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

November 27, 2003

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Nov-27 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 27 November 2003 Jeudi 27 novembre 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

BEEF PRODUCERS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

ARNIE KOKKO

BLOOD DONATION

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

WATERLOO-WELLINGTON

TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

HEALTH CARE REFORM

PROJECT TURNAROUND

VISITORS

ANNUAL REPORT,

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

OF ONTARIO

MEMBERS' SEATING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VQA WINE STORES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LES MAGASINS DE VINS

DE LA VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE

COMMITMENT TO THE FUTURE

OF MEDICARE ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ENGAGEMENT

D'ASSURER L'AVENIR

DE L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(INSTALLATIONS INDUSTRIELLES)

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HEALTH CARE REFORM

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

YOUNG OFFENDERS

BALANCED BUDGET LEGISLATION

HEALTH CARE REFORM

HOSPITALS

HIGHWAY 11

VISITOR

PROJECT TURNAROUND

HOSPITALS

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

NORTHERN ONTARIO ENERGY RATES

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

RURAL ENERGY CONSERVATION

GREATER TORONTO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

PETITIONS

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX

RELIEF PROGRAM

SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

(ELECTRICITY PRICING), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA COMMISSION DE L'ÉNERGIE

DE L'ONTARIO (ÉTABLISSEMENT

DU COÛT DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Yesterday our leader, Ernie Eves, released his plan showing how Ontario could actually achieve a $3.9-billion

surplus when the fiscal year ends next March. Our party has revealed the truth about the Liberals' blame-game deficit. We have shown how they could combine the balanced budget plan of the Eves

government with the $3.8 billion of savings outlined in their own financial plan.

They have the option to start working on behalf of all Ontarians to achieve a healthy, prosperous economy. Instead, the Liberals have given us the largest tax

hike in Ontario history. They will sacrifice jobs and growth and still not balance the budget. People are starting to ask if we can believe anything this government says.

They promised to balance the budget and broke that promise. They promised to stop construction of 6,600 homes on the moraine and broke that promise. They

promised to maintain the hydro rate cap until 2006 and broke that promise.

People of good faith in Ontario who voted Liberal have to ask themselves if the Liberal Party will keep its promises to cap class sizes, hire 8,000 nurses and

close the coal-fired plants by 2007. They wonder whom to trust.

There is a party in Ontario with a record of keeping its promises. That is the PC Party. People are starting to recall our record of doing what we said we would

do. That is a lot more than can be said for this government.

BEEF PRODUCERS

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): On Saturday, November 22, I had the great opportunity to attend the Stormont Cattlemen's

Association annual dinner held at the historic Quinn's Inn in St Andrews West.

Despite a year where BSE, mad cow disease, created catastrophe and uneasiness in the beef industry, on this night farmers gathered to discuss and celebrate what

they do best: farm.

Beef is a $1.2-billion-a-year business in Ontario. In my riding alone, there are 756 livestock farms, many of which are beef, and about 38,000 cattle. Last year,

the total value of farm sales from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, including sales of beef and cattle, reached $252 million. It is an important part of our riding's economy and ties to the very

fabric of rural Ontario.

No natural disaster -- drought, crop failure or weather condition -- has ever impacted the Canadian agriculture industry as this crisis has.

I was proud to be the guest speaker at the Stormont Cattlemen's Association annual dinner, and I thank President Randy Eden for the invitation. I am proud to say

that the every first assertion I made here at Queen's Park was to place an "I Love Beef" bumper sticker above my desk here at Queen's Park. I congratulate all farmers for their courage in this

year's crisis and I send special congratulations to Mr Ray Beaureguard for being named and honoured with Stormont Cattleman Member of the Year.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): There truly is a deficit in this province. It is not a fiscal deficit, however; it is a credibility deficit that is

growing by the day. It's a credibility deficit on the part of the current Liberal government, which, since having been elected on October 2, has truly been a study in contradiction. While on the

campaign trail, there were bold promises to the people of this province, bold commitments on the part of this government, that quite frankly they were going to do things differently.

After just 56 days of being in office, the people of this province are sorely disappointed. They're disappointed because of commitments that were made and are

being broken at break-neck speed. They truly wanted to believe that this government would do things differently. What they have found is that once being elected, whether it was a commitment to

balance the budget, whether it was a commitment to stop construction on the Oak Ridges moraine, whether it was a commitment to protect working families in this province or whether it was a

commitment to cap electricity rates and ensure that people on fixed incomes could in fact pay their utility bills, all of these promises had been broken at break-neck speed. The people of this

province deserve much better.

ARNIE KOKKO

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): The rich fabric of Ontario is made up of literally millions and millions of unsung heroes, people who

do the right thing with no expectation of fame or glory for it.

In 1969, I had the privilege of meeting one of these heroes, a gentleman named Arnie Kokko, a gentleman who went through the depression with no complaints; who

worked a number of jobs to provide for his family; who fought for his country; who pays his taxes and obeys the law; who raised, with his wife, Anne, three daughters; who, before the definition of

the phrase "quality time" arose, made it a point of spending every Saturday fishing with his family and camping and spending time with them; who volunteered and helped neighbours without being

asked.

Arnie Kokko is my father-in-law. Arnie has major health problems at the moment and is fighting it with the courage and determination with which he has done

everything else. I want to say to Arnie that he is my unsung hero. Arnie is my inspiration. Arnie is as fine a role model as anyone in this province could ever look for. It is a privilege and an

honour to be a son-in-law and to know him. And so to Arnie, and all of the other Arnies in Ontario, I say thank you; you've made our province what it is.

BLOOD DONATION

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): My message today is to give the gift of life for Christmas and donate blood. I'll be giving blood

at the annual Christmas blood donor clinic to be held Monday, December 15, 2003, between the hours of 3 and 7 pm at the Sheba Shrine, 142 John Street in Barrie.

We received great support from the Barrie Fire and Rescue Department and from the Barrie Police Service at this Christmas blood donor clinic. These valuable

community service workers see first hand the necessity of collecting blood for emergency situations and I commend them for stepping up to help.

The need is great, and I want to encourage all of my constituents in Barrie, Innisville, Bradford-West Gwillimbury and area to share the spirit of Christmas in

this unique way. Roll up your sleeves and give the gift of life to others. Give the gift of life for Christmas: donate blood.

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

Mr Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): Last night the Ontario government, through the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, hosted the 2003

Ontario volunteer service awards at the Oasis Convention and Banquet Centre in my riding of Mississauga South.

As you know, Mississauga is a special place to live. We are blessed with eight kilometres of beautiful Lake Ontario shoreline, a birding and wildlife sanctuary

known as the Rattray marsh, and the Credit River, where we still have the annual salmon derby.

The natural beauty of Mississauga is one of the reasons Mississauga is one of the fastest-growing communities in Ontario. But our funding formulas on social

services have not allowed for the fast growth, and Mississauga and Peel region are underfunded by 70% on their social services compared to the jurisdiction of Toronto.

Despite the underfunding, which I know this House will address, we are a wonderful community to live in. The shortage in social service funding has been made up

with the quality of our volunteers in many of our vital services. They give freely of their time and are passionate about their organizations and their communities. Last night, the volunteers of

Mississauga received the Ontario 2003 volunteer awards for five, 10, 15, 25, 30 and now 50 years of continuous service.

As their master of ceremonies of last night's awards, I passed along the congratulations and gratitude of this House to the volunteers who have contributed so

much, not just to Mississauga, but to all of Ontario.

WATERLOO-WELLINGTON

TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): The issue I'm raising today is one that I've raised in the House before, put before the voters during the

election campaign and committed to support in this, the 38th Parliament. That issue is our Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan.

Almost a year ago, I asked the 11 municipal councils in Waterloo-Wellington to provide me with their top transportation priorities for the next five years and

beyond. All 11 municipalities provided ideas, and these formed the Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan.

The plan includes the corridor study of Highways 7 and 8 between Kitchener and Stratford; a new four-laned Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph; assistance for

the county of Wellington to rebuild Highway 24 from Guelph to Cambridge; a repaired and upgraded Highway 6 from Fergus to Mount Forest; and Waterloo region's light-rail transit initiative, among

other important transportation projects.

Municipal representatives from my riding and I met with the Minister of Transportation, the member for Oak Ridges, in April, and I've spoken about our projects

twice in this House. I raised our projects with the new Premier on October 3, the very day after the election. I asked him to bring our projects to the attention of the new Minister of

Transportation and I have followed up with the minister since.

These projects represent the real and pressing infrastructure needs of Waterloo-Wellington and our surrounding area. They are needed for road safety, continued

prosperity and economic development, and they are key to avoiding the problems of gridlock that now plague Toronto and its suburban areas. That is why I asked the Minister of Transportation to

review these projects and why I'm informing the House that I intend to continue to advocate for the Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the government for committing itself to a new

deal for cities in the throne speech.

As a former city of Toronto councillor, I understood at first hand the frustration cities experienced with the previous Conservative government when it came to

addressing the downloading of services on to municipalities. In fact, the Provincial Auditor confirmed that downloading cost municipalities like the city of Toronto $194 million.

The new spirit of co-operation between municipalities and our government stands in stark contrast to the battles of the former government. Sadly, dialogue

between the city and the province was reduced to trading insults. The result was seen in less affordable housing, slower public transit and problems in our streets. A new deal will give our

communities all across Ontario the tools and resources they need to provide for better public transit, more affordable housing and safer streets. I look forward to working with the Minister of

Municipal Affairs as well as residents from all walks of life in creating a new deal.

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Like the fortified walls of ancient Troy, a strong national consensus has protected medicare from

privatization. Efforts to bring American-style, two-tier health care to Ontario have proven fruitless; that is, until now.

Dalton McGuinty, the broken-promise Premier and his Fiberals have broken yet another one of their ironclad commitments. They have refused to close the medicare

gates that the Conservatives opened and let the privatizers and their P3-hospital Trojan Horse inside.

Before the election, McGuinty promised to stand up for medicare. He said, "We will end the Harris-Eves agenda of creeping privatization." Friday, he broke that

promise. P3 hospitals will go ahead in Brampton and Ottawa. The Toronto Star says, "P3 by Any Other Name," and they add, "The new Liberal government can split hairs if it chooses, but it has

essentially signed on to the Tory plan to build two so-called `P3' hospitals." Even Conservatives, like the member from Nepean-Carleton agree. He says, "Looks pretty identical to our P3 deal. So

we're thrilled."

He's thrilled, but New Democrats are not. We say to our broken-promise Premier on this, the first anniversary of the Romanow Commission: Listen to Mr Romanow.

