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

December 16, 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-Dec-16 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 16 December 2003 Mardi 16 décembre 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

JOHN FRANKEN

EVENTS IN PARRY SOUND

BSE

VOLUNTEERS

HANUKKAH

SENIOR CITIZENS

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

ADAMS MINE

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

VISITORS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

VISITORS

REPORT, CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GREENBELT PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

SUPPLY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2003

ELECTRONIC WASTE PRODUCER

RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ

DES PRODUCTEURS DE DÉCHETS ÉLECTRONIQUES

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN DISABILITY INCOME SUPPORT PAYMENTS), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE PROGRAMME ONTARIEN

DE SOUTIEN AUX PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES (ÉQUITÉ DANS LES VERSEMENTS DU SOUTIEN DU REVENU)

MOTIONS

CONDUCT OF HOUSE PROCEEDINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LAND DEVELOPMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

AND HYDRO ONE

ONTARIO BUDGET

WELFARE REFORM

ONTARIO BUDGET

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

AUTISM TREATMENT

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

MINING INDUSTRY

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

CHILD POVERTY

RENT REGULATION

PETITIONS

TOBACCO TAX

WASTE DISPOSAL

PUBLIC HOUSING

LANDFILL

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

LANDFILL

TUITION

WATERLOO-WELLINGTON TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN

LANDFILL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA GESTION

RESPONSABLE DES FINANCES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I've noticed that there was no ringing of the bells. I think somehow there is some malfunction and there was no

ringing of the bells. But we're still proceeding on time.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Liberals must be very proud. They now hold the record for introducing the largest tax hike in Ontario history. Not

even Bob Rae introduced a tax hike as large as this government's. Their tax increase on business will cost $2.2 billion per year. Not only will business owners and shareholders pay for this tax

increase, we will all pay through higher prices.

The highest prices, however, will be paid by Ontario workers who lose their jobs because of the Liberal tax hike. Liberals don't understand that our businesses

are job creators, that every tax increase on business means men and women in Ontario will lose their jobs. Liberals don't understand that it is entrepreneurs and business owners who create jobs in

our society. Liberals don't understand that high taxes drive away business and investment. Investors today have many options. If they do not see Ontario as a competitive environment, they will take

their money to Michigan or New York.

Conservatives do understand that tax cuts create jobs. That's why we will not only oppose raising taxes, but we were going to cut taxes even more. It's time for

this government to end its attack on growth and jobs in Ontario.

JOHN FRANKEN

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): Edmund Burke once wrote that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do

nothing." It is my privilege to introduce to this assembly a truly good man, who has attempted almost single-handedly for the past 50 years to do what is right. John Franken is an 81-year-old,

proud Canadian citizen who, while serving in the Dutch navy in World War II, was captured by the Japanese and held as a prisoner of war for almost four years, personally tortured and subjected to

years of inhumane treatment. Mr Franken was an eyewitness to a litany of war crimes committed by Japanese military and occupying forces. Mr Franken is in the visitors' gallery. Would he please

rise?

Applause.

Mr Delaney: Mr Franken was a slave labourer in Nagasaki when the atomic bomb fell on that city. He survived this explosion because he was

working deep in a mine under the city. Freed by the sudden capitulation of the Japanese regime, Mr Franken has for the past 50 years attempted to obtain a formal apology from the Japanese

government on behalf of himself and the known and nameless victims of Japanese war crimes. Let us hope that through Mr Franken's tireless efforts the Japanese government will at long last adopt the

honourable course and issue a formal apology to the dwindling number of surviving victims of Japan's aggression and war crimes in World War II.

EVENTS IN PARRY SOUND

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Today I would like to recognize Christopher Jones of Parry Sound. Christopher is a violin student. In

November he received the medal for excellence from Conservatory Canada for the highest mark received in Ontario for grade 4 violin. The medal for excellence is awarded to the candidate who receives

the highest mark in each grade for each province for the academic year. A minimum mark of 85% is required to qualify for the award. Medals are awarded in each practical instrument area, as well as

for theory and history. To be eligible, candidates must complete the examination in one sitting and also must have completed successfully all the prescribed theory and history co-requisites.

Christopher's teacher, Helen Elsaessar, has been teaching in the area for a number of years, and many of her students have been recognized with distinction by

the conservatory. I would like to personally congratulate Christopher on his tremendous accomplishment.

I would also like to congratulate Parry Sound's Festival of the Sound for receiving the ninth annual Lieutenant Governor's Award for the Arts. This esteemed

award recognizes an Ontario-based arts organization that maintains a high level of artistic excellence while demonstrating exceptional community and private sector support. The Festival of the

Sound received $10,000 as part of this prestigious prize. The award was presented by Lieutenant Governor James K. Bartleman to festival president Patricia Mueller and executive director Margaret

Boyd. Congratulations to the Festival of the Sound and supporters, volunteers and board members on this significant accomplishment.

BSE

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): As the member for Huron-Bruce, I know first-hand that a single incident of BSE in western Canada has brought

broad economic, financial and social impacts to Ontario and has affected all sectors. Nearly $6 billion in losses have been incurred so far. These losses can be found in sectors such as cow-calf,

feeder, kill credits, dairy, breeding and meat exports across Canada. There have been negative impacts to the supply chain, from packing plants to consumers. Lost secondary industry suppliers

include truckers, feed companies, veterinarians and machinery dealers.

As we lose our competitive world position, we lose our rural infrastructure and the viability of our small communities. There are growing levels of stress and

despair.

That is why I stand here before you today to raise awareness of people across Ontario. I feel it's my duty to those constituents who are directly affected,

particularly those in my riding of Huron-Bruce. They need to be assured that I understand the impact, as do my fellow members, while they continue to deal with the restrictions at the border.

I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to make this statement and continue to remind this Legislature that this single incident of mad cow is still causing

a large impact on this industry.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I want to take a moment during this busy time of year to recognize the supreme efforts of the

volunteers with the Renfrew county and district branch of the Canadian Red Cross Society. These volunteers have been busy knitting 1,200 pairs of mittens for disadvantaged children. This is

something they have done in each of the past 10 years. Some 640 pairs have already been given to the Salvation Army this year. The remainder will be donated to a women's shelter and various schools

and churches. Thank you and a Merry Christmas to these wonderful people.

And while we're on the subject of special people donating what they do best to their community, I would also like to mention the Madawaska Valley District High

School student band, under the direction of Mark Robbins, and the Community Christmas Choir, under the direction of Erin Morlock. My wife, Vicky, and I attended their 15th annual Sounds of

Christmas performance this past Sunday night, and listening to them was indeed a gift to behold.

Congratulations and thank you to the Renfrew county Red Cross, the Madawaska Valley District High School band, the Community Christmas Choir, and all the other

wonderful citizens of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke who so generously share their time and talents at Christmastime.

HANUKKAH

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): This Friday, Jewish families will sit down together across Ontario -- in fact, across the world -- to

celebrate Hanukkah, the festival of lights.

Hanukkah centres on the lighting of the eight candles of the menorah. One additional candle is lit on every subsequent night until eight nights have passed and

all eight candles are lit. This tradition of lighting the menorah and celebrating Hanukkah goes back over 2,000 years. The story of Hanukkah started in the land of Judea, today called Israel, where

the Jewish people were ruled by an oppressive king and were ordered to reject their religion. The Jewish people rose up against their oppressors, led by the valiant Judah Maccabee and his four

brothers. After three years of fighting, the Maccabee army was finally successful in driving out the oppressive regime.

Their victory was symbolized by the reclamation of the holy temple in Jerusalem. However, the holy temple had been desecrated and its eternal flame had been

extinguished. After restoring the temple, the Maccabees could only find enough oil to light the eternal flame for one day, but eight days were needed to make more oil to keep the eternal flame

burning. The flame was lit anyway, but to everyone's joy and amazement, the flame continued to burn for eight days, enough time to replenish the oil. This was truly a miracle.

This is the miracle of Hanukkah, which is celebrated by Jewish families in every corner of the world to this day. I want to wish all the Jewish families in

Eglinton-Lawrence, throughout Toronto, throughout Ontario and throughout the world a happy and holy Hanukkah for everyone.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I rise to address the government's broken promise to remove the 4.3-cent electricity rate cap and its impact on

senior citizens. With yesterday's passing of higher hydro rates, this government has once again punished seniors living on fixed incomes. Seniors, who require electricity as a necessity of life,

will face up to 30% increases in their monthly hydro bills, and seniors living in apartment buildings will be forced to pay the higher rate of 5.5 cents for their hydro if their buildings do not

have individual metering.

In his statement to the standing committee, the Minister of Energy said, "Consumer protection will be the hallmark of this government's electricity policy," yet

the Liberals refused to listen when amendments to the bill were tabled that would have afforded more protection for our most vulnerable citizens.

