have so far is that there might be tax increases during the rest of the mandate and that there is no plan to control

spending in these three large areas of government going forward.

I want to ask about jobs now, economic growth in the province of Ontario, and your government's mismanagement in terms of investment in job creation. You talk

about job statistics. The jobs stats from last week: "In September, employment in Ontario was little changed, leaving gains so far this year at only 0.9%," less than 1%, only 55,000 jobs. Worse

than that, in manufacturing, in light industry, in the private sector, jobs are down in your mandate in Ontario so far in 2004. Employment rose in the provincial government and in education

services for teachers. Those are the statistics.

So what we have in year one is poor economic growth in terms of jobs. Spending is up. Taxes are up. The debt is up. Interest payments are up. Will you assure

the people of Ontario, the entrepreneurs, the business people, that you will abandon this tax-and-spend policy and try to create jobs?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The member opposite just can't handle good news: 80,000 net new jobs since we formed the government. The minister of industry

tells me here that we had 4,700 new jobs in September.

It's unfortunate -- I attended an event recently, and it would have been good if the member himself could have been there. It was an economic summit hosted by

the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, and they have put a heavy emphasis on health care, additional investments in health care, because not only does that give expression to us as a caring society but

it makes us competitive. It's very important to our businesses. They also said it's important that we continue to invest in education. They want to see greater investment in post-secondary

education in particular, because if we build a strong, highly skilled and talented workforce, we'll land the best jobs at the best pay.

This member doesn't understand that the economy has moved beyond this notion that the only thing we can do to strengthen it is to cut taxes and race to the

bottom with low-wage jobs. We are working to build a high-wage economy with the best jobs by investing in health care, education and a strong economy.

HEPATITIS C

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, we demonstrated that your government is misusing dedicated

federal health care money for hepatitis C victims in a most troubling and unfair way. Under the 1998 agreement, the forgotten hepatitis C victims were to receive enhanced health care services over

and above what they have already received through OHIP or existing prescription drug programs. So far, Ontario has received $66.3 million of dedicated federal health care money to pay for enhanced

health care services for those hepatitis C victims, but your own report shows that not a penny of that federal health care money has been used to provide the enhanced health care services that were

supposed to occur. Instead, for the past year you followed the discredited and mean-spirited policy of the former Conservative government, something you said you wouldn't do. You said, "Choose

change" in the election. Where is the change for hepatitis C victims, Premier?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll refer this to the Minister of Health.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Yesterday, in response to the same assertions made by the honourable member, I

clearly said what I will say again today. Perhaps this time he'll pick up on it.

Yesterday, he alleged that the province of Manitoba, as an example, has a more expansive program with respect to people with hepatitis C than we have here in

Ontario. I said yesterday that that was untrue, and I have further evidence that this is the case.

You used examples of drugs, including interferon, as examples of what Manitoba is doing. The fact of the matter remains very clear. Here in Ontario, we are

obligated to work with people who have hepatitis C, and who are at risk of getting hepatitis C, to prevent that. The assurance that I gave Ontarians and I repeat today is that we are going to

continue to make sure that people with hepatitis C in this province gain all of the benefit that our health care system can provide, because Ontario's standard will be the highest standard in the

land.

Mr Hampton: It doesn't surprise me that the Premier doesn't want to answer this question, because it was the Premier's promise. It was the

Premier who used to criticize the Conservatives for taking dedicated federal health care money and simply putting it in general revenues and not spending it on health care services. The real issue

is that the McGuinty government has betrayed some of Ontario's most vulnerable citizens during their time of need.

Take Roy Royeppen, for example. He contracted hepatitis C in 1983 through a blood transfusion following heart surgery at Toronto General Hospital and more

recently has developed diabetes through hepatitis C complications. He now requires daily dialysis because of his condition, and over the last few years has incurred several thousand dollars in

out-of-pocket health care expenses for dialysis-related travel expenses, insulin and needles related to the diabetes. There are thousands of victims like him, yet your government continues to

pocket the federal health care dollars that were supposed to help him pay for these additional health care expenses. I ask, where is the change for Roy Royeppen? Where is the change for thousands

of other hepatitis C victims?

Hon Mr Smitherman: A couple of weeks ago, we had the opportunity to demonstrate that the money the federal government sent to the province of

Ontario for the purpose of enhancing the quality of care for people with hepatitis C has in very clear fact been spent on the expansion of health care services.

The honourable member in his own question makes the point, as an example, about the need for expanded dialysis services. The record is clear that over the

course of the agreement with the federal government -- a legal agreement was entered into between the province and the federal government, and that was to use the money to the benefit of people

with hepatitis C through provision of services through our health care system, and that is what has been done.

Further, we've asked John Plater, who is a leader in this community, to help bring together a group to develop an even better strategic plan for the purpose of

hepatitis C in our province. We're creating a hepatitis C secretariat at the ministry to more effectively coordinate the provision of these services. I remain of the opinion that here in Ontario,

the obligation we have is to make sure that people with hepatitis C receive the best possible services available --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: I remember when Dalton McGuinty used to rise and criticize the former Conservative government for taking dedicated health care

funds and simply putting them in general revenues. Now we have the McGuinty government taking dedicated federal health care funds intended to provide enhanced health care services for unfortunate

hepatitis C victims, and we have the Minister of Health standing and saying that's OK, that's all right. What's happened here is these unfortunate victims have had to pay out of their own pocket

while this government pockets the money that was intended to pay for their health care services.

Minister, you don't need another study. What you need to do is admit that you are wrong, just as the Conservatives were wrong. You need to pay back the money

that was wrongly denied these hepatitis C victims and you need to put in place now the enhanced services for hepatitis C victims that were promised and that are part of the spirit and letter of

this agreement. Will you do that or are you simply going to --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Smitherman: On the issue of who is wrong, it's the honourable member. He says, "Follow the letter and the spirit of the agreement." In

reading the agreement, what is absolutely clear is that Ontario, like all other provinces, was provided with funding by the federal government for the provision of health care services. Simply,

what we did, based on a methodology developed by people who are expert in the field of providing services to people with hepatitis C, was demonstrate that all of the dollars had been spent on

enhancing the quality of care for people with hepatitis C.

But we're going one step further. We're working with people from the hepatitis C community to enhance the quality of care through the work being done on a

strategic plan. The fact of the matter is, I arrived as Minister of Health to find that the strategic plan work that had been done by the previous government had not involved all of those

communities that are affected and those people who are infected with hepatitis C. We're updating that work quickly under the leadership of a man named John Plater, who stands in very high regard on

this issue. I repeat what I've said before --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question?

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier: You already have a credibility problem when it comes to health care. Before the

election, you said that a health care premium would be unfair and regressive for working families. Then you imposed a health care premium. Before the election you said you would never cut health

services. After the election, you cut chiropractors, physiotherapists and optometrists. Now we find your government pocketing the money that was dedicated to provide enhanced health care services

for hepatitis C victims. Moreover, we find more and more of the details of your secret deal with the OMA.

Last night, TVO's Susanna Kelley reported that, over four years, sole-practice general practitioners will get an 11% raise, those in health groups a 25% pay

increase and those in health care networks a 36% pay increase. Those are very big numbers, Premier. Will you tell the people of Ontario what the bottom line is, or is your credibility on health

care going to continue to suffer because you can't meet --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Premier.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We're very proud of this deal, and I know the member opposite will be

very interested in learning more about this deal. It has been made public, so the parties have agreed that we can talk about it in some detail. We're very proud of this deal.