Slam the gates shut on private health care. De-Fiberal-ate our health care system. Build public hospitals in Brampton and Ottawa. Keep the P3 Trojan Horse out of Ontario.

PROJECT TURNAROUND

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Following the largest tax increase in Ontario's history, Dalton McGuinty is poised to make another community

safety blunder by shutting down Project Turnaround, a successful strict discipline program for young offenders, which is located in my riding, by the way.

The move begs several questions: Why would the government eliminate a program that has proven to help troubled youth turn their lives around, and why so when

they have been doing it at a 33% lower per diem rate? Why would Dalton McGuinty support a higher rate of reoffence for young offenders? The statistics speak for themselves: Graduates of the Project

Turnaround program have a 17% lower rate of reoffence than the average rate for other facilities in our province.

I'd better answer these questions because I already know we can't get a straight answer out of our Liberal friends across the way. The government despises the

private sector. When it shows it can be efficient and effective, like in the case of Project Turnaround, instead of admitting that the operator is doing a great job, this government wants to waltz

in and close down the shop. That's bad business. But let's not forget how Dalton McGuinty would really look good in the eyes of his union buddy leaders if he rid the corrections system of the

private sector operator.

As critic for community safety and correctional services, I believe the closure of Project Turnaround would be another example of just how soft on crime the

Liberals really are. I strongly suggest that Dalton McGuinty start working on balancing the province's books instead of using the closure of Project Turnaround to repay his election debts to his

union leader buddies.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): With us today in the Speakers' gallery is the former MPP Laureano Leone. Mr Leone was a member for 1987 to 1990

for the riding of Downsview. Would all the members please welcome him here.

Hon Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, also in the gallery today is Constable John Gahan, from the

service here, who will be retiring after 27 years of very faithful service. On behalf of everyone in the House, Constable Gahan, we would like to thank you for your dedication and wish you will in

the future, and in your native tongue, mille failte.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I too, John, would like to convey my best wishes to you.

ANNUAL REPORT,

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the 2002-03 Annual Report of the Environmental

Commissioner of Ontario.

MEMBERS' SEATING

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): On November 24, 2003, the member for Niagara Centre, Mr Kormos, rose on a point of order concerning the seating

arrangements in the chamber. The member objected that the seating plan places the rump -- that is, the group of government members who cannot be accommodated in the seats to the Speaker's right --

to the Speaker's left, between the members of the official opposition and the seven members who are not affiliated with a recognized party. According to the member, the rump should have been placed

at either end of the left side of the chamber, with a view to ensuring that all opposition members were seated as a bloc as opposed to being physically separated by the rump. The opposition House

leader, Mr Runciman, and the government House leader, Mr Duncan, also spoke to this matter.

On November 25, 2003, the member for Niagara Centre rose on a separate but related point of order. He objected to the characterization of himself and six other

members not affiliated with a recognized party as independents, and asked that the group be referred to as members of the New Democratic Party. The government House leader and the member for

Nepean-Carleton, Mr Baird, also spoke to this matter.

I have had an opportunity to reflect on what the members said and to review the parliamentary precedents and authorities in Ontario and other parliamentary

jurisdictions.

In response to the first point of order, let me say that, for many decades in this chamber and in most other parliamentary jurisdictions, the whips of the

recognized parties have made the initial seating assignments for members of their respective parties shortly before the commencement of the first session of a new Parliament. The Speaker has then

assigned the seats for any other members. As the member for Niagara Centre rightly points out, however, the Speaker has the final say over the seating plan.

In the case at hand, it should be noted that shortly before the commencement of the first session of this Parliament, the Speaker approved the current seating

plan, after following the normal consultative process. The question before me now is whether there is a valid reason why that plan should be altered.

At this point in my ruling, I want to make the following observations:

First, in light of what I have already indicated about how seating assignments in this chamber and the chambers of other parliamentary jurisdictions are

traditionally made, the issue is less the placement of the rump than the placement of members who are not members of a recognized party.

Second, even if the issue was the placement of the rump, it is not at all self-evident that a rump can never physically divide opposition members. In fact, right

now, there are three Canadian parliamentary jurisdictions -- the Senate of Canada, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and the National Assembly of Quebec -- where members not affiliated

with a recognized party are not assigned seats that are physically adjacent to other opposition members. In each case, the rump physically separates such members from other opposition members.

Third, references to historical seating arrangements in this chamber have limited relevance to today's circumstances because they predate amendments made to the

standing orders and the Legislative Assembly Act since the 1970s. Those amendments have had the effect of enhancing the role of parties of a certain size in House procedures and House

administration.

In previous Parliaments, the member for Niagara Centre and his colleagues have benefited from those amendments. In the current Parliament, they do not benefit

from these provisions. Unfortunately, this state of affairs was not dictated by any member of this House, but rather by the outcome of the most recent general election.

Fourth, before the current seating plan was approved by the Speaker, members not affiliated with any of the recognized parties were allowed to be seated together

in one bloc of seats; they were allowed to decide among themselves where in that bloc they wanted to sit; and they requested and were allowed some seats in the front row as opposed to being placed

in the back row.

Fifth, no member is disadvantaged by virtue of the seat that the member has in this chamber. In other words, every seat in this chamber is a good seat.

Finally, the current seating plan does not prevent any opposition member from collaborating and consulting with another opposition member.

In light of these observations, I am ruling that the current seating plan appears to be a fair and reasonable accommodation between the rights of the majority

and the rights of the minority.

As for the second point of order, the member for Niagara Centre and his six colleagues object to being referred to as independents, the traditional

parliamentary moniker for members not affiliated with a recognized party. According to the member, they should be referred to as members of the New Democratic Party. I do not take issue with the

member that he and six other members of this House are members of the same political party. However, they are not members of a recognized party within the meaning of the Legislative Assembly Act

and the standing orders. It takes at least eight members to be a recognized party and they are only seven. The Speaker did not create that requirement; the Legislature and the House, as the case

may be, did, and only they can change it.

Having said this, I note that Speaker Parent of the Canadian House of Commons, in his June 16, 1994 ruling, accommodated those members who were not affiliated

with a recognized party by allowing the members of one particular group to be seated near each other and to be identified by the group's traditional name, by allowing the members of another

political group to be seated near each other and to be identified by their group's traditional name, and by then assigning other independent members the remaining seats according to their

seniority.

In keeping with the thrust of that ruling, I too am able to make some accommodation and so I'm ruling that, in this chamber, the member for Niagara Centre and

the other six members not affiliated with a recognized party may collectively be referred to as the third party. Further, since party identification is permissible in certain Assembly print and

electronic publications, such as Hansard and Ont.Parl, they can be referred to as the New Democratic Party in those publications, in accordance with usual practice and policy.

However, I want to be absolutely clear that this accommodation does not confer any substantive rights -- administrative, financial, procedural or otherwise --

beyond those rights that an independent member already has. For example, this ruling does not confer on any member of the third party any status as leader, House leader or whip. In other words, the

third party is still not a recognized party within the meaning of the standing orders and the Legislative Assembly Act. As I have said, only the House and the Legislature have the authority to

alter the threshold needed for recognized party status.

I thank the member for Niagara Centre, the government House leader, the opposition House leader and the member for Nepean-Carleton for their thoughtful and

helpful submissions.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VQA WINE STORES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LES MAGASINS DE VINS

DE LA VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE

Mr Hudak moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 7,

An Act to authorize a group of manufacturers of Ontario wines to sell Vintners Quality Alliance wines / Projet de loi 7, Loi autorisant un groupe de

fabricants de vins de l'Ontario à vendre des vins de la Vintners Quality Alliance.

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

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I thank all members of the assembly for their unanimous support upon first reading of the bill. This bill would

authorize the Lieutenant Governor in Council to set rules regarding VQA stores, to help promote Ontario wines and hopefully in tourism areas to extend their exposure to Ontario consumers as well as

tourists.

This had been part of the Rural Red Tape Reduction Act, as

schedule B. Unfortunately, we did not have enough time in debate to pass that before the election,

but I offer it up in good faith. If it becomes a government bill or, through unanimous consent, through three readings, or any consent through three readings in the Legislature, I think it's a

great thing for the industry.

COMMITMENT TO THE FUTURE

OF MEDICARE ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ENGAGEMENT

D'ASSURER L'AVENIR

DE L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

Mr Smitherman moved first reading of the following bill:

des services de santé, édictant une nouvelle loi relative à l'accessibilité aux services de santé et abrogeant la

Loi sur l'accessibilité aux services de santé,

prévoyant l'imputabilité du secteur des services de santé et modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

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

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): On that, Mr Speaker, I'll be making a ministerial statement.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(INSTALLATIONS INDUSTRIELLES)

Mr Levac moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 9,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act to regulate industrial facilities that use, store or treat hazardous materials / Projet de loi 9,

Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement pour réglementer les installations industrielles où sont utilisés, entreposés ou traités des matériaux

dangereux.

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

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This bill amends the Environmental Protection Act by requiring that industrial facilities which regularly use, store

and treat significant amounts of hazardous material prepare and submit an environmental report on their property every five years. The reports will be available to the public. A facility that is

ceasing operations is required to submit a final environmental report. Owners of industrial facilities are responsible for any environmental damage that occurs on their land while under their care.

This will rid us, once and for all, of brownfields.

VISITOR

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Before I start my remarks, it gives me an extraordinary honour to bring to your

attention the presence in the members' gallery of Shirley Douglas, who holds the distinction of not only being the daughter of Tommy Douglas but a constituent of the great riding of Toronto

Centre-Rosedale.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It is an honour to rise in this House today to speak about the Commitment to

the Future of Medicare Act.

Our government made a clear commitment to make universal, public medicare the law in Ontario. We're introducing this legislation to keep this commitment. If

passed, it will make two-tier, pay-your-way-to-the-front-of-the-line health care illegal in Ontario. This legislation enshrines into law what Ontarians believe deeply in their hearts: every member

of our society has an equal right to quality health care based on need, not income.

In preparing his historic report, Roy Romanow challenged those who advocated user fees for medically necessary services, medical savings accounts and a

parallel private system to prove that their ideas would improve access or deliver better care. They could not provide that evidence because that evidence does not exist. But their failure to make

their case does not mean that they will give up on having their way.

This legislation is needed to make it clear to them that their way is not the Canadian way, it's not Ontario's way and it's not the way of the future. Our

answer to those who advocate pay-your-way-to-the-front-of-the-line health care is: no way.

Earlier today, I attended an Atkinson Foundation luncheon, honouring Mr Romanow on the first anniversary of his report. His thorough review came to an

irrefutable conclusion: The pursuit of corporate profits weakens, not strengthens, health care by taking dollars and resources out of medicare.