This is a far cry from their position while in opposition. Before the election, McGuinty said, "We have to maintain rate relief for consumers. I have had the

terrible responsibility to raise horror stories in the Legislature, people who have been put in a desperate position because they simply can't afford to pay their hydro."

Before the election, the Minister of Energy said that Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals will protect consumers, protect average Ontarians and put the interests of

average people ahead of the big corporate interests in Ontario. No protection from Hydro rate increases, no property tax credit protection and no drug plan protection; why is it that this Liberal

government continues to target seniors with their punitive, punishing policies?

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

Mr Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): One year ago this month, Tim Hudak was warned. Norman Inkster told the former Minister of Consumer

and Business Services to end same-day service for birth certificates in December 2002. Hudak was informed that the system presented a serious security risk and that thorough procedures were

necessary to protect these vital documents. Advice from the retired commissioner of the RCMP is not something to be shrugged off, particularly for a former government that liked to talk up public

security. But Tim Hudak turned his back on this warning and turned his back on public security.

Same-day service continued and people were able to --

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): On a point of order, Speaker: I do believe the standing orders prohibit a member from impugning motive of the

efforts or the motive of another member. To say that the minister planned to be punitive has been struck down by many Speakers in this House.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Member?

Mr Dhillon: Same-day service continued and people were able to get birth certificates and documents used to obtain things like passports and

driver's licences. Perhaps Tim Hudak considers showing identification for a government document to be another example of that pesky red tape he so despises, or perhaps he was just too busy

organizing another pro-war rally through his riding association. We shouldn't be surprised.

This is the same former government that allowed 500 blank birth certificates to be stolen and then covered it up. The previous government was warned about a lot

of things and consistently failed to act.

Unlike the previous government, the Liberal government has moved quickly to close this loophole to ensure the security of all Ontarians and make sure the

government works for the people for a change. I commend the Minister of Consumer and Business Services for swift action.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise in the House today to dispel the myths shown in the province's projected artificial deficit. The

reality is that the Liberals can actually balance the province's books before the end of this fiscal year. The choice is theirs.

I was pleased to read an

article in today's National Post, written by John Williamson and Bruce Winchester from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, that helps

clarify the projected deficit number. The

article is called "Ontario's Deficit Cut Down to Size." It defines the dramatic impact of the following three factors on Erik Peters's deficit projection:

the province's 2002-03 public accounts, more federal tax dollars coming from Mr Martin than Mr Manley, and of course McGuinty's tax increases. I really hope that the Premier and our Minister of

Finance read this article, because here's the bottom line: The revised projected deficit for 2003-04 is $1.8 billion.

Since Dalton McGuinty maintained in opposition, and during the election, that he had a plan to deal with a $2-billion deficit, this good news should make the job

that much easier. However, we do expect the Liberals to pump up the projected deficit numbers, as they've been doing all along, to give them some spending room. After all, many special interests

are waiting with hands outstretched for their paybacks from the election.

We ask Dalton McGuinty to give Ontarians the real financial picture and get on with the job he was elected to do. Ontarians deserve nothing less.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Name a special interest -- like kids?

Mr Dunlop: The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care should be more worried about Bill 8 than heckling me.

ADAMS MINE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): This morning my colleague Marilyn Churley, the member for Toronto-Danforth, held a press conference here

with the Timiskaming farmers' association. They were here yet again to ring the alarm bells on the Adams mine proposal. It's clear: Prior to the election the Liberals, like New Democrats, were

supposedly in opposition to the Adams mine project. In fact, I know that the current Premier, then leader of the official opportunity --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: That was a good one. I should have said "opposition." "Opportune" is the right word. He was on the record saying that if he was

elected, the Adams mine project would not go forward. Now we have a situation where the TFA has pointed out that the proponent of the plan has applied for a permit to de-water the pit. They were

here this morning to talk about the problems with that.

Number one is that if there is ever an environmental assessment done and it's done with the pit drained of water, the whole science of being able to figure out

what happens to groundwater is totally different. Obviously if there's water in the pit, it leaches out the side. If there's no water in the pit, whatever leaches will go straight down and will not

be caught in an environmental assessment.

We're saying to the government two things: Keep your commitment; don't break your promise. Stop the Adams mine proposal. My good friend Mr Ramsay and I are on

the same side, saying stop it and stop the environmental permit that allows the water to be taken out of that pit.

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Let me first commend the members for using the members' statements time for recognizing individuals in the

gallery. I really appreciate that, more than using it calling about points of order at the time. That's a most appropriate way to use members' statements, and I want to thank those members who have

used it that way.

I also would caution some members on some of the language they're using that is a bit questionable. So be careful as you make statements that those languages you

use are not in any way punitive, as one would say, toward other members.

VISITORS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the east gallery today are two guests. Statements are now finished, and I thought

maybe it would be appropriate to invite Mr Keith Koski and Mr Steve Wood to receive our recognition. They are developing processes for our environment, for our health care system and, for the

environment, in particular areas of agriculture. Thank you very much for being here, gentlemen.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm rising on a point of order regarding the business of the standing

committee on finance and economic affairs.

While we on this side of the House recognize the fact that the business of the standing committee has been timetabled according to government notice of motion

13, referred to as the programming motion, which was passed by this House and supported by the official opposition, I have to raise an exception with respect to yesterday's proceedings of the

standing committee on finance and economic affairs. The official opposition agreed to the programming motion on the basis that two full days of committee hearings would be devoted to each of the

three bills to which the programming motion applies. I want to quote from the programming motion itself as it pertains to Bill 5, currently before the finance and economic affairs committee.

From

section (C), sub 3, of the motion, "The standing committee on finance and economic affairs shall meet for two days at the call of the Chair for the purpose

of public hearings and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill." It was understood and agreed upon by the subcommittee that the first full day of committee would be devoted to public hearings,

while the second day would be devoted to clause-by-clause consideration.

Speaker, as you know, the standing committee on finance and economic affairs is made up of 10 members -- seven Liberals, two Conservatives and a single New

Democrat -- and quorum for the committee is half of the members as per standing order 118(a). At yesterday afternoon's meeting of the committee, the Liberal Chair adjourned the committee

proceedings for the day for a lack of quorum from government Liberal members. I'm not disputing the right of the Chair to adjourn committee for want of quorum, as this is again specified in

standing order 118.

Simply put, my point of order relates to the fact that the programming motion specifies that public hearings must be heard with respect to Bill 5. Further, the

subcommittee of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs met and determined that the first full day of committee consideration would be devoted to public hearings. This was not the

case yesterday, and indeed several public witnesses and stakeholders were stranded because Liberal government members failed to show up to allow the committee to proceed. I wouldn't suggest it was

a strategy, but it's difficult to understand with a large majority government in this House.

I would ask that you consider our request to allow for one full day of public consultations before this bill is referred back to the House. This is in keeping

with the intent and spirit of the programming motion.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): With respect to the programming motion, I should say first of all that it was

government members who were absent. We were distressed by that and apologize to this House and to those individual delegations that were affected by it.

My understanding is that the committee met informally subsequent to the arrival of the government members of the committee and heard the delegations that wished

to be heard. My understanding is that the hearing proceeded this morning on clause-by-clause. Our read is that

section (C), subs 3 and 4, provides an opportunity for what occurred to have happened

without having to go back to another day of hearings. Those delegations were met with. The government acknowledges it was its members who were not present. Again, I wish to emphasize that those

delegations that were scheduled to be heard by the committee were in fact heard by the committee, as I understand it, subsequent to the committee being adjourned.

With that, I would submit that while the government was in error in not having its members present, the programming motion was upheld, both in its letter and

spirit -- recognizing that members have a responsibility to be present in committee when it's duly called, when proper notice is given out and that that sort of inattentiveness reflects badly on

this House and on all of us and on the government.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On the same point, Mr Speaker: I don't want to repeat all the points that were made, but I think an

additional point needs to be added here. What we had yesterday by the government members not showing up in committee to complete what was intended by way of the programming motion was that in fact

the government further time-allocated this bill, because by the members not being there, it shortened the amount of time the public had to come to the committee and therefore further time-allocated

the bill.

I want to put on the record that New Democrats did not support the programming motion for the very reasons that we laid out in a point of order earlier, but I

do want to point out that what they've in fact done by not showing up yesterday afternoon is to further time-allocate this, which is contrary to what the programming motion said. I would support

the Conservative request on this, that additional time is needed at committee, to keep not only to what's in the spirit of the programming motion, but what the intent was, which was for two full

days to deal with both committee hearings and also clause-by-clause.