To my understanding, and I'll let the minister answer the supplementary, this is the first deal in the history of this province where there is no

across-the-board increase. What we decided to do is to incent the kinds of activities on the part of doctors which will encourage them to do the kinds of things we need them to do. It will result

in more doctors working in group practices. It will result in shorter waits, in particular for different kinds of surgeries; hip and knee, for example. It will result in getting doctors, for

example, to do on-call work for our long-term-care centres. It will result in shorter waits in our emergency rooms and the like.

It's a creative deal. We have been very imaginative in terms of the kind of approach we've brought, and we are convinced that as a result of this new

arrangement we have with Ontario doctors, we're going to actually end up with more doctors practising in a better way that helps us control the costs in health care and brings better care closer to

the community.

Mr Hampton: Premier, the question is this: Are you prepared to release this secret OMA deal so that the people of Ontario won't find some more

nasty surprises in it, just as they have found with your nasty surprises in terms of health care announcements already? You have a credibility problem. Most people would find it hard to swallow an

11% increase, but a 25% increase, a 35% increase? Meanwhile, you're telling nurses and other hospital personnel, and teachers and other people in the broader public sector, 2%.

I think, before people find this is a done deal, they deserve to know just what is being bargained here, what is being negotiated here and how fair it is.

Premier, don't you think the people who will foot the bill deserve to know that?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I will refer this to the minister.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Over four years, 4.8% for a doctor who practises in a walk-in clinic. The point

here is clear: This is a landmark agreement. Those people who have sought to characterize it as across-the-board increases are just plain wrong. This is an agreement that for the first time aligns

the government of Ontario's priorities with our negotiated agreement with the Ontario Medical Association. It incents and rewards different behaviours in three specific areas.

That party, while in government, shut off the supply of doctors to local communities. Under their leadership, it went from 60 underserviced communities to 122.

This agreement will reverse that trend. Doctors will return to practise in Ontario communities. Doctors will provide more service and address our wait-time challenges, and fundamentally, resources

will be invested at the community level, upstream, so doctors are involved again in the provision of comprehensive care to prevent people from getting diabetes, to prevent people from getting

cancer. This is a landmark agreement --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: I think most people across Ontario would be alarmed at a 25% increase or a 35% to 36% increase. I think most people would be

alarmed at that. I think the people of Ontario deserve to know what is in this agreement before you hit them with another one of your nasty surprises, before you tell them one thing before the

agreement and then they find out something quite nasty after the agreement. I think those people out there who are being told 2%, and no more, deserve to know what is in this agreement. The

taxpayers deserve to know what is in this agreement because ultimately they're going to have to foot the bill.

Why are you creating two classes of health care workers in Ontario? Why won't you release this agreement now so the people of Ontario can see what you're

negotiating and how nasty the surprise is going to be after the agreement?

Hon Mr Smitherman: What's at stake is a better class of health care for the people of Ontario. If there's something to be alarmed about and if

there is something to consider nasty, it's the decisions your party made while in government. Communities all across this province that can't get access to a family doctor, that have seen their

community designated as underserviced, should know from here forward that that party is stuck in the status quo. But this party as a government is not, because we fundamentally believe that the

best health care is the health care you find as close to home as possible.

So I ask the member in his supplementaries to stand in his place and say, do you oppose the idea that doctors should provide more services in long-term-care

facilities? Because that's what this deal does. Do you oppose the idea that doctors should be incented and provided the opportunity to provide more help to people to deal with weight problems, like

me, or to deal with too many people who smoke? Are these the things the honourable member supports or not?

The fact of the matter is, this is a landmark agreement. It's a historic agreement because it reaches out to change the nature of health care delivery, and

consistent with the exact approach --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Let me remind the minister that when I stand up I'd like you to sit down. That means, sir, you should stop your answer. New

question.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is for the Minister of Health. You, your Premier and your Minister of Finance have been going

to every corner of this province and telling our teachers, police officers and Ontario's valued public servants to hold the line and be realistic when it comes to salary expectations. We now learn

from TV Ontario and Sue Kelley that through your secret deal with doctors, you plan to give salary increases of not just 11% but as much as 25% and 36% to some classes of physicians in Ontario.

Your secret deal, the cat, is now out of the bag. How can you beat down all our other valued public employees and give doctors such a huge salary increase? Can you tell us that?

Hon Mr Smitherman: Here's what I can tell the honourable member: For those communities -- they went from 60 to 122 on their watch --

designated as underserviced, in those places all across Ontario where we know people, sometimes staff members and family members, haven't been able to gain access to doctors in this province, we

have worked on an historic agreement that sends a message to doctors in this province for the first time in a long, long time that we want to be your partners in the delivery of health care, that

we need you occupied on the front lines of health care, helping people to stay healthy in the first place and giving them care as close to home as possible, in their local communities, in a way

that has been evaporating under their watch and under their watch, for more than a decade now.

This is an agreement that sends a signal of hope to the people of Ontario that has been long overdue. We have, in this agreement, sought and achieved the

restoration of the vitality and viability of family practice in this province, something that both of you, while in government, ran roughshod over.

Mr Baird: How can patients and taxpayers trust you to do what's right and what's in the best interests of taxpayers and our health care

system? Here's what you said just last week before a standing committee: "I'll send this message very clearly ... as I have on many occasions: The levels of salary increases that were raised in the

question are not appropriate numbers to be discussed in the current environment. It's an era of restraint."

I was using a number of 6% to 10%. Now we learn that in your secret deal some physicians in this province will get a 35% pay increase, when at the same time

you were asking the hospitals in my community to make do with 0.6%, or 1.8% at The Ottawa Hospital. How do you have any credibility, and how can taxpayers and other health care workers trust you to

do what's in the best interests of our health care system?

Hon Mr Smitherman: It's an interesting question coming from a member of the cabinet of a party that, while in government, saw the communities

that were underserviced from the standpoint of doctors go from 60 to 122 -- and he asks me that question. The member wishes to characterize this as a raise, but the fact of the matter is this is an

agreement that seeks to change the way doctors do business in Ontario. It asks of them to change the nature of their practice, to work together in teams, to provide comprehensive 24/7 care, and to

assist our 12 million patients in staying healthy in the first place. This is a landmark agreement. Nobody earns increases in this agreement without changing the nature of the way they practise,

transforming health care, providing more resources upstream and in communities --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

HYDRO GENERATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. During the election you promised to keep our hydroelectricity system

in public hands. You said that new generation would be public, that it would be by OPG, and you promised power at cost. Somewhere here you must have suffered a post-election promise blackout,

because now you say that new generation will come from private, profit-driven companies and that electricity will be sold at higher market prices. During the election and before the election you

said, "Choose change," so why are you repeating now the failed Conservative model that saddled ordinary Ontarians with skyrocketing prices and supply shortages? What happened to the promise of

public power? Why do you now prefer a privately owned, profit-driven supply of electricity?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the Minister of Energy.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): This government has not privatized a single asset. It's completely false,

number one. Number two, the one decision this government did take was to reverse a decision to privatize the nuclear inspection service of OPG. That was one of the first decisions we took. We

reject out of hand the notion that we're privatizing. I don't know where you get it from. Name me one asset that we've privatized.

We are consistent with what we said before the election. We are doing precisely what we said before the election. We have moved forward to try to rescue a

system that was left with no new generation, higher prices, poorly managed assets, and we're trying to correct that. Make no mistake: The commitments Premier McGuinty made in the election are being

kept. Nothing has been privatized. Number two, the only decision we have taken was to reverse the decision to privatize nuclear inspection services. If you can point out one asset we've privatized

anywhere in hydroelectric, please name it.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you must have seen this letter to you in the Globe and Mail: "An open letter to Dalton McGuinty: Don't Pull the Plug on

Ontario's Future." It's a letter from, for example, Rod Anderson, national director of --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. You know the rules about props.