I told Mr Romanow today, and I tell Ontarians now, that his report was a giant step forward. It's a giant step forward because it builds on our values, yes,

but also because it's based on evidence, not ideology. It's based on facts, not myths. But even a giant step forward will not move Ontario forward unless we in this Legislature take the next steps.

This legislation represents several significant steps forward.

The Canada Health Act does not include the principle of accountability. Our legislation would entrench it. There is no sure way now to know whether health care

dollars are consistently being spent wisely, whether specific performance targets are being met, whether we are doing a better job of taking care of patients.

Our legislation would create an innovative way of doing just that: a new Ontario Health Quality Council. The new provincial council would keep track of factors

such as waiting times, and issue an annual report on how the system is doing and, frankly, how the government is doing.

Our new government has been working hard to champion a National Health Council, something Mr Romanow recommended and the previous government did not support. I

am pleased to report that this idea has gained momentum once again. I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to the Premier, who has led these efforts on our behalf. Our Ontario Health Quality

Council can make a tremendous contribution to the national body and, more importantly, it can make a tremendous contribution to the people we are all privileged to serve.

It's not enough to tell Ontarians we have the best health care system in the world; we need to ensure we have the best health care system in the world. Like Mr

Romanow, Ontario's patients want to see evidence, they want to see progress and they want to see real, positive change in health care, not more creeping privatization of health delivery.

That is why our new government has acted to ensure that new hospitals in Brampton and Ottawa are publicly owned, are publicly controlled and are publicly

accountable.

That is why we will soon move to ensure that private MRI and CT scan clinics brought forward by that government are returned where they belong: to the public

domain. That is why we will continue to take real, positive steps in the weeks, months and years ahead, so Mr Romanow's giant step forward turns into a march toward the health care we need.

We will, as Mr Romanow's report puts it, build on our values. We will build a health care system that is public, universal and accountable; health care that's

second to none; health care that serves generations to come; health care that's the envy of the world.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'd like to respond to the statement that has just been made by the Minister of Health. I don't

think anybody disputes the need to be accountable. In fact, the last eight years we've been doing everything we possibly could to ensure the accountability of the system, and I plan to demonstrate

that.

We certainly don't object to the Ontario Health Quality Council. I think people in this province deserve the best possible health care with the shortest wait

times possible. However, I will tell you, this doublespeak, this imaginary bogeyman of two-tier medicine that you have created, you know is not real.

Perhaps you've forgotten that it was your government under David Peterson and Health Minister Elinor Caplan that introduced the Independent Health Facilities

Act on November 23, 1989. It was proclaimed April 23, 1990. Today, you are responsible for these independent health facilities' privatization. There are over 900 of them in the province today. Does

that mean you're going to get rid of the mammograms, the X-rays, all of the surgical services, the treatment services, the diagnostic services, that are available to people today? Because that is

two-tier, and you introduced it. You need to acknowledge that you introduced it.

You know as well that the deal that supposedly you made with the two hospitals in Brampton and Ottawa continue to be two-tier. They are still P3s. They are

public-private partnerships. There was no change. In fact, it says here in Corcoran's article, "Health Minister Smitherman confirmed in an interview yesterday that the P3 deals for Brampton and

Ottawa are essentially going ahead as the Tories planned." So I would advise you to put away the bogeyman.

But let me tell you about what our government did, because we made great strides. We provided accountability to the public. We recognized that we needed to

provide the services that were needed and to spend the money well. As you know, we improved access to service. We provided more access to family physicians by setting up the family health networks.

We were the very first province in Canada to do so. We hired 12,000 more nurses. We created the position of nurse practitioner. We were increasing access for international medical graduates to 650.

We made a commitment and are building Ontario's first medical school in 30 years in Thunder Bay and Sudbury. We did make a tremendous amount of progress, and we were prepared to do much more.

As far as waiting lists are concerned, I would just remind you that we did slash the wait times for MRIs and CAT scans in Ontario. We tripled the number of

these machines from 57 to 151 in eight years. I also want you to know that we had built a province-wide computerized cardiac care network that had reduced the wait for cardiac surgery by 50% since

1996. In fact, I got a call from a --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): When the minister was making his statement, there was a hush and everyone could hear. Now the responses must

have the same respect. I'd like to have the member deliver her response in the same manner. Thank you.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I was talking about the great strides that had been made in recent years, since 1996, with regard to reducing wait times for cardiac surgery. We had actually

reduced them by 50% because of a new province-wide computerized cardiac care network. If you don't believe that, I had a patient call me yesterday, thanking me because they did get to the front of

the line because of the seriousness of their condition.

We had already moved to put in place making sure there were acceptable treatment times for general surgery, cataract surgery, cancer treatment, hip and knee

replacement and MRIs. So great strides had been made. I appreciate the announcement today by the minister and I'm glad you're building on our improvements and our increased funding.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent for five minutes for the third party to

have its statement.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent? Agreed.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): It's a pleasure for me to respond on behalf of the New Democratic Party. Let me begin by saying that we are

here on the first anniversary of the release of the Romanow Report. It's important to remember that the report was put together after extensive consultation and dialogue with Canadians about the

shape of the health care system they wanted to see and what that system should provide to them. But let me make it clear as well that one of the key points Romanow made was that despite all of the

invitations to come forward, the private sector could not prove that private sector delivery of health care was more efficient, more effective, had better patient outcomes or was cheaper than the

public system. In fact, he made it clear that there was no proof that private health care delivery was cheaper than delivery in the public system.

So how come the Liberals haven't learned from that lesson? Because here we stand today, and this Liberal government has not cancelled the for-profit, private

MRI-CAT scan clinics in Ontario, this despite a very clear election promise to do so. This government can provide no evidence that there will not be queue-jumping in these private clinics, and the

government can provide no evidence that paying your way to the front of the line can be stopped in these private clinics. If the government truly believed in publicly funded, publicly administered

health care, the government would have been in here today, on the anniversary of the Romanow Report, cancelling the for-profit clinics and making it clear that new MRIs and CAT scans are going into

publicly funded, publicly administered hospitals. Where is your action on this important promise?

The second point that I want to make has to do with the P3 hospitals, because if the government was listening to Romanow, the government would end the private

financing of the P3 hospitals. With respect to these hospitals, there is absolutely no difference between the Conservative lease and the Liberal mortgage with respect to the hospitals in Brampton

and Ottawa. The government has not cancelled the private financing of these hospitals. The private sector is going to continue to do the construction. What does that mean for patients and for

taxpayers? It means that it will be much more costly to build hospitals that should be build with public money. Why? Because it will cost the private consortium more money to borrow money, much

less than what it would cost the government to borrow that same money.

And the private sector is going to want a profit for its work, a tidy profit of 15% to 20% that's going to be added to the mortgage payment. That is money that

should be used for patient care, not for profit for the private consortium. There is absolutely no difference between the deal that was arrived at by the Conservatives and the deal that was

announced by the Liberals last week. Get the private sector out of the financing of these hospitals. Do what has traditionally been done in this province: Publicly fund the construction of publicly

owned, publicly administered hospitals and make sure that we do have money for patient care and make sure that money that should be going to patient care is not being diverted into the profits of

the private consortiums.

If the government was listening to Romanow, the government would have been here today ending the competitive bidding in the home care sector, because again, we

know that when the private sector is involved in home care, money that should be going to home care services ends up in the pockets of the for-profit home care providers. Today, on the anniversary

of the Romanow Report, the government has nothing to say about competitive bidding in home care and public money that should be going to patient care instead going into profits for these

companies.

You know what? I think the first order of business for the new health council should be for that health council to review the P3 hospital deals in Ottawa and

Brampton to expose just how similar the Conservative deal is to the Liberal deal that was announced last week. I think that should be the first order of business for the health council.

What the government should be doing today, if they truly want to improve health care for Ontarians, if they truly want to ensure that people in Ontario can get

the health care they deserve, is to immediately be dealing with the promises they made: the hiring of 8,000 new nurses, the establishment of 150 new family health teams, the new ways they were

going to bring in to attract, recruit and retain specialists and doctors, the ending of the fee increases for seniors who live in long-term-care facilities, the increased investment in home care.

Where are you on these promises, which would truly improve health care for all Ontarians?

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, let me say first of all how encouraged we are that it seems

that finally you and your government are prepared to get down to business. In his homecoming speech last night, we read that your Premier has given direction, finally, to get down to the job of

wrestling with the fiscal challenges you face.

By the way, I believe the message from the people of this province to you is that they want you to keep your promise to balance the budget. We believe as well

that that is very possible. Sir, you have some five months left until the end of the fiscal year. Between now and then, a great deal of work must be done by you and by your colleagues. I'm asking

you now, are you prepared to get to the task, to balance this budget, and are you prepared -- as your Premier said, nothing is off the table, including the sale of assets -- to get that job

done?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): As I listen to my own MPP -- because I live in Richmond Hill, and the member for Oak Ridges represents

me -- I find it incredible that the member for Oak Ridges, who I am told may seek the leadership, will not yet do what the people of Ontario want him and their party to do: to simply admit that

over the course of the past year and throughout an election campaign, they told a story that had absolutely no basis in reality. Indeed, even yesterday the Tories put out a series of proposals that

is so fictitious, that is so wrought with metaphor and hyperbole as to suggest that they have not yet come to realize that the deficit that they created, not just over the course of the past eight

years but last year, creates a tremendous --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary.

Mr Klees: The only thing that is fictitious is the bogus deficit that this government is discussing.

Let us offer you some help, Mr Minister. At the time our government realized that significant expenses had hit this province through SARS, through a number of

other issues, not the least of which was an electricity blackout across the eastern seaboard of North America, that we would have a challenge. There was a direction that the Premier of the day gave

to each minister, and that was to get to work to ensure that whatever projected deficit -- which I remind you is five months down the road -- would in fact be made up.

Why can you not give your ministers the same instruction: Get on with the job and bring in a balanced budget by the time the year-end is here?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I want to tell my friend from Oak Ridges that no one is working harder to get this terrible financial crisis under control

than this government under the leadership of this Premier -- no one. So I do not need his invitation to get down to work.

In the last budget, they overestimated revenues from crown corporations by some $600 million. They pretended, in that budget, that they were going to have

asset sales of $2 billion. They had expenditures during the year after the budget of $800 million more than they had budgeted for. We are going to fix this problem. We're working very hard on that

agenda.

Mr Klees: We really do hope that you will address the fiscal challenges of this province. That was our task. We were prepared to do it, and we

would have done it. The problem is that you have no sense of urgency. Even your Premier last night in his speech said, "We're going to take a couple of months to make that case so people understand

that there's a need to do something."