It's unfortunate that the government members didn't show up. I take the government House leader at his word when he says he apologizes. I'm sure they wish they

had been there, but the fact is they weren't. I would ask that in your ruling you reflect on what the effect of those members not being there yesterday was, which was to further time-allocate a

bill that was already time-allocated by way of the programming motion, and would ask that we have additional time at committee to deal with this adequately.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Speaker, I want you as well to take into consideration the fact that albeit the committee may well have met

informally, as the government House leader indicates, not having met officially with the benefit of the Hansard record really denies every other member of this House the opportunity to consider the

information that was presented by those who came forward. Again, for that reason I really do believe that we all -- each member of this House -- have a responsibility to consider the information so

that we have an opportunity to provide input into the legislative process. Not only is it right for the stakeholders but for every member of this House that we have that full day of hearings.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Mr Speaker, as a member of the finance and economic affairs committee, I believe there were good intentions in

trying to reach some expeditious resolve to the issue of the Liberal members not showing up yesterday afternoon after routine proceedings. That being said, out of respect for the deputants who did

appear, their record was submitted -- a written, photocopied version today. But what was missing was the important debate and interchange between members of all three caucuses and those industry

stakeholders, who, by the way, had some very valid suggestions on emissions within the legislation. So in your reflections, Mr Speaker, I'd ask you to reflect on the fact that this is a dialogue

with the public that has been shortened through the lack of democratic process on the part of this government.

Hon Mr Duncan: Just one further small point, Mr Speaker: My understanding is that the written deputations were put into the record formally as

part of those deliberations this morning.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Are you going to add something new to this?

Mr Barrett: Just to rebut. Yes, the deputations were put into the record, but as the member across the way has mentioned, there was much

discussion by members of the committee around those deputations. None of that discussion and debate was captured electronically. That is lost.

The Speaker: Let me reflect on this a bit. You made some excellent points. I just want to make sure that the representatives who came before

the committee were heard and that they were not denied in any way. The government House leader has reflected on that too. There seemed to be some provisions made. I will come back to you with my

observations and ruling on this.

VISITORS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to introduce the Dumand family from my riding of Durham.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On the original point of order --

Mr O'Toole: With your indulgence, I have the floor.

I'd like everyone to welcome Herve and Joanne Dumand, and their three children, Joshaua, Tessa and Sommer. I'd like everyone to welcome them and extend a Merry

Christmas to them.

Mr Bisson: On the original point of order, Mr Speaker: Very quickly, I just want you to really reflect on the fact that by the members not

being there, they further time-allocated this. You need to take that into --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I think I said that I'd get back to you on this. I've heard enough and I think I'll be able to make a

decision on what I've heard.

REPORT, CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that on December 15, 2003, a report from the chief election officer, made pursuant

section 2(4) of the Election Finances Act, was tabled.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Standing order 62(

a) provides that, "The standing committee on estimates shall present one report with

respect to all of the estimates and supplementary estimates considered pursuant to standing orders 59 and 61 no later than the third Thursday in November of each calendar year."

The House not having received the report from the standing committee on estimates for certain ministries on Thursday, November 20, 2003, as required by the

standing orders of this House, pursuant to standing order 62(b), the estimates before the committee of the:

Office of the Assembly;

Office of the Chief Election Officer;

Ombudsman Ontario;

Office of the Provincial Auditor;

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, supplementary estimates only;

Management Board Secretariat, supplementary estimates only;

are deemed to be passed by the committee and are deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

Pursuant to standing order 60, the estimates, 2003-04, of these ministries and offices not being selected for consideration are deemed to be received and

concurred in.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GREENBELT PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

Mr Gerretsen moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to establish a greenbelt study area and to amend the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 / Projet de loi 27, Loi établissant

une zone d'étude de la ceinture de verdure et modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur la conservation de la moraine d'Oak Ridges.

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

Mr Gerretsen?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs, minister responsible for seniors): Mr Speaker, I will defer until ministerial

statements.

SUPPLY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2003

Mr Sorbara moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 28,

An Act to authorize the expenditure of certain amounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004 / Projet de loi 28, Loi autorisant l'utilisation

de certaines sommes pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 2004.

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

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): Very briefly, this bill is what we commonly refer to and what is actually named the Supply Act, 2003.

It is the parliamentary authorization to make expenditures in respect of the public service, investments by the public service, expenses of the Legislative Assembly and expenditures of the public

service.

ELECTRONIC WASTE PRODUCER

RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ

DES PRODUCTEURS DE DÉCHETS ÉLECTRONIQUES

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 29,

An Act to ensure that the producers of electronic equipment retain responsibility when their products become waste / Projet de loi 29, Loi visant

à assurer que les producteurs de matériel électronique sont toujours responsables lorsque leurs produits deviennent des déchets.

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The only way we're going to resolve the garbage crisis is to get more and more of the so-called garbage

out of the garbage stream. This bill would go a long way to helping that situation by requiring producers of electronic equipment to implement a program for ensuring the environmentally sound

collection, treatment, recovery and final disposition of discarded and obsolete electronic equipment. As you know, daily there are tonnes and tonnes of obsolete and unused electronic equipment

going into our landfills. Landfilling and incineration of electronic waste would be prohibited.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN DISABILITY INCOME SUPPORT PAYMENTS), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE PROGRAMME ONTARIEN

DE SOUTIEN AUX PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES (ÉQUITÉ DANS LES VERSEMENTS DU SOUTIEN DU REVENU)

Ms Martel moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 to require annual cost-of-living adjustments to income support payments / Projet

de loi 30, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur le Programme ontarien de soutien aux personnes handicapées en vue d'exiger des rajustements annuels relatifs au coût de la vie en ce qui

concerne les versements du soutien du revenu.

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

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): This is the third time that this bill has been introduced by New Democrats; the first time was in 2001. If

passed, the bill would amend the Ontario Disability Support Program Act to provide for regulations to ensure annual cost-of-living adjustments to ODSP payments.

You'll know that Ontarians with disabilities have had their ODSP benefits frozen for many years now, and they deserve to see an increase in their payments.

I look forward to support from the government, since the Premier himself promised a cost-of-living increase for ODSP participants in a letter dated April 7,

2003, sent to David Lepofsky, the chair of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. I would hope that the government would do this even without my bill having to go forward.

MOTIONS

CONDUCT OF HOUSE PROCEEDINGS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent to move

a motion without notice respecting the third party, and ask that the question on the motion be put without debate or amendment.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent that this motion be put forward without any debate? Agreed.

Hon Mr Duncan: I believe I have to read the motion into the record.

Interjections.

The Speaker: One second here. I thought I got unanimous consent so that the government House leader could read the motion.

Hon Mr Duncan: I move that the House recommends that notwithstanding any standing order or prior recommendation of the House, the Speaker

conduct the proceedings of the House during the 38th Parliament as follows:

The Speaker should exercise his discretion to permit questions as follows:

Official opposition -- one question and two supplementary questions

Official opposition -- one question and two supplementary questions

Third party -- one question and one supplementary question

Third party -- one question and one supplementary question

Followed by a rotation of:

Official opposition -- one question and one supplementary question

Government -- one question and one supplementary question

Official opposition -- one question and one supplementary question

Government -- one question and one supplementary question

Any one independent member -- one question and one supplementary question repeated thereafter;

And that there shall be four members' statements allotted to both the government and the official opposition and one members' statement allotted to the third

party, with the rotation as follows:

Official opposition; government; official opposition; government; third party; government; official opposition; government; official opposition;

And that in exercising his discretion with respect to the practice of rotation on debates pursuant to standing order 24, the Speaker adopt the following

rotation:

Following the leadoff speaker for each recognized party:

The first member of the third party to speak may speak for not more than 30 minutes, then:

Government; official opposition; government; official opposition; third party, and then repeat the rotation;

And, in debate governed by this standing order any member of the third party may divide his or her time among any other member or members of the third

party;

And that following ministerial statements and the comments of the official opposition a member or members of the third party may comment for up to a total of

five minutes;

And that the third party shall be entitled to one of the five sessional days known as opposition days and that 15% of the time available for debate under

standing order 42 shall be allocated to the third party with the time remaining apportioned equally between the recognized parties; and if the mover of a motion under this standing order is a

member of the third party the time for a reply shall be included in the time allocated to the third party;

And that in any session, the third party shall be entitled, upon proper notice, to one of the three motions of want of confidence in the government and debate

time on such a motion shall be apportioned in the same manner set out in this motion for opposition days;

And that with respect to the time available for debate on time allocation motions (standing order 46), concurrences (standing order 62), Supply Act (standing

order 63), and interim supply (standing order 66), 15% of the time available for debate on each such matter shall be allocated to the third party with the time remaining apportioned equally between

the recognized parties;

And that a member of the third party on the standing committee on estimates may speak for not more than 30 minutes on the first item of the first vote of each

set of estimates and thereafter shall be apportioned an amount of time equal to that allocated to the members of recognized parties on the committee;

And that when time permits, amendments proposed to be moved to bills in any committee shall be distributed to all members of the committee;

And that for the purpose of private members' public business, a period of 18 minutes shall be allotted to each of the recognized parties in the House and nine

minutes to the third party for the purpose of debate during private members' public business;

And that a member of the third party on any standing committee is entitled to be appointed to the subcommittee on committee business;

And that with respect to committee membership, members of the third party be allowed to substitute for each other, provided a notification signed by the member

being substituted for or by his or her designate is filed with the clerk of the committee either before or within 30 minutes of a committee meeting being called to order;

And that with respect to compendiums of information, government notices of motion or any document required to be laid before the House, for which there is a

standing order requirement that copies be provided to a representative or representatives of a recognized party, seven copies of such documents shall be provided to the table to be made available

to members of the third party upon request;

And that the passage of any motion to amend the standing orders, which alters the numeration, shall not impact on any process set out in this motion.