Mr Hampton: I'm reading a letter, Speaker.

The Speaker: But you know the rules about props. I ask you to exercise discretion.

Mr Hampton: It's a letter to the Premier. It is from Ron Bartholomew, vice-president of production, retired, Ontario Hydro; Myron Gordon, one

of the pre-eminent economists --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm having difficulty hearing the leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: This is what they say, and I think you'd agree these are very learned people. They say that Premier McGuinty's Bill 100 follows

"the same old failed and discredited electricity program" as the Conservatives'. They warn that your plan "will increase consumer electricity rates dramatically, and force electricity-reliant

industries to move production out of Ontario, taking good jobs with them." And they say the best way forward is to "give Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation the mandate to provide power at cost

for the people of Ontario."

Premier, before the election you said, "Public power." You said, "All new generation will be publicly owned and operated on a not-for-profit basis." Now are

you breaking that promise, too?

Hon Mr Duncan: First of all, I reject everything that was put in that letter. The same group on August 24 put out a press release that

congratulated Minister Duncan "for recognizing that privatization is not a viable option for Ontario." That was after they made their appearance before the legislative committee and saw the bill

and had been briefed about the bill and had met with me. That's their press release, not mine.

The so-called expert they brought in, when questioned by me when I met with them on the record in Windsor, said he hadn't studied the history of Ontario Hydro,

hadn't looked at the history of Ontario Hydro.

Let me be clear. This government will not go back to the old public monopoly. It was a failure. It left this province $38 billion in debt. Your government

cancelled conservation programs. Their government left a mess. They're voting against the bill because they think we're undoing what they did. You people just aren't consistent. This government

made a commitment to change, and we're changing for the better. I reject the old Ontario Hydro model and I reject the old Ontario Hydro vice-presidents who want to go back to it. It didn't work.

We're fixing it. We're cleaning up the mess that you, and the Conservatives after you, left this province in on the hydroelectric file.

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

Ms Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): My question is for the Attorney General. This past winter, I supported the Hamilton Police Service in

its application for funding through the victims' justice fund to increase the ability of the Hamilton police to fight child pornography in the area. That bid for funding was denied; however, I was

assured that our government was addressing the situation and actively dealing with the problem of how police and courts tackle child pornography, especially through the Internet, which we all know

is the Wild West. There is a need for a sheriff in the Wild West. Can you tell me what your ministry is doing to address the problem?

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

member for Stoney Creek for her question. We've talked about this a number of times, and you have insisted that your community get the protection from our law enforcement that will ensure that, no

matter where you live in the province, no matter whether you're in Stoney Creek or Sudbury or Sault Ste Marie, your kids are getting the full force of the brightest and the best people and

technology from our law enforcement.

This announcement today is good news for your community. It fulfills the important commitment that the victims' justice fund must fulfill. It means that, for

the first time, we're going to have a provincial strategy that will deal with Internet crime against kids and deal with Internet luring. Through our task force on Internet crime against kids, we

are working with the industry and ISPs to try to make our Internet safer for kids and to try to better crack down on those who proliferate child pornography.

Ms Mossop: I do understand that the Internet is an international issue, not a local one, but I need to know that the Hamilton Police Service

has what it needs to protect the children of Hamilton and to keep them safe.

Hon Mr Bryant: I think I'll refer this to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): This government is committed to stamping out child pornography and

luring on the Internet. This morning's announcement is really a major step to achieve that goal. What we have done is taken the OPP Project P department, which is the lead organization in Ontario,

in conjunction with the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, and they're going to come forward with a strategy to effectively deal with this.

As part of the announcement, the Attorney General announced that up to $5 million will be available for this project. The key thing for Ontario is that

Internet luring is a major issue.

You're talking about Hamilton. I'd like to quote from the chief of the Hamilton police, Mr Brian Mullan:

"Internet porn knows no boundaries in exploiting the most vulnerable in our society -- our children. We recognize that Ontarians are looking to their police

services to fight these reprehensible crimes.

"A provincial strategy that addresses the diverse needs of police services and their communities will help in this fight."

That is by the chief.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Education. The purpose of my question is to give the minister an opportunity to

clarify for the House and for people in this province the discrepancy of some $600 million between what he says it'll cost to implement the hard cap class size for JK to grade 3 and what a ministry

document says.

The minister has told us that his projection for implementation of this policy is $375 million. This ministry document, which finance lawyers have spent the

better part of a year suppressing, tells us that they project the cost to be in excess of $1 billion, and that doesn't include any capital costs.

What I'd like the minister to do, because I think it's important, and I'm sure he will agree, that we know what the true cost of this policy commitment is: I'd

like the minister to stand today and tell us whether he is right or whether ministry officials are right in terms of this cost projection.

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): To the member opposite, I'm sure he would like to acknowledge the fact that, rapidly under our

government, there has been a reduction in class sizes across this province. In fact, for the first time in way too many years, teachers are able to pay individualized attention to those students.

They're doing that under a careful plan, a plan that was put together with wide consultation and now has an expert committee, struck for the last six months, looking at all the implications of

doing this carefully over four years, and at the price tag we talked about.

There is a gloom-and-doom that permeates the members opposite when it comes to public services. They showed us that when they were in government. They had no

idea how to get better public education to happen. They knew a lot about private schools; they tried to promote those.

We have brought down class sizes, we are getting improved results with literacy and numeracy, and we're going to do that, improving the government services we

provide, including the cost-effectiveness, as we go along.

Mr Klees: Speaker, I don't know if you heard an answer here; I didn't. I'm simply saying, on behalf of members in this Legislature, who I

believe have a right to know what this will cost, is the minister telling us that he as minister does not have a handle on what this policy is going to cost the Ministry of Education school boards

across this province?

On Tuesday morning I was on a radio show with the minister and I was asked what my objective would be as critic. My response was, "To get this man to tell the

truth." That is what my --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. First I should get some order in here.

I'm sure the member from Oak Ridges would like to withdraw those comments.

Mr Klees: Yes, by all means; absolutely. I withdraw.

I am sure that the minister will stand in his place right now and tell us the truth about how much this will cost: $375 million or $1 billion-plus, the way

ministry officials have put it. What is the price tag, Minister?

Hon Mr Kennedy: I'm happy to make it easy for him to fulfill his objective and go home today, because the truth is very simple. In fact, we

are reducing class sizes. He's against that. He wants to tell those young families out there that they should not have their children get the attention they've been missing all this time. He

stands, with his party, against kids getting that kind of attention.

For $90 million this year -- a significant investment, one that this government weighed very carefully and that this finance minister and this Premier

supported, even in a constrained environment -- we've reached 38% of our schools. It will cost us around $375 million to reach all of them. We have that number. But more importantly, we have right

now some opportunities on the way to helping every 12-year-old in this province to read, write and comprehend at a high level, children who have been held back by the antediluvian thinking of some

of the members opposite, of which we've had a fine example.

Mr Klees: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm going to request a late show from this minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member from Oak Ridges, I hope you will submit the necessary papers for the late show.

ASSISTANCE TO DISABLED

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, it may surprise you, but there are still some people

in this province who believe you and your promises. One such foolish soul is Mr Jason Chenier, who lives in eastern Ontario. He went to your Ministry of Finance Web site and learned that there is a

sales tax rebate for vehicles for the disabled. He got all the forms from your Web site. He filled them out. He and his wife went out and redid the entire van for their disabled son. They spent

thousands of dollars. They filled out the forms, mailed them in and awaited their cheque. Instead of a cheque, they got a letter from your officials saying that the program was cancelled. They're

now stuck with a bill they can ill afford. What are you going to do about this program that is on your Web site?