You don't have a couple of months to think about this. Your responsibility is today. Give instructions to each of your ministers to get on with the job. Bring

in a balanced budget by the time the year-end is here. You've got five months to do it. Don't sit around thinking about it. You don't have the time.

You promised the people of this province a balanced budget. Give it to them. That's your job.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I'm intrigued by the member's call to work. Four days ago, I introduced a bill in this House that began to fix the problem. In

fact, the reckless tax cuts to large corporations that that party put into place were bankrupting Ontario. How did he vote on it? He voted against the bill.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We're just on the first question, and I hear more heckling from all sides. We have to do better than that.

Hon Mr Sorbara: As I was saying, the first order of business was to get rid of the reckless tax cuts that that party put into place during

their last couple of years in office.

The Speaker: New question?

Hon Mr Sorbara: How did the member vote on that? He voted against the bill. Their position is, notwithstanding that we're six --

The Speaker: Whenever I say "New question" and I cut you off, it's time for you to sit down.

New question?

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is to the Minister of Children's Services. I want to compliment her on her

appointment.

Earlier this week, Minister, you had a question from one of your backbenchers. You responded with some comments related to the transfer of youth justice

services to your new ministry. One of the quotes from Hansard was, "We will focus on helping kids get their lives back on track and become contributing members of society."

Could the minister explain what the rationale is for this transfer, and why her government feels it's appropriate to have a children's ministry responsible for

16- and 17-year-olds, some of whom are convicted murderers and rapists?

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children's Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I thank the honourable member for his

question. We believe that kids between the ages of 12 and 17 are children, regardless of the difficulties that they've put themselves in. We believe they deserve a second chance.

Right now there are silos across the ministries when dealing with children. That is why the Premier thought, and I agreed, that one children's ministry with

all of the children's services underneath would break down those silos and help those young people in trouble get their life together in a more coordinated fashion.

This hasn't taken place yet. If you have anything more specific, with specific cases, I would refer you to my colleague the Minister of Community Safety and

Correctional Services. However, that is the thinking behind the new coordinated ministry.

Mr Runciman: I think it's appropriate that this minister receive the questions and respond, because in her earlier response she indicated that

this transfer would occur before the end of the year. So I think plans are well underway.

This morning, citizens across Ontario were horrified to learn that two 15-year-old teenagers and a 16-year-old are being charged with murder in connection with

the beating death of a 12-year-old grade 7 student. According to press reports, the boy was beaten to death with a baseball bat and his throat was slashed. Our sympathies -- and I'm sure I speak on

behalf of all members of the Legislature -- go out to the young boy's family and friends.

If these teenagers are found guilty of the brutal murder of this helpless 12-year-old, can the minister tell us in a broad-brush way what type of programs she

anticipates providing these people under her enlightened and caring Liberal approach to young offenders?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I thank the member for the question. I can't talk about the specific case because it is under police investigation. I

can tell you that the Liberal government is just as shocked and disgusted at this murder as anyone else in Ontario and will take this very seriously. I can tell you that there are community

programs out there, but because of the silos it is very difficult to access some of those programs. I can tell you that because of the changes in the federal jurisdiction, the young offender

numbers are coming down, but as the honourable member knows, that doesn't mean these kids aren't still in trouble. So there will be more access to other community programs, and we will consult to

see what improved programs can also be developed to deal with these children.

Mr Runciman: This is a familiar theme. Certainly we've heard it for years from the federal Liberal government. According to Liberals, young

offenders who commit serious crimes are victims of their environment and we need to treat them with kindness, provide swimming pools, pool tables, video games, rock-climbing courses, and all will

be well in this rose-coloured Liberal world. That isn't the real world, and we all know it. Some of these people are violent, hardened criminals who put hard-working, honest Ontarians at risk.

I ask the minister not to go down this road. Can she make this commitment to all families --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Would you allow the member to ask his question, please.

Mr Runciman: Can she make this commitment to all families who have lost loved ones or had their lives destroyed by the actions of violent

young offenders?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I'd like to once again thank the member opposite. Again, I'm a parent; I know you're a parent. Those of us who are

parents were shocked and disgusted at what happened to this 12-year-old. I happen to have a 12-year-old, and as all parents know, that's the first thing that comes into your mind. We will take this

very seriously.

The new children's ministry will also include kids right from birth to 18. Many of these problems, as the honourable member knows, as my honourable colleagues

across the floor all know, happen very early in life. Prevention is the solution. We will deal with young offenders, absolutely. These murders should not take place and we will do everything we can

to prevent them, but the best possible policy is long-term solutions to prevent the factors that lead to kids getting into these kinds of difficulties.

BALANCED BUDGET LEGISLATION

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): My question is to the Premier. Mr Premier, earlier today your office received a letter from

John Williamson, the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. You Liberals might remember him. He's the fellow who has been out there recently echoing our caucus's comments that your

tax increases will hurt our economy and kill thousands of jobs in Ontario.

The letter sent to you states that, "On Friday, November 21, you publicly stated the balanced budget law is having a `perverse effect on governments.' No other

details were provided and your comments have been widely interpreted to mean the government is considering amendments that will scuttle the act in its current form."

Mr Premier, what Ontarians find perverse is your government's decision to, day after day, break your promises to the hard-working taxpayers of this province.

It is the Liberal actions and Liberal broken promises, just weeks after the election, that Ontarians find perverse.

The taxpayers' federation and we in the PC caucus believe that any weakening of the Taxpayer Protection and Balanced Budget Act is totally unacceptable. My

question to the Premier is --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Make your questions a little bit shorter. You may be able to get it in the supplementary.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the member for his question, and I look forward to

chatting with Mr Williamson some more on this matter.

Let me be clear to you and the people of Ontario: The balanced budget legislation is not working. You made the case for that. Under this balanced budget

legislation, you maintained that you had a balanced budget when in fact you had a $5.6-billion deficit. That's why we have to fix the balanced budget legislation in Ontario.

Mr Tascona: Premier, it's time to be straight with the taxpayers of this province. In your election platform, paper number three, page 5, it

says, "We support and voted for Ontario's balanced budget law. ...We will not bend the law whenever convenient."

That is not all. In your election platform, paper number five, page 13, it says, "We will comply with the Taxpayer Protection Act and balanced budget

legislation, not bend the law at any whim."

There you have it from your own election platform. Can you tell the House and the thousands of Ontarians watching at home: Will you keep this promise as

written in your election platform, or will you do as you have done before and break yet another commitment made to the Ontario voters?

Hon Mr McGuinty: It may have escaped the member opposite's attention, but in fact, he is a member of a party which itself broke its own

balanced budget legislation.

We believe that the people of Ontario are entitled to responsible, balanced budget legislation. They do not have that in place at the present time. What they

have is a bill that enabled this party, the party opposite, to hide a $5.6-billion deficit. Obviously, this legislation is not having the intended effect, and we intend to improve upon that to

bring real transparency and real accountability to real balanced budget legislation in the province of Ontario.

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Ms Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): My question is to return to an issue that is of great importance to the people of Ontario and it is for

the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Minister, my constituents, as do most Ontarians, believe in universal and accessible public health care. Ray Romanow, in his report on health care, found a

near-universal belief in public health care across this country. Over the past eight years, my constituents have been very concerned about the evidence of a creeping privatization in our public

health care in this province. What will you clearly do to protect public health care and ensure universal and equitable access for all Ontarians?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Earlier today, I had the honour of presenting a bill, Commitment to the Future

of Medicare Act, which I recommend to all members of this House. I recommend it because it entrenches our values. I believe that medicare is the very best expression of Canadian values and that we

need to build on it.

We'll build on it by entrenching the principle of accountability with those other principles that have long been in the Canada Health Act.

Lastly, this bill will ensure that this government and any future government cannot do what that government did. When that government brought in seven private

MRI and CT scan clinics, not only did they give them to the private sector to operate, they also allowed insured Ontarians, Ontarians who have OHIP coverage, to buy their way to the front of the

line. We'll make that practice illegal.

Ms Mossop: But there is also the issue of accountability. Whether public or private, the health care system must be accountable to the

patients, their families, to the taxpayers, the community and health care workers. It's vital that we restore an atmosphere of trust in this province, especially in the area of health care. What

will you do to ensure accountability?

Hon Mr Smitherman: On the issue of accountability, I have, in the five weeks since I was named health minister, worked within the health

sector to usher in a new era of accountability. We've demonstrated that in our very transparent handling of the challenges with respect to sterilization in our hospitals.

A significant component of the piece of legislation that I introduced today is to create the Ontario Health Quality Council. That council will be an important

tool to ensure that Ontarians get an annual report that gives them a very clear sense of what's going on in their health care system.

I'm very pleased that this government has made a commitment, which is to extend the powers of the Provincial Auditor to give the Provincial Auditor more

opportunity to take a look at how we're spending money in our health care system.

These things combined will provide Ontarians with much greater accountability with respect to this most cherished service, the provision of health care.

HOSPITALS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): The Minister of Health makes a lot of noise about things being different, but at the end of the day

they broke their promise to cancel the P3 hospitals. We're glad, because we knew that those P3 hospitals would make hospital services accessible more quickly to the people in Ontario.

You said yesterday, in response to the member from Brampton Centre, that the hospital in Brampton would be "a public hospital, unlike your deal," referring to

our deal, "that it is publicly controlled and it will be a hospital that is publicly accountable." I would suggest to you that on September 28 of this year, the Royal Ottawa Hospital put out an

announcement that said that the board approved the redevelopment model. They voted on principles that would stipulate the delivery of all health care would remain in the public sector, where it

belongs, now and into the future. So what's different? What's the shell game?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm pleased that after this many days, the party actually gave this member an

opportunity to stand and ask that question. Here's what I'll tell you. To the member opposite, our commitment during the election was that we would bring these hospitals back into the public realm.

What does that mean to the honourable member, who doesn't seem to get it so far? It means that these hospitals, unlike your deal, will be owned by the public hospital boards.

What else does it mean? It means that we forced language to be inserted into these contracts that makes absolutely certain of who's in charge: The public

hospital board is in charge. Under your deals, the tail wagged the dog. We have made an assurance to the people that we will make these contracts public, because we believe in the fundamental

principle of accountability and equality. These are deals that have restored public ownership, public control and public accountability, and that makes them a great measure better than the deals

you offered.

Mrs Witmer: This is a lot of hot air and you know it. You know these deals are basically no different. You've inserted the word "mortgage," as

opposed to "lease," but at the end of the day the private sector is still involved. In fact, I would suggest to you, and I'll read again from the Royal Ottawa Hospital: "This hospital will remain a

public hospital. Recent comments made by those opposed to the redevelopment were deliberately deceiving the public by describing it as two-tiered medicine." To this day, you continue to deceive the

public by referring to it as two-tiered. Let us see a copy of --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. This might be about the third time for the week that I've warned members about using such language.