The Speaker: Is it the wish of the House that the motion carry? Did I hear a no?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think I heard the "ayes" louder than the "nays." Carried.

Before I move to statements by the ministry and responses, I just want to say with regard to this motion that has just been passed, let us be more or less

cautious as we go along, as it is a new process and it's in effect immediately. We will guide you through this with the help of the Clerk, and of course we'll have a very peaceful and a very

effective Parliament today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LAND DEVELOPMENT

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs, minister responsible for seniors): The region of Ontario known as the Golden Horseshoe is

growing by 115,000 people every year. Within 15 years, it will be the third-largest urban region in North America after New York and Los Angeles.

This phenomenal growth has presented many tough economic, environmental and quality of life challenges for the millions of people living and working in the

region.

Under the previous government, too often developments got the green light where communities did not want them, could not sustain them, and subsequently

regretted them. This form of urban planning only encouraged urban sprawl and is simply not sustainable.

Our economy cannot thrive if goods and services are stuck in gridlock. Our families cannot thrive if parents are stuck on the highway or there's no green space

left to enjoy. Our environment will not thrive if development is unfettered and irresponsible.

Our government is determined to enhance the quality of life for people in the Golden Horseshoe by containing sprawl and encouraging environmental

protection.

This commitment includes the creation of a permanent greenbelt, which will protect hundreds of thousands of acres of environmentally sensitive land and

farmland.

Earlier today I took the first steps in the establishment of this greenbelt. I imposed a minister's zoning order on the greenbelt study area to provide

immediate protection while the legislation is considered by the House.

Under this bill, the Greenbelt Protection Act, 2003, which I'm pleased to introduce on behalf of myself and the Minister of the Environment, the government

will seek a legislated one-year moratorium on new urban development on rural and agricultural lands within the potential greenbelt area. Pending a final decision on the lands to be protected, the

moratorium would mean that for up to one year there could be no new urban development on rural and agricultural land unless it had already been zoned for development.

These actions will give the government the time it needs to hold extensive public discussions to ensure a future of smart and sustainable growth for the

greenbelt region. The actions are essentially first steps in the establishment of a permanent greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe region. The health of the Golden Horseshoe lands affects the water we

drink, the food we eat and the air we breathe. These are natural gifts we must leave to our children, resources that must be preserved for the physical, social and economic health of future

generations of Ontarians.

Ontarians understand that a strong economy and clean environment go hand in hand, and so does this government. Today, through the Ministries of Municipal

Affairs and Environment, we are acting to make real, positive change to the quality of life in the Golden Horseshoe region.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Yesterday the minister introduced amendments to the Planning Act that purport to give more powers to the

municipalities to make planning decisions. In fact, in his remarks yesterday he went to great lengths to explain several times the importance that the legislation he introduced yesterday would have

in building stronger communities by giving them this kind of decision-making.

Well, today we are looking at a bill that takes away that local planning power from municipalities. It completely takes it away. The plan that has been given

to us today will concentrate power over these issues in the Premier's office via the minister's stroke of the pen. The government's interest seems to be only in stopping all development around

Toronto.

With an increase in the population in the whole of the greater Toronto area, we need planning. We need to understand the kinds of restrictions and the

questions around transit and things like that. Instead, we're left with some very serious questions to answer. Who, in this Liberal world, will have the final say in the development of our local

communities? How much will this cost? Will this cost be even more than it would have cost the Liberals to cancel the construction of the 6,600 homes in Richmond Hill? If all the land around Toronto

is closed to development, where are families going to find affordable homes? How does the minister plan on protecting property rights under this bill? He refers today to a moratorium, a freeze.

This is all language that belies the benign nature of a bill that will protect green spaces. If this bill protects green spaces, how will it protect viable agriculture?

I'll leave the rest of the time to the member from Erie-Lincoln to add some comments to this.

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I appreciate the time to address the issues as well. As my colleague was saying, we look forward to a full

opportunity to participate in public consultations. I expect members of our party and the third party will be there side by side with the minister to hear what folks have to say.

I think there should be a healthy scepticism about your intentions: witness the breaking of the Premier's solemn promise to end development on the Oak Ridges

moraine, which he quickly back-flipped on once he came into office, and the domino effect that is having on the very sensitive land in the Seaton area and the agricultural preserve in Pickering, on

which we've seen backtracking by the minister already. So I hate to be sceptical -- I wish I were an optimist -- but you've already broken a number of promises on your greenbelt as it is.

If you're preserving areas like the tender fruit lands in Niagara, which I support -- I want to see those lands continue to be in green production -- my basic

piece of advice is, if you're going to preserve the farm, you've got to support the farmer. The attack we've seen on Ontario farmers by the Dalton McGuinty government, with higher taxes, higher

hydro rates and the hammer of red tape coming down from the Ministry of the Environment, certainly does not bode well for agriculture in Ontario under Dalton McGuinty, and the total absence of a

minister for rural affairs at the cabinet table does not bode well for your intentions.

I'd advise the minister as well -- I think people are nervous about the potential creation, either through the Premier's office or outside, of a super-agency

over top of all of these areas. As you know, Minister, many of the areas already have legislation, like Oak Ridges, or ministerial zoning orders for the lands in Pickering, the Rouge Park area and

the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I am concerned that you're going to have a super-body that is going to duplicate existing functions on top of that, far away from the people. Not only are you

taking away local decision-making from the municipal level, you're going to put it up another level altogether with duplication.

Finally, a caution about a mode effect. If your greenbelt is going to be fully contiguous, how are you going to make sure that the routes for infrastructure or

highway development like the mid-peninsula corridor allow a chance for trade, tourism and safe travel to flourish?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I want to say to the government and the minister, I really did want to be able to compliment them today

on this piece of legislation. I really did seriously want to compliment them, but I can't because I've had the opportunity to --

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): Well, do it, Marilyn; just do it.

Ms Churley: Listen to me: You're going to have to fix this. I've got to study it more carefully, but I've had a chance to look at it and there

are some big problems.

Let's look at the background here. It could take up to three years, or I don't know how long, to draft the legislation. This is just a one-year study you're

talking about here. As you know, in two or three years, Ontario could lose up to 25,000 acres to sprawl in areas such as Caledon, Seaton, Oakville and Markham. We know there are all kinds of

industries and corporations buying up farmland, hoping they'll get the green light on development.

I had a chance to have a quick look at this draft legislation -- thank goodness it's draft legislation -- before us today. As I said, it is a study; it's not

protection. It's for one year only.

I want people to turn their attention to

section 8 in the regulations. Talk about another piece of important legislation with a huge loophole that you can

drive a Mack truck through; once again, this is it. Look at

section 8. I will read it to you:

"8(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

"(

a) changing the boundaries of the greenbelt study area set out in

schedule 1;

"(

b) changing the areas set out in

schedule 2 to which sections 4, 5 and 6 apply;

"(

c) exempting any land or any use of land, or any class of uses of land, from sections 4, 5 or 6."

And it goes on:

"Regulations by minister

"

(2) The minister may make regulations...."

Folks, do you know what this means, this big loophole that you can drive a Mack truck through? Developers go to the minister's office, there are some problems,

and the minister decides, "We've got to let them go ahead." He can just walk around to a few ministers, just like the Tories used to do, and get them to sign off. That's what this

section allows

the minister to do. We don't need loopholes like this when we have such a tremendous problem on our hands.

The definition of urban use -- another problem -- can be changed by regulation as well. See

section 9. The minister has the ability to change at a whim the

definition of urban use.

Folks, let me tell you what else is in this: The Oak Ridges moraine has been excluded from this greenbelt study today. Surprise, surprise. It's not even in

there. Why would that be? What plans are coming after the failure to keep their promise to keep those over 6,000 homes from being built? Why is the Oak Ridges --

Hon Mr Sorbara: It's a conspiracy.

Ms Churley: What was that? You want the spirit of co-operation today? Conspiracy? This is not a conspiracy, it's right here in your own bill

today. The minister can change any of this.

I want to remind you, as we speak, we have underway right now the north Leslie Street lands at the OMB. They're considering several proposals by developers for

changes from rural to urban designations. The proposed development for the lands near north Leslie Street in Richmond Hill was exhibit A in the Liberals' commitment to protect the Oak Ridges

moraine and the headwaters of the Rouge River. These are prime lands for inclusion in the greenbelt, so why are they not included in this legislation today?