Interjections.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I welcome a question from my friend from Beaches-East York. I'm going to try and answer it, but over

the heckling from the former Conservative critic for finance, who is now looking for a portfolio to speak to.

My friend from Beaches-East York knows full well that we addressed that question in the budget last May 18. We made significant new investments to help, in a

new and more effective way, people with disabilities. Most importantly, I say to my friend, yesterday my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration introduced

an act that will transform

life for those who are disabled in this province, and we are very proud of that. I can give him all sorts of detail -- but I know you're concerned about time -- about those new programs.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary, and I hope I can hear it this time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, please.

Mr Prue: I went to the Web site today. This is the form you get. If this was in private enterprise, we would call this false advertising and

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would have something to say about it.

The worst thing of all, though, is that Mr Chenier is a police officer. He knew that this was wrong and he went to his member of provincial Parliament, the

member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who wrote you a letter on September 27 telling you that your staff is misleading the public, and you have done absolutely nothing about it. I went there

today; it's still there. You have let this family down. I want to know, what are you going to do to provide him with the money he can ill afford, or is this just another broken promise?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I want to tell my friend directly that if there is misinformation on our Web site, I will have that corrected as of today. I

want to assure him of that. I want to assure him that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of programs delivered by this government, often now through the technology of the Internet. I clearly

accept the possibility that the information about this program is in error, but I want to tell him that the program that replaced that program will have a much more positive impact on the lives of

those in this province who are forced to live with disabilities, and we are very proud of that.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Orléans, which makes up 90% of my riding of

Ottawa-Orléans, has experienced rapid growth over the last few years. The population is now close to 100,000 people. Orléans remains a bedroom community; the jobs are in downtown Ottawa,

south Ottawa, Nepean and Kanata. These same jobs are filled by residents from the east of my riding in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, all of whom use Highway 174 and the split to access their

jobs.

The split forms part of your environmental assessment study for the Queensway East and it has been at capacity for many years. The ministry has proposed a

preferred alternative for modifications at the split, and the city of Ottawa has proposed improvements to Highway 174 going easterly.

My question, Minister, is about the Hunt Club Road interchange. This is important to us because it is our direct connection in Orléans to the Ottawa

airport and is fundamental to providing alternative access to the south and west of Ottawa for the people of Orléans. Can you confirm that your ministry is prepared to undertake an

environmental assessment for Hunt Club Road?

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): The short answer to his question is yes, we have received a similar request from the city

of Ottawa to do the environmental assessment, and I have asked my ministry to work with Ottawa to go ahead with the environmental assessment process for Hunt Club.

Mr McNeely: The second question is, when will the split improvements be designed so that improvements can be scheduled for this major

transportation problem affecting the many people in Orléans?

Hon Mr Takhar: I want to let the honourable member know that the environmental assessment study for this important project is nearing

completion. We anticipate filing the transportation environmental study report for public review and comment by mid-2005. I also want to tell the honourable member that we are moving forward with

the planning and repair work on five bridges along Highway 417 in the west end of Ottawa. I want to assure the member that we are committed to making sure that Ottawa's transportation needs are

met.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. During the election you promised farmers you would develop a new

generation of safety nets and companion programs to better address the needs of Ontario's farmers. We recently discovered that the public service has set the cost of these new programs at $186

million in the first year alone, yet in the 2004 budget you slashed the ministry budget by 20% and took $50 million out of the crop stabilization program. How are you going to stand up for

Ontario's farmers when you and the Minister of Finance are ignoring the public service and making up your own numbers? Tell us, Minister, are you reneging on your promise to Ontario's farmers, or

can we expect a $180-million announcement in the next week or two?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I really appreciate being lectured by a former minister who devastated the budget in the

Ministry of Agriculture. The very first year in office you cut the budget by $12.8 million; in 1997-98, $31.4 million; in 1998-99, $62.8 million out of the budget. So you can't stand up and try to

explain that you're a defender of the Ministry of Agriculture.

We have been working with the agricultural community in moving forward. We signed the agricultural policy framework in December, which is going to bring $1.7

billion into this province for farmers. We're moving forward on companion programs. We have the new production insurance program in place, the new case program in place. We're in the process right

now of transitioning to new programs, replacement for the market revenue insurance fund, and self-directed risk management.

So we are moving forward. We're working in conjunction, we are consulting, and we are going to have a new generation of safety nets for the farmers of this

province.

Mr Hardeman: Minister, you said that part of the 20% budget cut was safety net bridge funding that had come to an end, but farmers have yet to

see a penny of that money. Some $45 million should have already been paid out on last year's, never mind the $45 million owed this year. Industry leaders are saying your safety net distribution

process is a mess and is overwhelming you. We see that you've promised $186 million worth of safety net programs, and you can't even deliver the $90 million of old money to those who desperately

need it. Is this what the industry should expect from your tenure as minister: a messy, overwhelmed system with a government that can't make sound fiscal decisions?

Hon Mr Peters: I can tell you what the farmers of Ontario are going to get from this government, and that's a commitment to do things

differently. Not across-the-board, and I think it's important, reduction -- this is when they were in government. They reduced genetic improvement transfers, $1.2 million; field services, $4.8

million; reduced the safety net program budget by $22.1 million; reduced ministry administration, $4.4 million; $7 million in spending cuts to the University of Guelph. So don't stand up and

criticize us for what we are doing. We're moving forward.

As a result of the agricultural policy framework, there's what is known as transition dollars. That's $173 million that is going to be moving forward as we

transition from the existing programs that we have. We are going to move forward. We have been working with the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council.

You know darn well, member, that we have been working with them and we're ensuring that we consult with farmers, unlike you, who just arbitrarily cut that

budget without standing up and your rural caucus not standing up --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, you will know that hospitals across northern Ontario

like Sault Ste Marie, Timmins, Hearst, Smooth Rock Falls, Kapuskasing, and the list goes on, are all struggling to balance their budgets this year. All of them are saying that unless you find the

money to shore up their budgets, they're going to have to lay off full-time staff and cut services in an area that is already very underserviced.

I want to draw your attention to promise 126 of your election platform in the last election, that hospitals need immediate relief and long-term stability so

patients can get better care. My question is simply this: Are you prepared to live up to your campaign commitment and fund hospitals so they don't have to lay off staff and cut services in northern

Ontario?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The member will know that Ontario hospitals are to submit their plans, and the

ministry and the government will have the opportunity to review those and work with hospitals on getting them into balance. We inherited a situation where hospitals were in a chronic situation of

needing bailouts at the end of the year. The fact of the matter is that in less than a year in office, we've contributed $385 million to base funding and a second contribution, $469.5 million, to

base funding for Ontario hospitals. We've acknowledged working capital deficits -- operating bills unpaid by that party while in government -- totalling $721 million, and we've made the largest

single investment in community-based care designed to divert traffic from our hospitals.

We recognize they have challenging work to do. That's why we're going to work with them, starting on the 15th, when they submit their plans. I make the

commitment to the honourable member that I'm mindful of the particular challenges in northern Ontario, especially for those small hospitals which have a smaller administrative base, and will be

looking very, very carefully at the information as it comes in from Ontario hospitals. I look forward to continuing to hear from him on this matter.

PETITIONS

TAXATION

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have received a number of petitions over the summertime. I have a petition to do with taxpayer

protection.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty government's 2004 budget will break the taxpayer protection law by not conducting a referendum on tax increases; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty signed an election pledge on September 11, 2003, not to raise taxes without the explicit consent of voters through a referendum;

and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty promised in TV ads not to raise taxes by one penny on working families; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty pledged in writing to obey the taxpayer protection law, which requires a referendum before increasing taxes;

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

"To ensure that all of the McGuinty government's tax increases are put before the people of Ontario in a referendum."