Member, would you mind withdrawing?

Mrs Witmer: Yes, I'll withdraw from this quote.

Hon Mr Smitherman: I found it a rather precious word from a Minister of Health who, from 1997, for four years, ushered in $800 million in

unfunded liability in the form of operating deficits of hospitals that are now on their books in the form of working capital deficits, with no capacity to service them. And you're going to lecture

me?

You say no big deal, your deal to ours? Let me tell you the big deal. This is an e-mail that I received on the afternoon after I left Brampton, from a woman

who had long been involved with the Chinguacousy hospital board that had made the land available in the first place in Brampton. She said, "As a past chairman of the Chinguacousy health services

board, I was very disappointed to learn the land and the funds for which we had been trustees for many years and given to the hospital" was to be transferred to private ownership.

We have made certain, in Brampton and in Ottawa, that those lands and those buildings will now and will forever be in the public domain.

HIGHWAY 11

Ms Monique Smith (Nipissing): My question today is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, last Friday, you and federal Transport

Minister David Collenette announced $336 million in joint funding for 10 highway improvement projects across Ontario. The people of Nipissing and I were disappointed that Highway 11 was not

included in this announcement. My community has been promised that Highway 11 would be a priority for this government. I'd like assurances that the four-laning of Highway 11 between North Bay and

Huntsville will be completed as promised.

If northern Ontario is to grow and prosper, if we are to attract industry and capital to the north, we need a viable transportation link. Minister, why was

Highway 11 left out of your announcement last week?

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I thank the member from Nipissing for her important question. I can tell the honourable

member that last week's federal-provincial announcement required that projects be part of the national highway system. Unfortunately, Highway 11 between North Bay and Barrie does not meet that

criterion. However, that is just one program to improve highways in Ontario.

I can assure the member that the province is moving forward with the four-laning of Highway 11. In fact, of the 57 kilometres of Highway 11 that still need to

be four-laned between North Bay and Huntsville, 10 kilometres between Trout Creek and South River are now under construction, to be opened in the fall of 2004.

Ms Smith: Mr Minister, I'm glad to hear that Highway 11 has not been forgotten, but I have to ask you more. I understand the financial

situation that our province has found itself in, but my community has waited far too long. The northern economy depends upon safe, reliable transportation networks for its goods and its people to

and from the north. The two-lane highway has been a barrier to economic development in my region, and we cannot afford any further delays.

Mr Minister, will you assure me that we are working toward the timeline that has been set out and that we will follow the timeline that has been set out for

the construction of this highway?

Hon Mr Takhar: I would again like to thank the member for her question. As the honourable member points out, Ontario faces a large challenge

in tackling the deficit. We did not create that problem, but our government will address it in a responsible manner.

We recognize that good highways are vital to northern communities, and we will help the north achieve its economic potential. Improving northern highways is a

priority, and that's why we are committed to developing a northern Ontario highway strategy. Because I know how important this highway expansion project is to the member's community, I would be

very pleased to meet with you and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to discuss the next steps in the four-laning of Highway 11.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I just want the members to recognize a former member of Parliament, Mr Ed Fulton from Scarborough East. He's

a former member of Parliament here.

PROJECT TURNAROUND

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. In this new era of

accountability and co-operation, why didn't you have the common decency and courtesy to the operator, the young offenders and their families know before you told the media that you have plans to

close Project Turnaround?

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I thank the member for the question. You should know that this

particular facility, operation turnaround, has been under review for some time. There is a contract that expires January 31, 2004, and we were looking in a responsible way to see whether or not

that should be continued. After looking at the figures, after looking at the costs, which were, in many respects, absurd when you consider that today there are 15 young offenders in that facility

with 40 staff, which is 2.8 staff members for every one offender,

whereas in our other youth facilities the ratio is one staff to eight young offenders -- it made no economic sense. The facility

has problems. We have absolutely conformed to our contractual arrangements. There was no indication that this contract would be reviewed. If it was to be reviewed, it would have to go out to new

public tender. The decision was made in the interests of saving $2.5 million per year for the taxpayers.

Mr Dunlop: Thank you very much, Minister, for that response. First of all, that wasn't the question I asked. Second of all, it's not

"operation turnaround," it's "Project Turnaround."

Minister, recently you've been responding to the media about your leader's desire to close Project Turnaround. To correct some of the comments before I ask my

question, you need to know the following facts about Project Turnaround. The per diem costs are 33% less than those of other provincial facilities. Youths do not volunteer to come to Project

Turnaround, and Project Turnaround is the only facility that has a certified vocational program and the only facility where programs are mandatory. Fourth, you and your leader have never visited

Project Turnaround.

In light of these facts, of which you're already clearly not yet aware, are you prepared to stand in the House today and tell the staff and youth at Project

Turnaround that you will review the private sector operator's contract and endeavour to keep this efficient and successful facility open?

Hon Mr Kwinter: You should know that the decision has been taken. The contract will not be renewed.

You should also know that some of the suppositions that you have indicated are not true. I've heard reports about the recidivism rate. You should know that (

a) they have to volunteer in order to go there, and (

b) there are no young offenders who have been charged currently or in the past for either arson, sex offences or homicide. Thirdly, any young

offender who goes back into the regular system is not included.

So when you take this small amount -- and today there are 15 young offenders in that facility that's meant to hold 32. If you use that number, then you can't

possibly compare 800 young offenders with a whole range of very serious crimes and take 15 who have serious crimes but not to that extremity and say that we're comparing one to the other.

HOSPITALS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier, and my question is this: Premier, you said during the election, "We

will end the Harris-Eves agenda of creeping privatization of health care." On Friday, you broke that promise. You okayed P3 hospitals in Brampton and Ottawa. The Toronto Star captured it very

accurately.

On this, the first anniversary of the ground-breaking Romanow commission, Premier, will you explain to Ontarians why you are breaking your medicare promise and

promoting P3 hospitals?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the leader of the third party, I was very pleased earlier today to be

accompanied by my Minister of Health and to meet with Roy Romanow and celebrate the anniversary of his very, very important report. I want to assure the member that our new legislation breathes

life into our very important commitment made to the people of Ontario that we're going to stand up for universal public medicare on behalf of our families in Ontario.

It's very clear. What we've done to these two hospitals in particular is ensured that they now fall under public ownership. They will be publicly controlled

and they will be accountable to the public. That's what's important to the people of Ontario, and that's what we've done.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you're not fooling anyone. Once again it was accurately captured: "P3 by Any Other Name." It doesn't matter if you're

talking about a Conservative lease or a Liberal mortgage, the reality is this: These hospitals are privately financed, which will cost more. The private financing and the private operator will want

to make profits on top of the increased borrowing costs. That means that money of the health budget that would have gone to patient care now goes to the corporate profit line, now goes to the

corporate interest line. It means that many of the services in the hospitals are going to be privatized, again with additional cost.

You announced the new health council today. Would you ensure that the first task of that health council is to investigate these P3 deals and within 60 days

report on how much health care funding is going toward private corporate profits, private contracts and private interest costs?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Let me just say that I am very proud of these two new hospitals that are going to meet the interests of these communities.

I'm proud of the work this minister has done in changing what were going to be private hospitals into public hospitals. The member may think this distinction is somehow academic or esoteric, but I

can tell you, and to the families of Ontario, we have stood up for them and on their behalf we have delivered public hospitals, publicly controlled and accountable to the people of Ontario.

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

Ms Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. The Great Lakes are a tremendously valuable

natural resource, unique in the world as a source of fresh water. Not only are they of a magnificent beauty, but we rely on them for fishing, for tourism, for recreation and for drinking water. We

have a responsibility to keep the Great Lakes clean and safe for future generations.

There are very disturbing reports that indicate mile upon mile of Lake Huron shoreline has been permanently posted as unsafe for swimming. Clearly, this is

unacceptable. What is our government doing to ensure that the Great Lakes in general and Lake Huron in particular are safe?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I would like to thank the member from London North Centre for her question. It's an

excellent question and she's obviously very concerned about an important issue in her community.

Sadly, not only did the previous government leave us with a $5.6-billion deficit that we have to deal with, we have many and serious environmental issues that

are now facing us. This is one example of a cleanup that we must now begin to address, but this a job we will very gladly undertake because for this government the environment is a priority.

I'm happy to say the Walkerton inquiry found that the previous government acted irresponsibly and made irresponsible cuts. However, our Premier has committed

to implementing all the Walkerton recommendations. We believe those recommendations will be integral to protecting the environment of this province.

Ms Matthews: Thank you for your reassurance, Minister. Clean water is important to the people of London North Centre, whether it is in the

lake or from our taps.

The previous government undertook reckless cuts to the Ministry of the Environment. The Walkerton inquiry found that those cuts connected directly to the

disaster there. I understand that our government will, instead, take a responsible approach to the challenges ahead. My constituents want to know that the water they drink is safe. What has this

government done to begin bringing about real change and implementing the recommendations of the Walkerton inquiry?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: I'm very happy to say that yesterday, as a matter of fact, the government brought all compliance and enforcement

requirements of the Nutrient Management Act under the direction of the Ministry of the Environment. The addition of compliance to the Ministry of the Environment's enforcement requirements fulfills

a recommendation of the O'Connor report. This government is committed to implementing the recommendations of that report. This government will provide strong, clear and comprehensive rules, and my

ministry will work co-operatively with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We will consult with farmers and other stakeholder groups to ensure that all the rules that are put in

place by this government are implemented properly.

NORTHERN ONTARIO ENERGY RATES

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines in his role as guardian of northern

interests. Congratulations on your new job. I would like to know what protection there is for northern Ontario households in your recently introduced energy bill. As you know, energy needs are far

greater, and alternative fuels like natural gas or propane are not always available in the north.

I'd like to quote an e-mail I just received: "What are people in the north facing -25°C ... many days supposed to do? Turn off their electric heat

mid-month ... and live with the Salvation Army till month's end ... especially if they are on pensions, or single parents?" How does your plan protect northern families who will use far more than

the 750 kilowatt hours per month?

Hon Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Thank you very much for the question. I appreciate it. But I find it strange

that it would be coming from a member of the opposition who campaigned extensively during the last election that the books were balanced, the books were balanced, the books were balanced. They went

to every city and town across northern Ontario, saying the books were balanced. Well, the reality is that we are left with a $5.6-billion deficit. The responsible thing is to do exactly what the

Minister of Energy has done. It is the appropriate thing to do.