I've got to say to the government that I am honestly and truly disappointed today. I was really looking forward to reading a strong piece of legislation that

truly would create this promised greenbelt, and instead we get this one-year study that allows the minister, at a whim, if developers come to see him, to change

definitions, to allow development

anywhere he wants within this greenbelt. Believe me, there is a big problem here.

I want to say this, and I say it with sadness more than anything else today. Dalton McGuinty has created -- today he's receiving a black belt in breaking

promises. Dalton McGuinty, mark my word today, has broken another key promise and has gotten a black belt in broken promises in this province. I hope we can fix this at committee because as it

stands it won't do a darned thing to prevent development in this greenbelt area.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Today I'd like to return to the issue of another broken Liberal promise, a promise to balance Ontario's

budget, so my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday we showed you where you could find $3 billion to help balance the budget. Today I want to tell you where you can find another $1

billion. Former Finance Minister John Manley, before he departed office, confirmed that he would be flowing $1 billion to the Ontario government for both SARS and for the CHST, to provide health

care for the people of Ontario. Will you count that $1 billion toward Ontario's financial challenges?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I can't tell you how delighted I am with the suggestions coming from the soon-to-be candidate for

leader of the official opposition. I congratulate him on his work. That's on the basis that he doesn't jump ship and try to get a seat in the other House. No, I'm wrong; that's the member from

Leeds-Grenville.

My friend raises two points: The agreement we finally reached with the federal government, which the previous government couldn't reach, on SARS funding, and

indeed that will form part of the revenues for this year. As far as the transfer under the Canada health and social transfer, I want to remind my friend -- I don't know how many times I've said

this to him, but he needs to understand that that payment remains contingent. It remains a commitment that will come to us, if all the contingencies are met, in October of next year. That is part

of next year's budget and it will be part of next year's financial plan.

Mr Baird: It's not just John Baird and Ernie Eves who say you can apply this $1 billion to Ontario's fiscal challenges this year; it's also

your good friend John Manley. He was quoted recently as saying, "I believe that with our method of accounting in Ontario and Canada, it can count this year." In fact, they will count it as an

expenditure this year.

Why don't you stop the blame game? Why don't you do the right thing? Why don't you put this billion dollars toward the financial pressures of the government

this year? Do you want to balance the budget? Do you want to accept your responsibilities and put this billion dollars toward our financial challenges?

Hon Mr Sorbara: This is the member who as Minister of Energy told us that everything was just fine, "We've got it all under control." Well,

the people of Ontario heard today the problems that we're inheriting at OPG.

But let me get to the substance of his question. I have talked with the former finance minister, and we could use a wide variety of accounting tricks.

Mr Baird: You get a cheque and you deposit it. How is that a trick?

Hon Mr Sorbara: He says, "You get a cheque and you deposit it." That is precisely what we're proposing to do. That cheque will arrive, if it

arrives, next October. We're very grateful to the federal government for their consideration. We will book it when we receive it.

Mr Baird: On this issue, I certainly agree with John Manley. John Williamson and Bruce Winchester of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation also

strongly disagree with you. This morning in the National Post, they wrote, "Regrettably, the McGuinty government has decided it will not record any of this ... current fiscal year" revenue,

preferring instead to pump up the deficit and make the financial situation artificially worse.

When will you keep your promise that you made just a few short months ago to the people of Ontario and balance the budget? When will you apply this money

toward the budget this year, just as John Manley says you can do?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I say to you that my friend should not get me started on John Williamson, head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, for whom

I have a great deal of respect. But when he makes suggestions that we identify another $2.1 billion in revenue, while ignoring the fact that on the other side of the ledger there is a $2.8-billion

expenditure that would have to be brought in, I tell my friend for Nepean-Carlton, do not rely on that kind of research from John Williamson.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question?

Mr Baird: I say to the Minister of Finance that he was only too happy to have his mug shot with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation at election

time.

During Ontario's recent election, Dalton McGuinty looked taxpayers in the eye in millions of homes across Ontario and said, "I won't raise your taxes" --

another broken Liberal promise. Just six weeks into your term you announced the biggest tax increase in Ontario's history. You're breaking election promises: You're raising taxes on seniors; you're

raising taxes on working families; you're raising taxes on small businesses; you're raising taxes on everyone in Ontario who pays income taxes. That will bring in more than $4 billion in the full

year. But the added benefit of that is that it will bring in $800 million this fiscal year.

Will you stand in your place and say that you will apply each and every dollar from that tax increase to deliver Ontario a balanced budget? Will you do

that?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I want to assure my friend from Nepean-Carleton that I will always look to him for sage advice when his research is sound. But

in this instance, his research is just not based in reality. During the election campaign we made it very clear that the province could not afford the corporate tax cuts that that party, when it

was in government, had put into legislation. We said that we would repeal those. We said that the province could not afford the private education tax credit and we repealed that measure. We said

during the election campaign that the province could not afford a very ill advised and very poorly constructed credit for seniors in the area of property tax. We kept faith with every one of those

commitments. I would like my friend from Nepean-Carleton to correct the record and acknowledge that that is the case.

Mr Baird: Dalton McGuinty spent millions of dollars, went on TV and looked at every family in the province and said, "I won't raise your

taxes." He didn't give an asterisk; he didn't give an exception. He said it millions of times, in millions of homes across this province.

You promised not to raise taxes, you promised to balance the budget, and both of these promises have been broken. The least you could do is apply this $800

million toward the financial challenges of the government this year. We gave you $3 billion yesterday. Earlier, I showed you where you could find another $1 billion. We're almost 80% on our way to

a balanced budget this year. Show us that you're serious about wanting to balance the budget. Show us that you're going to accept your responsibilities and show us you're going to balance the

budget this fiscal year.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I have some very bad news for the member from Nepean-Carleton. He says that he provided us $3 billion yesterday. His cheque

bounced. It bounced because of the terrible, despicable financial management of your party when you were in government.

Mr Baird: That $3 billion came right out of your financial plan. David Hall, the man who crunched your numbers, agrees with me and not with

you. David Hall agrees with me. Your man who certified and verified your numbers agrees with me and agrees with our party on that $3 billion.

John Williamson, in today's National Post, and I'm going to say it again: "Pumping up the deficit of a defeated government had become a tiresome trend in

Canada, and one that taxpayers no longer accept." Minister, one can only assume that you want to artificially raise the size of Ontario's deficit. When will you accept your responsibilities and

take Ontario off this deficit Viagra? Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I'm going to have to --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Minister?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am really going to have to reflect on the "deficit Viagra" comment. I can't figure out the analogy, but I'll work on it. But

I'm up to answering the question.

Mr Williamson lost a huge amount of credibility when he failed to do the arithmetic that preceded the

article you're referring to. But I want to get to the

heart of your question. You say, and you're right, that with the tax measures that we introduced and hopefully will pass in this Legislature, we will start to repair the damage done previously.

That will bring us in as much as $800 million --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Hold on a second. That will bring us in about $800 million this year, which will be applied to this year's deficit. But the

shortcomings and the additional expenditures that your party added after the budget may have some impact on the other side. I invite my friend to return to this House tomorrow, when I will discuss

these matters more fully in a fall economic statement.

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

AND HYDRO ONE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have two questions, and my first question is for the Acting Premier. During the election, your

Premier made an ironclad commitment to keep Ontario's hydro in public hands. He promised, and I quote, "After the election, the new Ontario Liberal government will stop the sell-off of hydro."

Period. End of quote.

But today, listening to your energy minister, it seems that the story has already changed. Reporters asked your energy minister today if you're going to sell

off our hydro. He said, "We are not ruling anything in or anything out at this point."

Deputy Premier, I think we should have learned from the previous government that while we have problems with our hydroelectricity system, selling it off and

deregulating doesn't answer any of those problems; it makes it worse. Will you rule out selling off our hydro system, period?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I'm sure the Minister of Energy has a comment on that question.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I identified today a number of significant problems associated with OPG. I

also identified the steps this government is taking to address those problems. The question that you referred to I put in the context of the panel of advisors I have appointed and said that we are

not handcuffing them one way or another. It will be the government's decision with respect to the future of energy in this province.

But let me say this: The last five years have been a horrible failure on the energy sector, and the people who are left to pay for it are the very people who

really shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of the previous government. As we move forward, we believe that the public sector and public ownership of our hydro assets is extremely important for

the future effective operation and delivery of an adequate, reliable, stable hydro system going forward in the province of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: Then will you answer the very simple question? Let me quote again the Premier. This is what the Premier said during the election

campaign: "The PC privatization experience has been a disaster. Higher prices, dirtier air and the threat of more blackouts." That's what the Premier said.

Then he promised, "We will not sell any public generating stations or the transmission grid, period.... It's the only way to get the stability we need to

create jobs and grow the economy." So I ask you, following on that, one simple question: Will you rule out today -- there will be no further privatization of further generation, there will be no

privatization of transmission, there will be no privatization, period, of our hydro system? Will you say that?