I support this petition and affix my signature to it.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I would ask the members, as they leave, to leave quietly so I can hear the petition being read.

OPTOMETRISTS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario will be considering a private member's bill that aims to amend the Optometry Act to give

optometrists the authority to prescribe therapeutic pharmaceutical agents for the treatment of certain eye diseases; and

"Whereas optometrists are highly trained and equipped with the knowledge and specialized instrumentation needed to effectively diagnose and treat certain eye

problems; and

"Whereas extending the authority to prescribe TPAs to optometrists will help relieve the demands on ophthalmologists and physicians who currently have the

exclusive domain for prescribing TPAs to optometry patients; and

"Whereas the bill introduced by New Democrat Peter Kormos ... will ensure that patients receive prompt, timely, one-stop care where appropriate;

"Therefore, I do support the bill proposing an amendment to the Optometry Act to give optometrists the authority to prescribe therapeutic pharmaceutical agents

for the treatment of certain eye diseases and I urge the government of Ontario to ensure speedy passage of the bill."

Signed by hundreds and by myself as well.

ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL PARKWAY

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Alexander Graham Bell, renowned inventor of society-altering technological inventions, such as the telephone, greatly revolutionized the daily lives

of people in Ontario, Canada and indeed the world; and

"Whereas Alexander Graham Bell's contributions to science, technology and society as a whole, were in part developed and tested while he lived in Brantford,

Ontario; and

"Whereas Brantford lies at the heart of the

section of Highway 403 which runs from Woodstock to Burlington;

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

"To adopt and pass into law Dave Levac's private member's bill, Bill 44, the Alexander Graham Bell Parkway Act, renaming Highway 403 between Woodstock and

Burlington as a tribute to this great inventor" and resident of Brantford.

I sign my name to this petition and give it over to Kathryn.

PROPERTY TAXATION

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

"Whereas recreational trailers kept at parks and campgrounds in Ontario are being assessed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corp (MPAC) and are subject to

property taxes; and

"Whereas owners of these trailers are seasonal and occasional residents who contribute to the local" tourist "economy ... without requiring significant

municipal services; and

"Whereas the added burden of this taxation will make it impossible for many families of modest income to afford their holiday sites at parks and campgrounds"

in Ontario;

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

"That these seasonal trailers not be subject to retroactive taxation for the year 2003; and that the tax not be imposed in 2004; and that no such tax be

introduced without consultation with owners of the trailers and trailer parks, municipal governments, businesses, the tourism sector and other stakeholders."

I am pleased to endorse and sign this on their behalf.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have petitions that have been sent to me by M me Louise Marois of St Charles, Ontario. They read

as follows:

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberal government is cutting provincial funding for essential health care services like optometry, physiotherapy and chiropractic

care;

"Whereas this privatization of health care services will force Ontarians to pay out-of-pocket for essential health care;

"Whereas Ontarians already pay for health care through their taxes and will be forced to pay even more through the government's new regressive health tax;

"Whereas the Liberals promised during the election that they would not cut or privatize health care services in Ontario;

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

"We demand the McGuinty Liberal government keep its promises and guarantee adequate provincial funding for critical health services like eye, physiotherapy and

chiropractic care."

I agree with the petitioners; I've affixed my signature to this.

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition on behalf of the constituents of Kingston and the Islands.

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Amherstview water pollution control plant in Loyalist township discharges effluent into the Bayview bog, which drains into Glenvale Creek,

Westbrook Creek and Collins Creek into Lake Ontario;" and

"Whereas the sewage effluent nutrient, metal and sulphur oxide contaminants have adversely affected water quality, sediment quality and biota diversity in the

watercourse;" and

"Whereas the sewage effluent volume and constant flow has flooded farmland, destroyed hardwood forests and terrestrial habitat, and magnified the impact of

seasonal floods on the downstream residences;" and

"Whereas the sewage effluent pathogenic and organic contamination poses unacceptable human health risk to recreational activity and potable water supplies

along the watercourse;" and

"Whereas Loyalist township has the option of discharging the effluent directly into Lake Ontario, as cited in the consultant's June 2004 environmental study

report;

"We, the undersigned citizens of west Kingston residing along the watercourse, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to consider the deleterious impacts

of the current and proposed increased effluent discharges on the downstream landowners and residents, hitherto excluded from the recent municipal class environmental assessment."

HEALTH CARE

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

"Whereas the Liberal government has announced in their budget that they are delisting key health services such as routine eye exams, chiropractic and

physiotherapy services,

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

"To reverse the delisting of eye exams, chiropractic and physiotherapy services and restore funding for these important and necessary services."

I'm pleased to sign this petition.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic will no longer be able to access the health care

they need;

"Those with reduced ability to pay, including seniors, low-income families and the working poor, will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family

physician offices and emergency departments;

"The elimination of OHIP coverage is expected to save $93 million in expenditures on chiropractic treatment at a cost to government of over $200 million in

other health care costs; and

"There was no consultation with the public on the decision to delist chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP

coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

LANDFILL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): "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 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'm pleased to sign that.

TUITION

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that's been sent to me by the students' general association of the Canadian Federation of

Students, Local 30, which is at Laurentian University. It reads as follows:

Whereas the Ontario Liberal government took an historic step forward by funding a tuition freeze for two years; and

"Whereas the majority of Ontarians support increased public funding for colleges and universities, as well as reduced tuition fees; and

"Whereas increasing student debt through income-contingent loan repayment schemes or raising loan limits only increases the cost of post-secondary education

for students from modest means; and

"Whereas per student investment in Ontario still lags gravely behind the vast majority of jurisdictions in North America;

"Therefore we the undersigned, supporting the Canadian Federation of Students' call to increase funding for colleges and universities and reduce tuition fees

for all Ontario students, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to (

a) reduce tuition fees for all students in Ontario, (

b) increase public funding for post-secondary education to at least

the national average, and (

c) implement an upfront, needs-based grant system for Ontario full-time and part-time students."

I agree with the petitioners and I add my signature to this.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly from a group of homeowners in the Lisgar area of

Mississauga, and it reads as follows:

"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 am one of those residents of Lisgar. I absolutely agree with this, and I'm affixing my signature.

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): A petition to save the Frost Centre:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Leslie M. Frost Natural Resources Centre has a long history in the county of Haliburton and provides an important historical link dating back to

its use in 1921 as a chief ranger station; and

"Whereas the history in the use and management of natural resources in Ontario stretches back to the 1600s and forms an integral part of the overall history of

the province and Ministry of Natural Resources, and the history of the ministry and the Frost Centre itself easily qualifies as a significant historic resource; and

"Whereas the Minister of Culture, Madeleine Meilleur, has said, `The McGuinty government values and is committed to conserving Ontario's heritage for the

enjoyment and benefit of present and future generations'; and

"Whereas the Frost Centre is an important educational resource for the community, being described on the Ministry of Natural Resources Web site as `Ontario's

leading natural resources education, training and conference centre'; and

"Whereas closure of the Frost Centre would cause economic hardship in the local communities of the county of Haliburton and district of Muskoka due to direct

job losses and loss of tourism dollars spent in local communities; and

"Whereas the local community has not been consulted about the closure plan;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should not close the Leslie M. Frost Centre."

SENIOR CITIZENS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The member from Brant.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Speaker, I would defer to the other member, if you wish. Too late? OK.

This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas elderly citizens living in retirement homes have no provincial legislation to protect them. Retirement homes are uninspected, unmonitored and

unregulated. The quality of care varies widely. We are asking for provincial legislation to implement regular inspections, with the authority to impose violations, charges and penalties, and to

establish and ensure set standards for retirement homes that must be met and adhered to."