I must tell you that the people in northern Ontario have had to learn to be very resourceful over the course of the last 12 years, with your government and the

former NDP government, and I must tell you that we will ensure that we use the conservation techniques that are in place to minimize the effect that you caused because of your mismanagement of

Ontario's finances.

Mr Miller: Minister, perhaps you didn't understand. My question was not about the bogus deficit; my question was about what you're going to do

to protect the interests of northerners who are going to be facing higher electricity bills.

Also, I'd like to know what protection your energy plan has for northern businesses. Yesterday I spoke to the management of a northern mine. They are trying to

decide on the feasibility of an expansion that's going to provide, if it goes ahead, is going to provide some badly needed, high-paying jobs.

We already know that the manufacturing, lumber and mining sectors are grappling with the 20% higher value of the Canadian dollar, with the softwood lumber

dispute and with other challenges, including your recent tax increase. What concessions have you made in your new energy bill to ensure that northern businesses can remain sustainable? And this

time, please answer the question.

Hon Mr Bartolucci: It is a fair question and we've been very, very responsible in our approach. We will continue to be very, very responsible

in our approach, because we realize that if we do not get a handle on the problem that you created, there will be no sustainability in northern Ontario, because you put us in the hole.

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question? The member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr David Orazietti (Sault Ste Marie): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and congratulations on your acclamation to the Chair of this House. It is clearly

a reflection of the confidence that members have in your abilities to be fair and impartial.

My question is to the very capable Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As you are aware, the communities of northern Ontario are struggling

economically to make ends meet; the youth of the north continue to leave at an unprecedented rate; and vital public services such as health care and education are in dire need of repair and

reinvestment, largely due to the Conservative and NDP mismanagement. In the past, we have been entirely left out of the consultation processes. Northerners have real concerns and deserve to be

heard and deserve to be provided with real solutions that will work for the north. Minister, can you tell me what strategies will be put in place to ensure that northern concerns will be heard?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'd like respect be given to the member, who is asking his first question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It is always the practice here that we give the courtesy of silence for the individual to present his question.

Have you completed your question?

Mr Orazietti: I have, Mr Speaker.

Hon Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I would like to thank the member from Sault Ste Marie and congratulate him

on his election as the member from Sault Ste Marie.

We agree with the member's concerns and that's why our government committed to northerners to establish a direct link between their communities and their

ministry and their minister, through the creation of northern development councils. These councils will directly advise the government regarding northern economic and social priorities, and help

implement the strategies that we need for positive change in the north.

Mr Orazietti: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I want to congratulate you as the first northern development minister actually from the

north in almost a decade.

As the minister is well aware, having a northerner in this position will help ensure that our concerns are understood. Minister, you mentioned northern

development councils. How and when will these councils be set up and, more importantly, how will they benefit the constituents of Sault Ste Marie and other northern Ontario ridings?

Hon Mr Bartolucci: We're working to create these councils just as quickly as possible. I've asked the ministry staff to come up with various

options so that we can create the right option. Once they are established, we will ensure that they reflect the uniqueness of the area that they are going to represent. Isn't that a refreshing

thing to think about? Finally, for the north, we're going to have a government that sets its policies, sets its priorities and sets its decision-making based on the uniqueness on northern Ontario,

for a change.

RURAL ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, on Tuesday we heard you tell the people of this province that

they have to "pay the price" for hydro and make a choice between lower hydro rates or investments in health care, clean air and clean water. You suggested the main intention is to force consumers

to conserve energy.

But what happens to those who have no choice in how much energy they consume, people like the farmers in my riding of Oxford, who use hydro to heat their barns

and dry their corn? Premier McGuinty told these people they would not have to deal with increases in the cap on hydro because his government was committed to keeping the cap until at least 2006.

Are those farm families supposed to let their animals freeze and their corn rot so they can conserve energy because they can't afford the 25% increase in the cost of energy? This question is about

how you're going to deal with the impact on our farming community, not the reason why you are proposing to do this right now.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): What the farming community has to pay for is a terrible Tory policy that's

left this province deeper in debt than anybody ever imagined. We're confident the measures we've outlined can be managed by all sectors of the economy in order to preserve our ability to provide

energy into the future. Failure to do so, in our view -- and I know you disagree -- will leave us with inadequate supply, higher priced supply, and an inability to allow farmers to be competitive

on the international market due to too high energy costs. We have to do this now in order to ensure a stronger economic future, particularly for rural Ontario, and also for the rest of the

province.

Mr Hardeman: Again, I just want to point out that the question wasn't about why you are doing this; the question was about how you are going

to deal with the impact to the farming community.

A couple of days ago, I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether there were any impact studies done as to what impact this would have on the farming

community, recognizing that your government did make that promise to the rural community that this would not happen, and now we're doing it anyway. In that exchange in the Legislature two or three

days ago, the Minister of Agriculture said that those impact studies were going to be done, and he made that promise to the farm community at their annual convention. The farmers were somewhat

supportive of it, I was told.

Imagine my surprise when I went home last night and saw the headline in my local paper: "Farmers to Pay the Price as Liberals Move to Lift Hydro Rate Cap." The

picture on the front is the president of the Oxford County Federation of Agriculture, who said that he is greatly disappointed with the breaking of the promise of the Liberal government, who said

they would not raise the price of their input costs, and now they are.

I would like to know from the minister whether he is going to do what the Minister of Agriculture --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The members seem to want to make statements when they are asking a question. Please come to the point

quickly.

Hon Mr Duncan: I know that farmers have expressed their concerns. My colleague the Minister of Agriculture, along with myself, met with the

Ontario Federation of Agriculture on ways to encourage conservation and other means to cut farmers' energy costs. Carol Mitchell, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, will be

setting up a consultation with farmers on conservation methods.

Nobody wants to do this, but we have to. Our failure to address this problem today will lead us to even deeper problems down the road. Our failure to

comprehend the perverse impact that your policy has had on energy markets, in our view and in my view, can't be sustained. Our failure to address this, in our view, will harm the farming community

probably more than any other down the road, because it can't be sustained. Our farmers are paying for your policy right now through their taxes. First, those energy costs go right through to the

bottom line. Second, because of your deficit, that's going right through to the debt, which means they're paying taxes on it.

Your policy was wrong; ours is right. The farmers of this province know that and will work with us.

GREATER TORONTO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. Our Premier, during the election and in

the throne speech, committed to a Greater Toronto Transportation Authority and that there would be a consultation process before we implement the new authority.

As you know, during the past eight years my community of Hamilton has been ignored by the Conservative government of the day, whether it was transportation,

whether it was downloading, whether it was gridlock, whether it was air quality. The time has come now for Hamilton to be there and be at the table.

What I'm asking for is the possibility that Hamilton be part of the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority. Gridlock doesn't stop in Burlington where the

border of the GTA stops. Air quality and GO Transit are very important issues that impact on the quality of life of my constituents and of the city of Hamilton.

Will Hamilton be consulted and be considered as part of the process for the new GTTA that is being considered?

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I want to thank the member for the question.

Our first step toward easing gridlock will be the creation of the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority. The GTTA will take a leadership role for

much-improved planning and coordination of transportation initiatives in the greater Toronto area in the coming months and years ahead.

In addition, the transportation authority will be asked to implement a user-friendly one-pass fare system, which will greatly improve the delivery of service

for transit users throughout the GTA, which will include improving service delivery for Hamilton-area transit users as well.

The GTA is one of Canada's fastest-growing regions, and as we move forward with the creation of the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, it will include

an evaluation of the boundaries which have come to define the greater Toronto area.

Mr Agostino: Thank you, Minister. I'm certainly optimistic and encouraged by your response.

Involving Hamilton in the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority has the support of Mayor-elect DiIanni, Mayor MacIsaac of Burlington, the Ontario Chamber of

Commerce and the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. It is extremely important. Every day, 56,000 people from Hamilton go to work outside our own community. This is extremely critical to the future of

the Hamilton area.

I'm pleased that the minister today has included Hamilton as part of that consultation process. I'm very hopeful that Hamilton will be part of the Greater

Toronto Transportation Authority, because this government knows that the boundaries do not stop at Burlington, unlike the previous government, which totally ignored us for the last eight years.

Can you give us a timeline of what this consultation will look like and when this GTTA could be in place?

Hon Mr Caplan: Our initial first steps for the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority will be to engage the major stakeholders, including

GTA transit authorities and local municipal partners. Our consultation will offer our stakeholders an opportunity to voice their input on the composition, the role and the goals of the Greater

Toronto Transportation Authority, as well as the boundaries that have come to currently define the GTA, for the purposes of coordinating and planning transportation and transit services. This

consultation will begin in the very near future. I look forward to the participation of local municipalities, including the city of Hamilton.

I look very much forward to the input that we will receive into the development of the transportation authority. Since this initiative was announced in the

throne speech last Thursday, we have received wide support from a number of stakeholder groups.

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I have a question for the Minister of Finance. First, I'd like to congratulate the Minister of Finance, who as of

this afternoon will be the second inductee into the Dalton McGuinty promise-breakers club. He has earned this privilege for successfully and quickly breaking three promises: running a deficit,

raising taxes and failing to deliver promised insurance-rate cuts. We have not seen this kind of triple-gainer, back flip-flop since the glory days of Mary Lou Retton.

I asked the minister, the acrobatic minister, the question yesterday. Will you table with the Legislature any letters or e-mails that you have sent around to

your colleagues in the civil service describing your spending reduction targets for this fiscal year?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): The only thing that's broken is the mess that that party left us. That's the only thing that's broken.

The fact that they went through 28 days of campaigning on the fictitious notion that Ontario's finances were in good shape really sets them apart from all other governing parties in the history of

this province going into an election campaign.

Let me tell you about the steps we're taking. We have rolled back the corporate tax cuts. We did that with Bill 2. Yesterday I introduced a bill that will

freeze insurance rates, and in 90 days we will be bringing forth regulation that will reduce insurance rates by an average of 10% on automobiles.

Mr Hudak: I say to the minister, you're already in the club. You can stop with the act. You got your membership card. You're part of Dalton

McGuinty's promise-breakers club. You can come forward with the facts from now on. You've made it in the club.

A very interesting contrast: In 1995, then Finance Minister Ernie Eves immediately went to work, rolled up his sleeves and found $2 billion worth of savings in

his first three weeks in office. I find it hard to believe and quite a failing that this Minister of Finance has not yet identified one dime of savings to put toward this year's books.

I'll ask the minister again, has he or has he not set specific spending reduction targets for this fiscal year and, if so, what are they?

Hon Mr Sorbara: The cuts that Ernie Eves made in 1995 set back our hospitals and our school system and they have not recovered over the course

of eight years. You cut water inspectors and you cut social assistance; we roll back corporate tax cuts. You took billions away from kids in schools; we took away the private school tax credit.