Hon Mr Duncan: We have certainly said we will not privatize the transmission system in the province of Ontario. The government that introduced

private power to Ontario was Mr Hampton's government, a government that you were part of. I remember the NUGs.

Now, with respect to private generation of power, let me read to you what the member says in his book on page 18, and allow me to publicly thank him for

autographing my copy. "I am not ideologically opposed to private power, any more than I'm opposed to private restaurants, clothing stores or car dealerships."

Is the member suggesting that we not allow the two new plants in Sarnia and Windsor to come on stream, which will increase the amount of power available to

meet our day-to-day demand? Is he suggesting we do that? I think he is suggesting that. That would be a mistake, because those plants are going to provide more power at a reasonable price and help

ensure that we get through the cold winter days that the previous government's plan almost caused a catastrophe with.

So to the member opposite I suggest this:

(1) We will not privatize the transmission system.

(2) Hydro and the generation of hydro, those assets which are

public at this point, in my view and in our Premier's view remain public. In terms of private generation, for the future going forward, there's certainly room in this government as there was --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you. New question.

Mr Hampton: Again to the energy minister: Today you nominated three people who have absolutely no experience with running a hydroelectric

system to be a blue-chip panel to tell you about the future of our hydroelectricity system. This is reminiscent of the Conservatives bringing in Bill Farlinger from Bay Street, someone who had no

experience running a hydro system, and asking him for advice on how to run the system. Minister, if you want advice on how to run a hydroelectricity system, why don't you bring in somebody who has

experience at Hydro Quebec, or someone who has experience at Manitoba Hydro, or someone who has experience at BC Hydro?

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Hampton: Why are you going down the same road the Conservatives went down, bringing people in from Bay Street who will only tell you what

Bay Street wants, who have no experience whatsoever in running a hydroelectricity system? Why are you making the same mistake the Conservatives made only eight years ago?

Hon Mr Duncan: The member opposite probably is a little bit confused about what we did this morning. First of all, on the board of directors

of OPG I have appointed Jake Epp as the chair. Mr Epp is a former federal energy minister and provided this House and Legislature, I think, with very good advice with respect to what happened at

Pickering. I appointed John Manley, the former federal finance minister, and Mr Epp and Peter Godsoe, a distinguished banker with unparalleled commitment to public enterprise in this country, not

to the board of the corporation, but to give us recommendations to give to the board for moving forward.

These issues and the financial predicament that OPG is in today, I would submit to the member opposite, require the very type of expertise we've appointed to

the advisory panel. I can assure the member, in the days coming you will see appointments to the board of OPG that will certainly exceed the kind of appointments your government made when it was in

power. Those appointments will reflect the diversity of knowledge that's needed to effectively govern such an important public corporation.

Mr Hampton: This is just getting good. Minister, your own reference points out the lack of foundation to your argument. Mr Manley knows

nothing about running a hydro utility. Mr Godsoe knows nothing about energy efficiency or energy conservation. Mr Epp, frankly, knows nothing about those things, either.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Hampton: You have a hydroelectricity system that is in trouble. As far as I can see, you're simply replicating a Conservative trick. You

bring somebody from Bay Street who knows nothing about affordable hydroelectricity, knows nothing about reliable hydroelectricity, knows nothing about environmental sustainability of

hydroelectricity, and now you want them to give you advice on how to run the system. Let me tell you the advice you'll get.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: You'll get advice on what Bay Street wants. They will tell you what Bay Street wants. What the people want you to acknowledge is

that they want some things out of the hydro system. They want an affordable system, a reliable system, an environmentally sustainable system, and they want a public system. Will you commit to those

things?

Hon Mr Duncan: I would submit that every one of those men knows a heck of a lot more than you'll ever know about hydro and policy in this

province.

Let me read just a little something that happened in Ontario in 1993. I quote from Thomas Walkom's book, Rae Days. He says that "By early 1993, with Strong

still musing about privatizing parts of Hydro, Energy Minister Brian Charlton had become less categorical in his denials. `We're looking at everything and anything,' Charlton told the Toronto Star.

`If you don't consider every option, you are subject to criticism.'"

I have charged this body to look at every option. I would submit to the member opposite, as he makes jokes about a very serious matter that deals with the

elements and essence of the economy of this province, that this government and this Premier are moving forward to address a problem that your government failed to address, that that government

failed to address after you raised rates 40%. Rates went up 40% under your government. Hydro's debts went up to an unmanageable level.

We are the folks that were sent to fix the problem. We're changing direction. We're going to make the hydroelectric system serve the people of this province

and ensure that we have an adequate and reasonably priced supply of electricity going forward into the future.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Minister of Finance with respect to his obligations as Minister of Finance. In the

absence of budgetary tricks, what we're looking at in budgeting balances is revenue and spending. We know the commitment by your leader, now the Premier, to a balanced budget and his commitment to

hold the line on taxes. We know from the auditor that as of March 31, 2003, there was a $117-million surplus. So what we're looking at now is this fiscal year.

We now have something better than estimates too: We have the public accounts statements to the end of March 2003 and we have the provincial tax increases that

you have brought in, so you must be familiar with them, including the retroactive ones that you've brought in, that you've imposed on the people of Ontario.

Would you agree now, having done your due diligence performing your obligations as Minister of Finance, that the estimated revenues for the province of Ontario

now, for the year which will end March 2004, will be in excess of $70 billion?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I would say to my friend from Whitby-Ajax that if there had been some due diligence in the management

of the finances of this province, we would not be in the situation that Erik Peters described for us on October 29.

He asked me to confirm certain revenue numbers for the current fiscal year. I invite my friend to return to this House tomorrow at about 2 o'clock, when I'll

be making a comprehensive statement on the state of the economy, including revenue projections. I can simply tell him at this point that the financial challenges that have been served up to us as a

result of our victory in the election are substantial indeed, but they are ones we will meet. We will get this province on a strong and sound financial footing.

Mr Flaherty: On the revenue side that sounds a lot like a yes, that the revenues now are estimated at in excess of $70 billion. Now we have to

look -- or the Minister of Finance should look, if he's doing his job as the Minister of Finance -- on the spending side. We have several months to the end of the fiscal year. We have the

commitment by his leader, now the Premier, to the people of Ontario that he would balance the budget.

We know the revenues are in excess of $70 billion. On the spending side now, has the Premier instructed you, Minister of Finance, to exercise spending controls

such that the spending of the province in the next several months will match the revenues and we will have a balanced budget in Ontario? What are those spending controls?

Hon Mr Sorbara: That approach to managing our affairs was soundly rejected by the people of Ontario. I want to tell my friend from Whitby-Ajax

that we will not indulge in the slash and burn of 1996: nurses -- gone; water inspectors -- gone; teachers -- gone; welfare recipients -- cut them. That's not our style. That's the style that you

implemented over the years. It didn't work and we're not going to adopt it.

WELFARE REFORM

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The previous Tory government brought in

a punitive, regressive lifetime ban on those convicted of welfare fraud. This policy, in part, led to the death of Kimberly Rogers of Sudbury. Experts have shown that this doesn't help reduce

fraud, as the ban is exceedingly severe and punitive.

What steps are we taking to look at this policy and review its implications for welfare recipients across Ontario?

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: That was a completely improper remark and the member should be asked

to withdraw it.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I can hear neither those who are putting the question or answering the question, or those who have

made unparliamentary comments. May I ask that we just be a bit quieter so I can hear.

Member from Hamilton East, have you completed your question? Minister.

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I appreciate the question. In fact,

the coroner's inquest in this very unfortunate death does indicate and does recommend that the lifetime ban for welfare fraud be eliminated. Regardless of the opposite side's opinion on the matter,

the coroner did in fact recommend that that be the case.

Having said all of that, our party campaigned on the notion that this was a very punitive measure and should be withdrawn, and that is what we intend to

do.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You indicated in your response to my point of order that you could not hear the comments. I

would ask you to review Hansard and, if you determine the comments were inappropriate, ask for withdrawal from the member.

The Speaker: As I said, the noise level during question period is impossible, and it's coming from both sides. I will review the comments, and

if it's unparliamentary I will make my comments then.

Supplementary.

Mr Agostino: I'm glad the minister has outlined that we're going to review the situation and hopefully change it in a positive way, where we

discourage and obviously go after welfare fraud, but do not put regressive lifetime bans on people simply for cheap political opportunism, as the previous government did, and for no purpose at all

to help welfare recipients.

Minister, as you're looking at this review, there are many people who are affected by this. Many constituents of mine, individuals who for one reason or

another have gotten themselves into difficult situations, should be dealt with, and I understand that. Can you outline to the House a timeline for us in reviewing this policy and the possibility of

us bringing forward other options?

Hon Ms Pupatello: We are required to make our report on the recommendations of the inquest early in the new year. I think they require that

response from government by February, and we intend to do that.