I sign my name to this petition and support it wholeheartedly.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Having missed a round, the member from Nickel Belt.

EYE EXAMINATIONS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the 2004 provincial budget was not clear on whether adult optometry patients who ... are at risk for medical conditions such as diabetes, glaucoma,

macular degeneration and clinically significant cataracts would continue to be covered through the Ontario health insurance plan; and

"Whereas Ontario's optometrists strongly feel that Ontario seniors, those under 20 and those with chronic sight-threatening diseases must continue to receive

primary eye care services directly from Ontario's optometrists; and

"Whereas forcing patients to be referred to optometrists through their family physicians ignores the years of specialized training optometrists undertake to

detect, diagnose and treat eye conditions; and

"Whereas almost 140 communities across the province have already been designated as underserviced for family practitioners and the government's approach will

only exacerbate the problem unnecessarily;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care immediately clarify that the eye examination services they provide to patients at risk for medical conditions

will continue to be covered by OHIP and the coverage for these services is not dependent on a patient being referred to an optometrist by a family physician."

I agree with the petitioners. I have signed my signature to this.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LIQUOR LICENCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL

Mr Watson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 96,

An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act / Projet de loi 96, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les permis d'alcool.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Mr Watson.

Hon Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): Mr Speaker, I'll be sharing my time with my new parliamentary assistant, the

member for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot.

The purpose of this legislation is to --

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Mr Watson has moved second reading of Bill 96. Is it the pleasure of the House -- sorry, I'm actually way

ahead now. Mr Watson?

Hon Mr Watson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The purpose of this legislation is to balance consumer choice in liquor service with stronger

enforcement measures to increase public safety.

Ontario's Liquor Licence Act was originally enacted in 1944. It sets out rules for the sale and service of beverage alcohol in the province of Ontario, and the

Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario is responsible for the administration of the act.

Over the years, amendments have been made to the legislation to improve economic opportunities for the hospitality sector while strengthening social

responsibility requirements. The last significant reform to the statute took place, actually, when the current finance minister held my portfolio in 1990. Since then, the act has become

increasingly outdated and out of step with the evolving and maturing hospitality marketplace.

By modernizing the Liquor Licence Act, we're taking the first step toward bringing Ontario's liquor laws into the 21st century. The process of modernization

obviously can't be accomplished overnight, and our government is committed to future stages of Liquor Licence Act reform in consultation with stakeholders and the public. However, the bill before

us, Bill 96, represents the first stage of that reform. It's the first step in our overall strategy to modernize the Liquor Licence Act by increasing consumer choice, strengthening enforcement

tools, and reducing administrative burden.

Let me remind you again about the two components of the bill.

The first component would lay the groundwork for Bring Your Own Wine, also known as BYOW.

Le projet de loi propose une définition du terme « approvisionnement » afin d'indiquer clairement que le terme ne désigne pas

uniquement les cas où un client achète de l'alcool chez un titulaire de licence. Si le projet de loi est adopté, le terme « approvisionnement » englobera

également les cas où un client apporte du vin dans des débits de boissons.

While the change itself appears relatively minor, if passed by this Legislature it will lay the important social responsibility groundwork for future changes.

If passed, this bill will maintain current social responsibility requirements if Bring Your Own Wine comes into effect. There will be no questions or ambiguity about responsibility. Licensees would

still be responsible, as they are today, for making certain that liquor is not supplied to an intoxicated person or to someone under the age of 19, whether that person purchased the wine from the

licensee or brought the wine into the restaurant with them.

If this bill is passed, the government will then proceed with regulatory changes to introduce Bring Your Own Wine to Ontario. The Bring Your Own Wine idea

really is about choice -- a new consumer choice in liquor service, and a choice for licensed establishments on whether or not to offer this service. The BYOW service would allow patrons to bring

bottled wine into licensed restaurants and consume it there. Participation by licensed restaurants would be entirely voluntary. This is very much a piece of legislation that one would consider

libertarian, because no businesses would be forced to offer this option. Participating restaurants would simply apply to the AGCO for a special endorsement to their liquor sales licence. Only

commercially made and unopened wine would be allowed. Homemade wine and previously opened bottles would not be permitted.

While the quality of homemade wine continues to improve across Ontario, BYOW will be limited to commercial wine, as labels of store-bought wine must clearly

state the alcohol content. This measure, requested by the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, OCCID, will assist licensees in their social responsibility duties. I want to thank OCCID

for their very constructive and valuable input.

The restaurant would also have the option to establish and charge a corkage fee or service charge.

In other words, if a restaurant does not want to offer this service to its patrons, it doesn't have to, but we shouldn't prohibit a restaurant that wants to

offer it by a competitor, saying, "I'm sorry. I don't want you to offer this service." This is all about consumer choice, and it's about the rights of businesses to choose their own type of service

in their own establishment.

It's pretty evident when you look at the research on this issue that we're not in uncharted waters. The Bring Your Own Wine option has been successfully

offered in other areas of Canada as well as in parts of the United States and around the world. In fact, I believe there are over 30 different jurisdictions -- Australia, New Zealand,

Massachusetts, New York, Quebec, Alberta, New Brunswick, France, Italy, a number of jurisdictions -- that clearly feel this is a service that consumers appreciate.

The owner of Infusion Bistro in Ottawa was quoted in a recent newspaper

article as saying, "Anything that's going to enhance the consumer's perception or

experience at a restaurant is good." I also agree with the restaurateur quoted in another newspaper recently who said, "What's good for the patron is good for the restaurant."

Correspondence to my office is about 75% in favour of this initiative, and I appreciate the feedback I've received from so many forward-thinking licensees who

see BYOW as a great new opportunity and not a threat to their business, people like a restaurateur I recently met with in Windsor who wants to strike a deal with wineries in the Pelee Island region

to encourage tourists and visitors alike to purchase a bottle of wine and bring it to her restaurant.

Another Toronto restaurateur wants to offer BYOW to his customers on their slow night, Mondays. They do this quite often in New York. On a Monday night, which

is traditionally a slow night in the restaurant industry, they would offer BYOW just on that particular night, which is completely permissible under the legislation.

Many of us remember Rod Seiling, a great player with the Toronto Maple Leafs and a member of the 1972 --

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): The New York Rangers.

Hon Mr Watson: He was with the Leafs. Rod is now president of the Greater Toronto Hotel Association, and he said, "These changes are

progressive and will enable the industry to better serve its diverse customer base."

Stephen Beckta, one of the restaurateurs who is listed, I believe, in enRoute magazine as one of the top restaurants in Canada, said, "I'm all for allowing

customers the option to bring their own wine into our restaurant for a corkage fee. This practice allows people to dine out more often and with greater flexibility. Having worked as a sommelier and

restaurant manager in New York, I know first-hand that this can be beneficial to guests and restaurants alike. That's why I'm a firm supporter of this initiative." That's a fine restaurant in Mr

Patten's riding that I'm sure he's familiar with.

If the bill is passed, the government has also announced our plans to introduce another consumer choice to Ontario, the option, Take Home the Rest. The

initiative would allow patrons to remove an unfinished bottle of wine from licensed establishments, as long as the licensee had properly resealed the bottle. Again, participation by licensed

establishments would be entirely voluntary, another aspect that people should keep in mind.

British Columbia, by the way, introduced this option in 2002. Take Home the Rest has gone very smoothly. Likewise, in Alberta they introduced it last year.