We're going to stand on our record, I say to my friend from Erie-Lincoln.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): This question is for the Attorney General. Minister, in my community, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, people

are concerned about crime and the justice system. They want assurance that those accused of crime will move through the courts and the justice system in a timely fashion. There's a concern that the

courts in our province are carrying a heavy court load in cities like Toronto and Ottawa and around the province. Would you please tell this House what concrete steps you will be taking to ensure

that Ontario courts operate efficiently.

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I'm happy to talk

about, in the time remaining, what we are going to do to tackle a very heavy case load, as you say, what we're going to do to make sure that our communities are safer and stronger and what we're

going to do to ensure that we have a strong and potent justice system.

But I'd also like to tell you about what we've already done. I was very happy to announce this week that we have appointed 10 new justices to the Ontario Court

of Justice. They will be sitting in courts across the province: in Ottawa, in Toronto, in Newmarket, in Sault Ste Marie and in Barrie. This is just part of our government's commitment to ensure

that justice happens in a timely fashion and that the courts operate efficiently. This is just the beginning of the McGuinty government's commitment to an independent justice system, a strong

justice system, safe communities and real rights for victims of crime.

PETITIONS

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX

RELIEF PROGRAM

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Since the election, many people -- renters and homeowners -- are concerned they're going to lose

the tax relief promise to the existing legislation. This petition is signed by some of those people in our area.

"Whereas Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty has announced plans to scrap the Ontario Home Property Tax Relief for Seniors Act, eliminating this tax break for

renters and owners; and

"Whereas this tax relief would help Ontario seniors remain in their own apartments and houses, and assist them to meet rising costs; and

"Whereas this tax relief program would provide $450 million in net benefits for 945,000 senior households;

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

"That the government of Ontario support Ontario seniors and help them remain in their own homes by maintaining the PCs' Ontario home property tax relief for

seniors program and rejecting any proposal to take this tax break away from our senior citizens."

I support our senior citizens and it's my honour to affix my signature to this petition.

SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): "Whereas business tax cuts have helped fuel the strongest economy and economic and job growth ever seen in Canada;

and

"Whereas corporate income taxes on small businesses that create most of our new jobs have been scheduled to be reduced to 5% in 2004 and 4% in 2005; and

"Whereas the corporate income tax rate for manufacturing and processing firms has been scheduled to be cut to 10% for 2004, 9% in 2005 and 8% in 2006; and

"Whereas the general corporate income tax rate has been scheduled to be 11% for 2004, 9.5% for 2005 and 8% for 2006; and

"Whereas the capital tax on employers is on the road to be cut by 10% in 2004, with a plan to scrap it entirely;

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

"That the government of Ontario stay the course and maintain the scheduled tax reductions for job-creating businesses."

I'm pleased to affix my name to this very eloquent petition.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a petition with respect to the small business tax relief and I wish to present names on the

petition. These were gathered at recent meetings: the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and a local

chapter of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.

"Whereas business tax cuts have helped fuel the strongest economic and job growth ever seen in Canada; and

"Whereas corporate income taxes on the smaller businesses that create most of our new jobs have been scheduled to be reduced to 5% in 2004 and 4% in 2005;

and

"Whereas the corporate income tax rate for manufacturing and processing firms have been scheduled to be cut to 10% for 2004, 9% for 2005 and 8% for 2006;

and

"Whereas the general corporate income tax rate has been scheduled to be 11% for 2004, 9.5% for 2005 and 8% for 2006; and

"Whereas the capital tax on employers is on the road to be cut by 10% in 2004, with a plan to scrap it entirely;

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

"That the government of Ontario stay the course and maintain the scheduled tax reductions for job-creating businesses."

I sign this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

(ELECTRICITY PRICING), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA COMMISSION DE L'ÉNERGIE

DE L'ONTARIO (ÉTABLISSEMENT

DU COÛT DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 26, 2003, on the motion for Second Reading of Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, with

respect to electricity pricing / Projet de loi 4, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l'énergie de l'Ontario à l'égard de l'établissement du coût de

l'électricité.

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): Sur un point d'ordre, monsieur le Président : comme vous savez, chaque année on a

l'opportunité de célébrer la fête de quelqu'un de spécial dans cette Assemblée. Comme vous savez, on a eu une élection, et justement l'Assemblée n'a pas

siégé durant tout le temps de cet été. J'aimerais prendre cette occasion pour féliciter tous les députés courants et les députés passés qui n'ont

pas eu la chance de fêter leur fête avec nous, et j'aimerais, de la part de notre caucus, le troisième parti, célébrer cette fête avec tout le monde qui n'a jamais eu

une fête dans le passé, dans le futur. Merci beaucoup trop tard.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): That's not a point of order, but thanks for the information anyhow.

Yesterday, I think at the end of the period, Mr Hampton -- is it a point of order?

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask unanimous consent to finish the time for our leader, Howard Hampton.

The Speaker: I heard your point of order.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I ask that we recess for five minutes to allow Mr Hampton to finish being

interviewed by the media.

The Speaker: Do I have unanimous consent? Agreed.

This House is recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 1530 to 1536.

The Speaker: The member for Kenora-Rainy River.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I believe that last night I was at the point where I was pointing out that despite the government's

claims about their energy bill, that this somehow represents new energy policy, in fact there is no new energy policy. What there is is a duplication of the energy policy of the former government.

The former government said some four years ago that privatizing and deregulating our hydroelectricity system would lead to new supply, cleaner air, and, they said at the time, to lower prices for

electricity. The Liberals at the time -- in fact, Mr McGuinty was a most fervent supporter of the Conservative policy of deregulation and privatization of hydroelectricity -- said that would happen

as well. And now what we have in this bill is that while the Liberal government will change the Conservative rate cap, they are going to continue that policy: privatization and deregulation of what

is an essential service.

I simply want to remind the people across Ontario to reflect back now, four years later. We were told it would lead to lower costs for electricity, cleaner air

and new supply. I want people to reflect back, because if they think about it today and look at their hydro bill in the year 2000 and look at their hydro bill now and compare, what they're going to

find is that their hydro bill has doubled. If you look at the number at the bottom of the page in each case -- and that's only the number that really counts -- the hydro bill has doubled. Second,

there is no new supply. Third, the air isn't cleaner; it's in fact dirtier. And fourth, we're constantly at risk of the lights going out, which was the experience in the province in August of this

year. In fact, over the last couple of years there have been a number of days, a number of occasions, where we were at risk of seeing the lights go out, a blackout.

I heard the energy minister say, just as Conservative energy ministers used to say, that if you let the price of electricity go up, it will entice the private

sector to build new supply. Once again, Conservative energy ministers and now this Liberal energy minister have been trotting out that tired old line for four years. Norm Sterling, Conservative

Minister of Energy, trotted out that line; Jim Wilson, Conservative Minister of Energy, trotted out that tired line; Chris Stockwell, former Conservative Minister of Energy, trotted out that tired

line; John Baird, Conservative Minister of Energy, trotted out that tired line. It didn't work. And now we have Mr Duncan, the Liberal Minister of Energy, trotting out that tired line, and it's not

going to work for him either.

Why won't it work? For a couple of reasons. If you go talk to the private energy companies, the Brascans and whatever the rump of Enron is that still survives

after their accounting scandals and swindles in California, they will tell you that the electricity price would have to be allowed to increase much more to entice them to build.

They don't just want profits; they want mega-profits. They want to be able to pick the pockets of Ontario small businesses and Ontario industries and Ontario

consumers. They want mega-profits. They want the kind of manipulation that Enron was engaged in in California. So you have to let the price increase substantially in order to entice the private

operators to build new generating sources in Ontario. But that, for Ontario, means that people's hydro bills will skyrocket even more. And it means that energy-intensive industries in this

province, like the steel industry, the mining industry, the smelting industry, the refining industry, the pulp and paper industry, the auto assembly factories, and yes, the high-tech industry -- we

would lose jobs in those sectors. I think the Minister of Energy is starting to get clued in to that.

There's another reason, though, why it would be very difficult for the Brascans, the Enrons and the TransAltas to build, and that is because after the

scandals, particularly in the United States, some of which are still emerging, where some of these corporations built new generation, borrowed lots of money from the banks and then couldn't repay

their loans, the financial institutions aren't willing to lend them money any more for new supply.

Here in Canada, for example, the Toronto-Dominion Bank was burned to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce was

burned to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. They were burned in this scam once already. I doubt very much that they want to be burned again. So many of the so-called private energy

companies -- the rump, the remnant of Enron, the Brascans, the TransAltas -- can't get the loan capital to build new private facilities, can't get the loan capital for the $100-million,

$200-million, $300-million construction costs. In fact, many of the American electricity giants can't even get the banks and financial institutions to refinance their existing debt, never mind give

them new loan capital for new construction.

This minister is going to find, just as the Conservative energy ministers did -- this myth that you bribe the private sector with some money and they will come

-- that he doesn't have enough money to bribe them with. He doesn't have enough money and he can't pick the pockets of Ontario consumers and Ontario small businesses enough to satisfy the greed of

those private electricity providers.

Finally, the minister says there are some conservation steps in this bill. There are no conservation steps. Frankly, the only conservation theory that this

government is following is the same one the Conservative government followed, which is, if you drive the electricity price high enough, some people won't be able to pay it. But that's not

conservation; that's deprivation.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Kenora-Rainy River for his contribution to the debate.

It's now time for questions and comments.

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): It is a pleasure to rise before this House and to represent the people of Mississauga West and to thank the

people in the neighbourhoods of Meadowvale, Streetsville, Churchill Meadows, Lisgar and Erin Mills for having sent me to this place.

We are shocked that the member from Kenora-Rainy River would not support measures that would save the lives of so many thousands of vulnerable Ontarians from

the noxious air pollution fumes spewed out by our coal-generation plants.

We are disappointed that the member from Kenora-Rainy River could not understand that the noxious nitrogen oxides, the heavy metals and the other pollutants

that spew from the smokestacks at all coal-fired plants represent a far greater hazard than the member has let on with his economic arguments that, frankly, one would expect to come from the

official opposition and not from the independent members.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I listened attentively this afternoon to the ruling you gave here in this House in regard to how

we are to refer to each other in this House: It is by riding or, for a minister of the crown, as minister of such and such, not by party affiliation. I would like you to clarify that to the member.

Seeing as he's a new member, he might need a bit of a refresher.

The Speaker: I want to thank the member for the point of order. I will tell every member to try to recognize individuals by their riding and

by their status in their party. But I would also say to you, while I am on my feet, that the member for Kenora-Rainy River continued in his long speech to refer to people here by their name. I

would just say in general that I would like all members to participate in that kind of direction.