I can tell you that I am working with my colleagues in cabinet, as well as our ministry, to develop a package to actually improve legislation that was passed.

I happened to have the pleasure of travelling while it was being developed, and didn't agree with much of Ontario Works. Those of us who travelled with that bill could see very early on where there

would be many problems that don't actually help people who are on the system. What we intend to do is bring forward a package as quickly as we can to actually make the system work, allow people to

live with dignity and allow people to get back to work when they can. That's what we intend to do and we're moving quickly on this.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, the people of Ontario are anxiously awaiting two events. The

first is the arrival of Santa Claus. They know when that's going to happen. The second is for their new Liberal government in this province to get down to the business of governing. Repeatedly

yesterday, I asked a specific question of the Premier, who couldn't answer. He referred it to the minister, who wouldn't answer, and that was very specifically -- and it was followed up by the

member from Whitby-Ajax today: "Have you been given instructions to in fact balance your budget?"

Interestingly, I read in the National Post today, "Sorbara Expected to Heed TD's Advice and Break Vow to Balance Budget ... " So now I know why you weren't

able to answer the question yesterday. You were waiting for instructions from the TD Bank as to whether or not you could do that. Will you confirm for us today that in fact you were waiting for the

TD Bank to give you an excuse not to balance the budget?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I should tell you, I am somewhat offended by the

preamble to my friend from Oak Ridges's question. I

think any reasonable, objective viewer, any reasonable, objective commentator on this Parliament will confirm that we have been the most active, the most aggressive and the most effective and the

most thorough in getting down to our mandate so soon after an election. October 2, we were elected; October 23, we were sworn in. Since that time measures on auto insurance, measures on energy,

measures in the Ministry of the Attorney General, measures on northern development, measures on tuition, measures on the greenbelt -- he jests when he says, "Get down to work."

Now to the substance of his question. I generally reject taking advice from the National Post, notwithstanding that Conrad Black has left his proprietorship. I

read with interest what I hear in the National Post and I go about my business. Our commitment to a balanced budget remains firm and strong, and it remains our intention not just to balance budgets

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

Mr Klees: I will be very interested to hear the commentary from the journalists who just heard you talk about how you got down to business.

You did; you quickly got down to business to give us the highest single tax rate increase in the history of the province of Ontario. You very quickly got down to work to punish average citizens,

low-income earners, with retroactive tax increases. You did get down to the business of doing that. And you got down to the business -- quicker than any other administration -- of breaking your

campaign promises. What we want to know is, when will you get down to the business of actually correcting your mistake of not getting down to business two months ago? Balance the budget and give

the people of this province a true gift for Christmas; namely, one promise that you would keep.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Just on the matter of the measures in Bill 2, where we roll back the corporate tax cuts, it's not just our opinion that these

measures were absolutely necessary. In fact, Jack Mintz of the C.D. Howe Institute, one of the most respected institutes in all of the nation -- or perhaps North America -- made it very clear, when

we introduced that bill, that Ontario at this point could not afford the Tory tax cuts. You destabilized government. We've gotten down to work aggressively and with a determination that I think has

been uncommon in this place, certainly over the course of the past eight years. I am very proud of the work that we've accomplished in the two months we've been here.

Mr Klees: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is very important. The member has just referred to Jack Mintz of the C.D. Howe Institute. Let

me just remind you that I really think retroactive taxation is a very bad idea -- Jack Mintz --

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

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My question's to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In my riding, farmers want to do their part to protect

the water supply. They have embraced the idea of nutrient management plans, not only as a way to protect the environment, but as a tool to increase productivity in their businesses. Many farmers

have expressed concern about recent changes that were made to put the Ministry of Environment in charge of enforcement under the Nutrient Management Act. Some were under the impression that the

Ministry of Agriculture and Food would take the lead in education and approvals. Why has your government made this change?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I thank the member from Chatham-Kent for the question. Clean, safe water is our priority.

Another priority that we made very clear during the election campaign was that we were going to implement all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations. When you read recommendation 11, it's very clear

that the Ministry of the Environment should take the lead in dealing with looking after and protecting our water. The Ministry of the Environment is going to assume the responsibility for

compliance and enforcement. The nutrient management plans are still going to be approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The registry is going to be maintained by the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food. Training and education is still going to be put forward by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

In the area of policy and regulation development, there's going to be joint responsibility between the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food.

Mr Hoy: Farmers in my riding are also concerned that the Ministry of the Environment officials will not understand common farm practices. They

wonder if they will have the expertise to determine if an agricultural operation is in compliance with his or her nutrient management plan. They are also concerned that Ministry of the Environment

officials will investigate with the intent to lay charges before all the facts are in. Minister, what are you doing to address these concerns?

Hon Mr Peters: I can understand that there is some apprehension out there, but the Minister of the Environment and I have had the opportunity

to meet with the nutrient management advisory committee, an advisory committee that's going to play a very important role in offering advice to the respective ministries as well.

I want to point out as well that these MOE officials are going to be trained in agricultural practices. Most interesting, many of the individuals who

transferred into the Ministry of Agriculture actually came from the Ministry of the Environment, so they're now going back to the Ministry of the Environment. But these are individuals who are

going to be trained in agricultural practices.

We're very conscious. The Minister of the Environment and I have both made a commitment to the nutrient management advisory committee and to the Ontario Farm

Environmental Coalition that we're prepared to work with them, that we're going to be watching very closely as compliance procedures are undertaken. We are going to be watching this extremely

closely.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Acting Premier. Minister, during the election, your Premier said, "I believe that

the lack of government-funded IBI treatment for autistic children over age six is unfair and discriminatory." But earlier today, my colleague for Niagara Centre and I were in court listening to

your lawyer defend and justify ongoing discrimination against these kids. Today's case involves 11 more families whose autistic children were recently awarded 90 additional days of IBI treatment.

Your lawyer was there appealing the court decision which provided even that limited IBI treatment. Minister, your Premier promised to end this discrimination. When is he going to do it?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I know the Attorney General will want to respond to that question.

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): Yes, this

government understands this is an extremely sensitive and important issue. There are two issues that the member has raised. The first is with respect to the treatment of autistic children, and I

know the Minister of Children's Services will want to speak to that. The second one is the legal issue.

There are more than half a dozen injunctions and actions before the courts right now. Each one is unique and different. One case, the one that the member

speaks of, involves families with children who are currently getting autistic treatment, who are in the program and want to continue in the program. There is also a case where a three-year-old

autistic child is outside of the program and wants to get into the program. The court has to determine the case that's in front of the court. What this government wants to do is act in the best

interests of all autistic children, not on a case-by-case basis, but all autistic children. We are taking a position in court that will preserve the government's right to do just that.

Ms Martel: You see, Minister, your Premier was very clear during the election. He also said, "The Ontario Liberals support extending autism

treatment beyond the age of six." But in court today your lawyer, on your behalf, was making every argument that he could to deny these children ongoing autism treatment, treatment that they have

just recently won. No Ontario family should have to go to court to get medically necessary IBI treatment. No Ontario family should face financial ruin trying to pay for care for their children.

Your Premier made very specific promises to these families. When is he going to keep them?

Hon Mr Bryant: I think it would be best if the Minister of Children's Services answered that question.

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

question. I know we sat over there, and I know your concern is intentionally good, and I share your concern for all special-needs kids. There are many obstacles right now for not only autistic

children but for all special-needs children. One of the obstacles for autistic children is the lack of therapists, because there was a lack of planning for the training of therapists by this

government. We are addressing training of therapists for all special-needs children. We are addressing the lack of therapists. We are addressing --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. You asked me to listen carefully. I heard someone make an unparliamentary comment. Would you like to

withdraw that?

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I'd like to tell the member opposite that there are a number of obstacles. I appreciate the question, and I want to

assure her we're doing all we can to address the needs of all special-needs children. Part of the problem is lack of therapists. I'm working very hard with the Minister of Training, Colleges and

Universities to address this issue as well at that level.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the government House leader. Minister, with your indulgence, I want to read you a quote:

"We will require public hearings for all major legislation.

"The public should be given the opportunity to comment on any legislation of significance....

"Public input is essential to good government. We will ensure that you have the opportunity to offer comment on all major bills."

Every member here knows that we've had the mother of all time allocation motions -- three bills rolled into one. Minister, is this just one more broken

promise, and are you prepared to follow the comments from your document, on page 8, the Government That Works for You platform? Are you going to honour your promise and commitment to the people of

Ontario to listen to the process and the people of Ontario?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): First of all, as I recall, the member opposite voted in favour of that time

allocation motion. As I also recall, we're passing three bills before the end of this week under the programming motion; all have public hearings, all have clause-by-clause.

Your government constantly used time allocation without public hearings, without third reading debate. In the case of the Eves government, virtually every bill

this House passed was done under time allocation with no hearings, with no clause-by-clause. So we looked at a new option: programming, which provided hearings, provided clause-by-clause. You

agreed to it, and you voted for it. In fact, you moved closure -- that member moved closure -- barely a week ago, something that we would never want to do.