For participating restaurants, Take Home the Rest would apply to bottles consumers brought with them or to ones they ordered from the restaurant itself. If

customers were able to take home what they didn't drink, they might be more inclined to dine out in the first place, increasing restaurant revenue, but more importantly they wouldn't feel compelled

to finish the whole bottle on-site, encouraging responsible drinking, obviously.

The social responsibility benefits of Take Home the Rest have also been highlighted by the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving.

I had the honour for several years of being the president and CEO of the Canadian Tourism Commission. I saw first-hand, particularly post 9/11, the challenges

that face the hospitality industry. Of course the challenges have compounded in recent years with the SARS outbreak, the rising dollar, heightened security concerns and other issues. I know our

great Minister of Tourism, Mr Bradley, is working hard to encourage tourists to come back to great parts of this province, whether it's northern Ontario, the Niagara region, eastern Ontario or

right here in Toronto. I remain firmly convinced that if you want to build your business, you simply can't go wrong by offering consumers more choices.

But liquor reform is more than about giving consumers and businesses more choices. It's also about social responsibility and public safety. That's why we're

balancing increased consumer choice with stronger enforcement measures. We're proposing changes to give regulators and law enforcement officials new tools to protect our communities. One amendment

would allow the registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commissionof Ontario to immediately suspend a liquor license, if necessary, in the public interest; that is, where there is a threat to public

safety.

Currently under the act, two board members can order an interim suspension of a liquor licence, if necessary, in the public interest. This procedure takes time

as two board members must be found to deal with the matter. Meanwhile, dangerous or disruptive situations can continue. This government is concerned about liquor-related violence. If passed, this

amendment to the Liquor Licence Act would enable the alcohol and gaming commission to take quick action to address these urgent problems as they occur.

An immediate interim suspension of a liquor licence by the registrar would be followed within 15 days by a full hearing by the board to review the

suspension.

Currently, the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming has the power to immediately suspend a registration under the Gaming Control Act, but not under the Liquor

Licence Act. The reform we're proposing would provide comparable powers regarding liquor licences and would quickly address public concerns. This change would be an important step toward equipping

the alcohol and gaming commission with modern tools to enforce the liquor laws effectively and take quick action to protect the public.

Here's another problem we intend to fix: Under the current Liquor Licence Act, police can order people -- and this is something I had no knowledge of until it

was brought to my attention -- to vacate licensed premises where the act or regulations have been contravened or public safety is threatened; however, it is not an offence, ironically, to either

fail to leave the premise or to come right back. We want to close this loophole by making it an offence to fail to leave a licensed premise if ordered to do so by a police officer, or to return the

same day after being asked to leave. Police could lay charges against people who thwart their efforts to clear premises in disruptive situations. The Toronto Police Service, for instance,

recommended this change as far back as 1997, and action is long overdue. We all know the circumstances. Often people are asked to leave a licensed establishment for inappropriate or rowdy

behaviour, and when they come back they are not in the kind of shape or frame of mind where they should be involved in coming back to the licensed establishment.

Finally, the issue of underage drinking remains a serious concern. We propose to double the minimum fines for offences relating to liquor and underage

persons.

Nous prévoyons doubler les amendes minimales, c'est-à-dire qu'elles passeront de 100 $ à 200 $ pour une personne qui n'a pas de

licence et de 500 $ à 1000 $ pour un titulaire de licence. Nous montrons ainsi que nous ne plaisantons pas en matière de consommation d'alcool chez le mineurs.

Notre gouvernement croit que la modernisation du système de licence pour débit de boisson doit établir un juste milieu. D'une part, il doit

améliorer le choix offert au consommateur et le service à la clientèle, et, d'autre part, il doit fournir des instruments d'application plus puissants et plus efficaces.

One of the issues we'll be looking at is the streamlining of the liquor licence application process. The current application system assumes one size fits all.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario evaluates all applications through the same process, regardless of the applicant's size or track record. For example, a family restaurant and a megabar

go through an identical process, which doesn't seem to make much sense. We're interested in changing this by evaluating applications on the basis of their risk to public safety.

There are a number of other items that we'll be looking into in the future to continue to bring our liquor laws into the 21st century, but that's down the

road. I was in Peterborough this morning, and I talked to a number of licensees. They're very excited about the opportunity to have participation in a series of round tables that my parliamentary

assistant and I will be leading sometime early in the new year.

The proposed Liquor Licence Amendment Act, 2004, is the foundation we'll build on; it's our first step. We propose to give consumers and licensed restaurants

new options in liquor service while maintaining social responsibility in the service and consumption of alcohol. We understand that today's hospitality marketplace is based on choice, and we also

understand that strong enforcement of liquor laws means safer communities. That's why we're balancing an increase in consumer choice with tougher enforcement tools. We want to give businesses new

opportunities to serve their customers and to make our quality of life that much better in the province of Ontario, and we want to protect the public from the harm that misuse of alcohol and liquor

can cause.

We're confident that the outcome of these measures will be real, positive change, change that will make our economy stronger through the hospitality industry,

the public safer, and our communities more dynamic and more prosperous.

I'd like to thank all of those who have voiced their support on this piece of legislation. I know my predecessor, the member for Erie-Lincoln, was quoted just

after I introduced the legislation, saying, "I am in favour of bring-your-own," as it will be good for tourism. He understands the economic benefits, as a result of being a former tourism minister,

and he certainly understands the importance of the wine industry in his backyard.

The legislation before the House would help make all of this possible. I urge all members to lend their support, and I look forward to a standing committee of

this Legislature hearing from the public on these proposed changes.

Thank you, and I pass it to my parliamentary assistant.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): The Chair recognizes the member from Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot.

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I'm honoured to rise in support of this proposed legislation. I really appreciate the

minister's comments and his great leadership on this file.

Since this issue was first broached a few months ago, a lively debate has ensued in the media, among the public, and now, certainly, in this House, where it's

quite proper. That's good. It speaks eloquently to the issue of people starting to pay attention to the need to modernize the Liquor Licence Act and to bring Ontario's laws into the 21st century.

That's exactly what we're doing.

That said, whenever a new issue appears on the scene, a certain amount of misinformation can easily slip into the debate. Predictably, this has happened with

proposed liquor law reform. Even in this House, I've heard some surprising statements. Minister Watson has done an excellent job of providing useful information about this bill and what it

includes. He has explained how it will build the framework for future changes and how it will, indeed, benefit our communities.

The bill is the first step in an overall strategy to modernize the Liquor Licence Act. It's only the beginning of what we want to do. If you were a theologian,

you'd say it's a bit like baptism. It's not the end of a journey, it's the start of a journey. That said, there are still lots of myths about where we'd like to go with this strategy, should this

bill be passed. I want to take the next few minutes to dispel a series of myths that have cropped up, and, as usual, I intend to do that with facts.

These myths fall into two broad categories: first, how these initiatives would affect the restaurant consumer; and second, how they would impact on the

hospitality business itself. One myth is that these changes would loosen the controls that prevent excess drinking. That's not true. As my colleagues have said time and time again, the fact is that

responsible liquor service remains a top priority for this government. In this regard, the dining environment would not change. The licensee, in fact, would continue to be accountable for complying

with the liquor laws. Even if patrons bring their own wine, it would be up to the licensee to ensure that overconsumption or consumption by minors does not happen. With take-home-the-rest, existing

controls on transporting open liquor and the ban on consuming it in public areas would remain in force; in fact, they would be strengthened.

Specific features of the bring-your-own-wine initiative would support responsible conduct. Each bottle must be opened by the licensee or by a server, who would

keep track of how much was being consumed, and only unopened, commercially made wine would qualify. The minister has outlined some of the reasons for that.

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): A very responsible act.

Mr McMeekin: Indeed, as my colleague says, it is a very responsible proposal.