I know it's your first time, member for Mississauga West. I think there are about 30 seconds or so on the clock and I would ask them to roll the clock back 30

seconds.

Mr Delaney: Thank you, Speaker. The measures announced by the Minister of Energy will provide Ontarians with stable base generating capacity,

clean economical power that we can count on for generations to come, and will respect the innovation and skills of Ontario businesses that provide the components and the stations that make up our

energy grid.

Mr Bisson: I listened intently last night and again this afternoon when listening to the leader of the third party, my leader, the member for

Kenora-Rainy River, raise the issue in regard to where this government is going with their hydro policy. As a northerner, I really take heed of the comments he makes because I understand, I think

as most other members in this assembly probably understand as well, that one of the highest costs of doing business in northern Ontario is energy costs.

If I look at the example of industry within the riding of Timmins-James Bay, as it would be in Kenora-Rainy River, Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie and other

communities across the north, we have some of the largest hydro utility customers in Ontario. In fact, Falconbridge in Timmins, at the metallurgical and mine site, is the largest utility customer

of the Ontario Hydro system. Others in ranking are also situated in northern Ontario. By and large, industries in the north, because of the very nature of industry -- being refineries, smelters,

pulp-and-paper plants -- are high energy users when it comes to both electricity and natural gas.

I just know, because we've gone through this battle before, that when the former Conservative government tried to tinker around with the electricity system --

I should say, put a sledgehammer to it -- by trying to move to an open market and a privatized system, energy prices went through the roof. As a result, we had to lay people off in our community,

because some of those major utility customers in both the mining and forestry industries were having a hard time trying to make ends meet as it was, in an already tough economy and a tough market

for their product, let alone what happened with energy. In fact, one of the reasons that Falconbridge laid people off this summer was anticipation of peak power prices.

So I say that the policy this government is following by way of energy is going to lead to job losses in northern Ontario, and that's something you will

understand come the next election.

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I listened with interest to the comments of the leader of the third party. I've got to tell you, when I

was going door to door in the last election, our constituents still remembered some of the things that happened during his time in government a number of years ago. When we look at what the NDP did

when they were in power, the member and his government added $4.2 billion to Ontario Hydro's stranded debt. That's part of the reason why we have such problems here today. They increased hydro

rates by 40% -- 40% in just three years. They're worried about what we're talking about here. It's not even close. They built no new supply, no new supply at all, and that's why we're in an energy

crisis right now as we speak. We need new supply. They not only didn't build clean and green supply, they built no supply at all.

Worse than that, they cancelled the lifeline to Manitoba, an agreement that would have given us other options instead of having to rely on importing American

power. We could have had an agreement with Manitoba; it was totally irresponsible at the time to cancel. What did they use the funds for? They used the funds to buy a Costa Rican rainforest. People

still remember that. I can't believe that at the door I was still hearing that in the last election. People still remember that.

The current government is acting responsibly with the direction we're taking right now. Thank God that we have change from the NDP, and thank God we have

change from the Tories.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to rise this afternoon to take

part in a couple of questions and comments surrounding this

piece of legislation. I'm very happy that the member just referred to the leader of the third party as the leader of the third party. Although I'm not in agreement with the policies of the New

Democratic Party, I certainly do agree that you do have a place in this House. Under the democratic renewal program of the McGuinty government, I'm sure that democracy will prevail and you will

have a seat here before long.

I'm glad the member from Scarborough mentioned the lifeline to Manitoba, because we took those steps earlier this year, as you know, when Ernie Eves signed a

memorandum with Mr Gary Doer, the Premier of Manitoba, for that particular transmission line.

Interjections.

Mr Dunlop: I can hear the heckling in the background saying that didn't happen, but the fact of the matter is that there were memorandums of

understanding both with the province of Quebec and the province of Manitoba. It's amazing when you stand in this House and you do try to tell the truth, you try to state the specifics, that you

hear this heckling in the background saying that it's all wrong when in fact they're trying to take credit for it now because they've made no agreements whatsoever.

This is an interesting topic because, as we heard last night and we're going to hear for the next couple of hours, this is a very controversial subject in

Ontario. The Liberals did not keep their promise on this topic. It's as clear as can be. They did promise the citizens of Ontario that they wouldn't raise their taxes and they wouldn't lift the cap

until 2006. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened and we're here today trying to fight for the jobs of the citizens of Ontario because this may be a giant step in the removal of hundreds of thousands

of jobs from Ontario. Thank you for this opportunity.

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like unanimous consent of the House to do

another two minuter so I can quote from Mr Hampton's book where he says he's not ideologically --

The Speaker: Order. Do we have unanimous consent? I didn't hear unanimous consent.

The member for Kenora-Rainy River has two minutes.

Mr Hampton: Actually, I'd be happy to take up the member from St Catharines. My opposition to private power is not based on ideology; it's

based on the fact that whether you look at Great Britain, New Zealand, California, Alberta or Montana, it has been an environmental disaster, a financial disaster and, frankly, has created ongoing

problems in all those jurisdictions. I'm surprised the member for St Catharines doesn't know that yet.

Now, I want to respond first to the member for Mississauga West. I recognize you're new here, but do you realize that the speech you gave was given by the

former member for Mississauga West, only he was a Conservative? It seems that the Conservatives gave him the same kind of speech. You should demand a new speech. That speech didn't work for the

Conservatives and, my friend, it's not going to work for you either.

Then I want to speak to the member for Scarborough Centre because I recognize he is new here too. He should go back and check the Hansards. Do you know who the

most avid opponent of the Manitoba transmission line was? It was the former energy critic of the then opposition Liberals. His name was Dalton McGuinty. Let me quote: "Does the minister continue to

support the Manitoba purchase?... We know now it's cheaper to produce this electricity in the province than it is to buy it from Manitoba.... we now know that if we cancel the deal today" -- this

is in 1992 -- "it's going to cost us $82 million, but if we wait until the end of the environmental assessment hearing, it's going to cost us over $200 million." Why was it cancelled? People, like

your leader, were almost out of control in their opposition to the Manitoba purchase. You want to know why there is no Manitoba hydro? Talk to Dalton McGuinty. He was the most vocal opponent --

The Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mrs Donna H. Cansfield (Etobicoke Centre): I'm pleased to be here representing Etobicoke Centre, to speak about the electricity bill with my

colleagues.

On August 14, 2003, the lights went out in Ontario -- all over Ontario, except for a very few places. Yes, consumers were warned that this could happen in peak

times and that blackouts actually could occur. Consumption was close to its highest peak in Ontario and in the United States, and it happened. It exposed the vulnerability of Ontario's

hydroelectric system and, ultimately, it shook the confidence of its consumers.

These comments are similar to those of the David Suzuki Foundation, which echo the thoughts of thousands of people in Ontario, for Ontarians pay more than $12

billion every year to keep their electrical system running.

However, there was still more to come. The repeated intervention of the government in the industry, the uncertainty, the instability of the system and the

long-term contracts that were not there ultimately made Ontario an unattractive place in which to invest. If you go back and remember, originally the idea was to drive out the inefficiencies and

drive down the cost, and ultimately it would make the market competitive. Instead, what happened? The cost of debt rose and we saw the withdrawal from the market by investors.

In addition, the previous government imported supply from the United States from coal-fired electrical generators. I know the member from Kenora-Rainy River

feels like I do, that this is not amusing, because more than 2,000 Ontarians die every year -- 20 of whom are in my community -- from smog-related respiratory disease, and yet we continue to import

coal-fired electricity from the United States. There's something wrong. It's not sustainable. Something had to be done and confidence had to be restored to the system.

I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Energy for following through on his commitment to deliver to this Legislature a responsible

approach to electrical pricing. In making the announcement, the minister has certainly given Ontarians the straight goods, and this is definitely something that the previous government failed to

do.

The truth of the matter is that the Tory's 4.3-cent rate cap was nowhere near representing the true cost of electricity in Ontario. It actually created a net

cost to this government, and ultimately the taxpayers, of $800 million, close to $1 billion by December 31, and still counting. This situation is not sustainable and is undermining the province's

long-term ability to fund critical services such as health care and education. Clearly, the responsible course of action is the one my colleague Minister Duncan announced yesterday, a plan to bring

electricity prices in Ontario closer to the true cost of electricity, a plan to encourage conservation and energy efficiency, and a plan to begin rebuilding confidence in Ontario's electrical

system.

Yesterday, we heard from a colleague that there was an issue around our seniors -- our seniors are important to us; all Ontarians are important -- that this

individual might in fact have a cost attributed to her electricity bill, and she will. But when it comes to the winter and we can't guarantee that there will be a supply of electricity and that

furnace goes out, then tell me what the cost will be to our health care system if that person becomes ill. If that person is elderly, we may not find that person until it's too late. So this is

really important to us, that we look to a sustainable future.

The proposed Ontario Energy Board Amendment Act is fair to consumers, it is fiscally responsible and it does encourage conservation and energy efficiency. So

the 4.3-cent price freeze is not, and was not, sustainable. It would be irresponsible for the province to continue to subsidize electricity consumption at the expense of taxpayers and future

generations. It would also be irresponsible for the province to continue to discourage conservation by shielding customers from the true cost of electricity. So we must get serious about

conservation. We do need to do more to encourage both businesses and individuals in Ontario to look at ways to conserve and to use electricity wisely.

The proposed Ontario Energy Board Amendment Act provides just the first step. It would encourage conservation by providing homes and small businesses with a

lower price for the first 750 kilowatt hours of electricity consumed each month. It would also protect consumers by providing stable prices that enable them to pay their monthly bill. The proposed

plan would not take effect until April 1, 2004, and it enables not only the consumers but us to provide those incentives for conservation. It would give consumers a chance to review what they do

and use in terms of their energy, to help take those conservation measures and ultimately limit the impact of that change on their electricity bill.

The bill also includes another important conservation initiative. It permits local distribution companies to achieve their full commercial return as of March

1, 2005, but only on the condition that they reinvest one year's worth of those additional monies in conservation. Today I happened to be at the renewable energy task force, speaking to these local

distribution companies. This is something they are really interested in doing, because previously they were actually penalized when they tried to do it. They were told that if they did do this,

there would be a penalty, so why would they bother considering to go forward? This would result in the investment of approximately $225 million toward conservation initiatives, one of the highest

levels of investment in this area in the history of Ontario.

As I've noted, the proposed Ontario Energy Board Amendment Act is just the first step. We need to do more to demonstrate the benefits of conservation, to help

homes and small businesses use their electricity wisely.

Electricity is an interesting commodity. Yo