Establishments offering the take-home-the-rest option would be required to reseal the bottle in such a way that it could not be readily reopened and consumed

while in transit. And taking your wine home will mean less consumption, not more, as people would not feel compelled to finish the bottle at the table. Frankly, it's an issue of trust. On balance,

I trust that most of my constituents want to drink responsibly, not irresponsibly. This will provide choice options for them which I think are prudent and timely.

A related myth is that people would be able to bring in as many bottles of wine as they want and not have to order anything from the restaurant. That's not so.

It's just not going happen. In fact, we're confident that licensed restaurants, based on their experience, would be entirely capable of managing these details themselves. We think that's the way it

should be.

Licensed restaurants would have the ability to determine the number of bottles the patron could bring on to the premises on any one occasion. Establishments

could choose to set such a limit -- and, I suspect, most will. Restaurants would also have the option of setting a minimum food order if they wish. I think that's reasonable; you're in the

business.

The point I want to stress is this: Licensed restaurants would remain responsible for keeping people from consuming too much liquor.

Hon Mr Watson: As they should.

Mr McMeekin: That's right. As the minister points out, they'd remain accountable and responsible, as they do today, and they're very good at

their job.

I've even heard it said that some might show up at any bar or restaurant with a bottle of wine, even fast-food restaurants. Let's get serious. Someone showing

up at McDonald's with a bottle of wine under their arm just isn't going to happen. In simple fact, Bring Your Own Wine would apply only to licensed restaurants, those that have obtained a special

endorsement to their liquor licence from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

Participation in the bring-your-own-wine initiative will be entirely voluntary -- the minister mentioned that; I'm repeating you, Minister; sorry for that --

on the part of the restaurant. As I understand from my research, in Alberta, which introduced Bring Your Own Wine last fall, about 6% of the eligible restaurants opted in, and their experience has

been a very positive one. While this rate could translate into hundreds of participating restaurants in Ontario, it's also obvious that many restaurants will not be offering this service, and we

certainly would not force them to do so. That's not the government's intent.

Yet another myth is that allowing customers to have open wine bottles in the car would just encourage more people to drink and drive. The fact is,

establishments offering the take-home-the-rest option would be required to reseal the bottle in such a way that it could not be readily reopened and consumed while in transit. I think that's

another good thing, isn't it.

Mr Ramal: They'd have to be pressured to drink all the bottle.

Mr McMeekin: They would; that's right. We don't want to do that, as my colleague points out. We don't want to pressure anybody to consume more

alcohol than they're comfortable with.

Some say that resealing the bottle won't stop patrons from drinking on the street or behind the wheel. The fact is, existing controls on transporting open

liquor and the ban on consumption in public areas would still apply. For example, it's the law that open bottles of liquor must not be readily accessible to people in a vehicle, so a

take-home-the-rest bottle would likely have to be carried in the trunk, certainly legally out of the reach of any driver. It would be the same as if you were bringing an open bottle home from a

party at a friend's house. You would have to transport it in a way that makes it hard to get at. That just makes sense.

There are also some who say that the consumer won't really benefit because the corkage fee would far surpass the cost of the bottle of wine. Again, this is a

matter of choice. The fact is, whether to have a corkage fee or not is a question for the individual restaurant operator to decide. It would be a business decision. The government isn't interested

in controlling either the minimum or maximum charge, or telling the restaurateur how to make his meat loaf. Over time, the marketplace would determine the level for these fees. Again, "choice" is

the operative word.

Now let's turn to some myths about the effect of these initiatives on the restaurant business. One myth is that Ontario is jumping the gun. Some people seem to

think, in spite of the evidence, some of which the minister outlined, that Quebec is the only place where these services are available. The fact is, Ontario's playing catch-up, not leading the

pack. Bring Your Own Wine is available in New Brunswick, Alberta and Quebec in this country, as well as Australia, several US states and many places around the world. Take Home the Rest is offered

in British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec, with very positive feedback.

Then you hear a claim, by some, that these changes will be another regulatory burden on restaurants. That's simply not true. The fact is, these initiatives

will enable licensed restaurants to do more, rather than making them do less. Of course, there will be rules surrounding these new services, but I don't think most licensed restaurants will find it

an undue burden to comply with requirements such as getting a special endorsement of a liquor licence or ensuring that servers open any bottles that patrons bring with them and reseal them when

they leave, or any training that's involved in that whole process. Any licensed restaurant that finds the rules burdensome could simply choose not to get involved with these initiatives.

Participation will be entirely voluntary.

Mr Patten: Who could be opposed to that?

Mr McMeekin: As my colleague from Ottawa points out, who could be opposed to that? It just makes so much sense.

Of course, with Bring your Own Wine and Take Home the Rest, the current rules for the responsible sale and service of alcohol would continue to apply. But

those are existing requirements, not new ones.

Another myth is that if patrons brought their own wine, licensed restaurants won't be able to monitor how much they've had to drink. The fact is, restaurants

would continue, as they have always done, to be responsible for ensuring that overconsumption, and consumption by minors, does not occur.

Interjection.

Mr McMeekin: I know the member from Ottawa agrees with that.

Licensees would continue to be accountable for responsible liquor service, just as they are now.

Then there are some who say that we're solving the wrong problem; the real need is not more choice but better enforcement of existing laws. The fact is, our

package, the package that the esteemed Minister of Consumer and Business Services outlined, does both: It balances new choices for consumers and licensed restaurants with stronger enforcement

measures.

We're proposing, for example, to allow the Registrar of Alcohol And Gaming to immediately suspend a liquor licence, if necessary, in the public interest -- not

have to wait for the next board meeting to do that -- as in situations where there is a threat to public safety. We want to do away with delays that may allow dangerous or disruptive situations to

affect community and public safety. We'll make it an offence to fail to leave licensed premises when required by a police officer or to return the same day after being asked to leave. We want to do

what we can to facilitate the police when they are trying to clear a premise.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Then you should consult with them.

Mr McMeekin: We have, at some considerable depth.

Finally, we'll double the minimum fines for offences relating to liquor and underage persons to show we mean business when it comes to underage drinking.

We fully recognize that stronger enforcement means safer communities. We intend to give police and the alcohol and gaming commission more up-to-date tools to

protect the public.

To those who say that this package doesn't go far enough and there's more to be done, we agree. The process of modernizing the regulatory system for beverage

alcohol can't be completed overnight. The bill before us today represents but the first stage of reform. Our government is committed to further stages of Liquor Licence Act reform, in consultation

with stakeholders and the public.

The package before us today is but the foundation upon which we must build. If enacted, it will open up new opportunities for the hospitality industry to serve

consumers and it will give consumers new choices. In the process, it will make our communities safer.

I urge all members to support this bill and join in our effort to bring Ontario's liquor laws into the 21st century.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): The member opposite raised a very important issue. He made mention of drinking and driving in his

explanation of what he refers to as myths with respect to, in their view, making alcohol more accessible. This does make alcohol more accessible and hence there is a safety concern with respect to

bartenders and other servers being able to monitor what's going on with people bringing booze into their restaurants. I wish to make it very clear to the government that with respect to alcohol and

drinking and driving, it doesn't matter whether it's a beer or a shot of rye or rum or gin or scotch or a glass of wine, it's all alcohol.

I've just received a letter written by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Their Addiction Research Foundation predecessor did an awful lot of work on

drinking and driving. They responded in a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail: "CAMH is concerned that public health and safety considerations have been largely absent from the discussions

about the possibility of patrons bringing their own wine to restaurants."

Mothers Against Drunk Driving -- I think we'll hear a bit from this organization during this debate -- sent out a