This government is more progressive. This government is offering new ideas to make the House work better. This government is offering a new direction not only

for this House but for this province, and we're undoing the mess that that member helped create.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I have to say to you that Government That Works for You is being demonstrated to the people of Ontario. Yes, in fact,

for those listening, I did agree with the programming motion. But for the record, it should be understood, after endless debate, that it obviously was falling on deaf ears.

One further example: Last week, while discussing Bill 2, I moved an amendment which I know touched a nerve. This was the clause amending the

section on

retroactivity. I spoke passionately, as did Mr Baird. I was convinced that the seals on the other side were going to listen. What did they do? I'm certain the people of Ontario know they voted

unanimously to tax retroactively. They didn't even talk against it. They were shackled, they were silenced.

We tried today in Bill 5 to move forward with motions that would bring great relief into the system of auto insurance.

I put to the minister, are you prepared to listen not just to the committee members but to the people of Ontario to make democracy a real place where we can

make changes for everyone? That's our intention. What's your intention?

Hon Mr Duncan: I think the member has put his finger on something here. Let me tell you, your government consistently used draconian time

allocation to cut off debate with no hearings, no third reading debate and no opportunity for the public to participate, including on budget bills, 97% of the time in the last House. You didn't

allow for public hearings. You didn't allow for third reading debate. And whose government was it that had the budget at Magna? Whose government was that? And what Speaker of the House and what

body of public opinion said that was no way to conduct the affairs of this Legislature? We are changing direction. We are making this House work. You voted for that motion. You moved closure last

week. We say shame on you, and shame on your government's record. We're changing it and making this a much better House to do the people's business in every day of the week.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Many of my constituents are

employed in the mining industry. As you would know, the population in northern Ontario has been declining. We have an outflow of young people. Many of my constituents are concerned with their own

future. I cannot stress enough the economic importance of the mineral sector to our communities and the northern economy in general. The natural resources in the north contribute billions of

dollars to Ontario's economy. The sector is an integral part of the province's economic engine. Recognizing the significant role that mining and exploration plays in our province's economy, what

are you doing as a minister to make sure this sector flourishes?

Hon Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The member is absolutely correct: Mining does play a significant role in

Ontario's economy. That's why just last week I attended the Ontario Exploration and Geoscience Symposium, where I reaffirmed our government's commitment to supporting the mineral industry in

Ontario to ensure sustainable development. I will be working with my colleague the honourable David Ramsay, the Minister of Natural Resources, who also attended this symposium, to ensure that the

needs, interests and concerns of the mineral industry and our other stakeholders are heard.

There are many needs to address to ensure strong growth of the mining sector. While ensuring a strong mineral industry, we must also recognize the need for

sustainable development and the interests of the aboriginal communities. Mining in Ontario is a $5.7-billion industry with 47 mines in operation across the province, directly employing 17,900

people, with indirect jobs of 73,000. The McGuinty government is committed to ensuring that the mineral industry is given fair play by this government, and we will help it grow even more.

Mr Brown: Over the last eight years, northern Ontario has lost over 8,200 jobs and its population has decreased by 4.2%. As you know,

unemployment rates in northern Ontario are double those in southern Ontario. Mining is a major employer in northern Ontario and a source of high-skilled, high-paying jobs. If we are to stem the

flow of jobs and people from the north, support for mining is important to our plan. What actions have you taken to ensure the future of the mineral sector in northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Bartolucci: Just last month I was delighted to announce the creation of the Ontario Mineral Industry Cluster Council to help develop

and strengthen Ontario's mineral sector.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Bartolucci: With the council's hard work, co-chaired by two world leaders, we will do a lot and so will that council. I can't believe

what I heard over on the other side, when you say the world leaders will not do a lot. We will help the council ensure that we become a leading competitor in the global economy.

My ministry will also be working with the Ontario Prospectors Association on the Lake Nipigon Region Geoscience Initiative, and will continue to provide

support to the Discover Abitibi Initiative, to document the bedrock geology and mineral potential of northern areas, to realize and revitalize local economies and to create jobs. The Dalton

McGuinty government is committed to making sure that happens.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Minister of Finance. On November 13 you told the Globe and Mail that in the 2002-03 fiscal year

the previous government ran a deficit. Your exact language was, "There is not a surplus there. There is a rather small shortfall." Mr Minister, was that a true statement?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I think I corrected the record on that. I wonder where the member for Erie-Lincoln has been. I

corrected the record on that within about 36 hours of making that comment.

Mr Hudak: I appreciate the minister making it clear that he was mistaken. If it was once, I think we could understand that, but the reality is

that it's hard to separate the political spin from the real numbers at the Ministry of Finance. The only deficit that really exists is a Dalton McGuinty-Greg Sorbara credibility deficit.

Let me explain. During the campaign, Dalton McGuinty said that he would balance the books. On October 29, 2003, in the Toronto Star, Dalton McGuinty

contradicted himself and said that he would balance the books the next fiscal year. In today's National Post, it's reported that the Ontario Liberals may run the deficit for several years.

Mr Minister, you sit next to the Premier. You know the man. Which version of Dalton McGuinty do I believe: the September version, the October version or the

December version? How many Dalton McGuinty deficits are we going to see in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I tell you, sir, the Dalton McGuinty that I believe in is the man that was elected as leader of this party over six years ago,

who turned the party around, who defined a course for the province of Ontario, who brought those proposals to an election campaign and was the beneficiary of a massive amount of support from the

people of Ontario.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I tell my friend from Erie-Lincoln, who cannot seem to stop talking while I answer, under that leadership and under those

proposals, we are going to repair the severe financial damage he was a part of. He was a minister there. We are going to put this province on a strong financial footing and we are going to bring a

quality of public services to Ontario that will make this province shine.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): My question is for the Minister of Children's Services. I recently received three letters from my

constituents in London. One of them I quote: "Let us remember how much we have lost with the past government, and remember also how far we have yet to go." Another one talks about child poverty. It

says, "We did little in the past to alleviate this problem." Another one talks about poverty for women. It says, "This will affect the children and also the future of this province." Recently, I

received a letter from the Middlesex-London Health Unit. It's a study done by Dr Graham Pollett about the poverty in London which indicated that we have 22% of children in poverty between the ages

of zero and seven. Also, we have 9,000 children between the ages of seven and 17 living in poverty. We have always been campaigning that we want to alleviate this problem in this province, and we

blame the past government in these circumstances. What's your agenda? What are you willing to do to alleviate this problem?

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children's Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I have not had a chance to review the

London study. I look forward to receiving that report from you, but it seems to confirm a couple of other studies that have been done in the last few years about child poverty in the province, and

in this case, specifically in London.

We have already taken some steps to alleviate poverty. For example, for the first time in eight years there will be an increase in the minimum wage. Also,

pregnant women on social assistance will get the nutritional supplements they need. As well, deadbeat parents who fail to support their children will be held to accountability for the first time in

Mr Ramal: So far, the people of London and also across the province are still waiting for technical steps. I know that not just one ministry

can alleviate the problem. Hopefully, you'll be working in conjunction with other ministries and with the government of Dalton McGuinty to alleviate this problem. What immediate steps can they see

to alleviate this problem?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I share the member's concern for the families in London-Fanshawe and across the province. You're quite right that this

is a monumental task. Attacking child poverty isn't something that one ministry can tackle. That is why we will all be working together in the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the

ministries of education and health care to ensure that children are well taken care of.

I'll give you an example in the health care ministry, which looks at and funds the physical ailments of children, not necessarily looking at the whole child.

It's logical for that ministry but not logical for the families. When those specific programs come under the new children's ministry, we will look at the whole child and look at all of the needs.

It is a new ministry, it will take time for it to be established, but I want to make sure your constituents know that I am committed to addressing the issues of child poverty in London-Fanshawe, as

well as the rest of the province, with my colleagues in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, health care and education.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. You and your government were campaigning last

September on a platform of real rent control, but with the caveat that once renters had vacancies above 3%, that may be lifted. We call that the landlord loophole, and it's made tenants really

nervous. Your party can't seem to make up its mind, now that in the greater Toronto area vacancy rates are at 3.8%. On September 30, Liberals claimed that the landlord loophole would only apply if

vacancy rates were abnormally high. On December 6, the spokesman for your ministry claimed that the landlord loophole would only apply if vacancy rates were over 3% for a long time.

Tenants deserve an answer. You promised them real rent control. Will tenants continue to receive that real rent control, or are you going to have them at the

mercy of the landlords now that vacancy rates are at 3.8%?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs, minister responsible for seniors): As has been indicated in our platform commitment, as I

am indicating here today, we will be starting a consultation process very soon, in the new year, which will include everyone: tenants, tenants' organizations, landlords, people clear across this

province, to get a real handle on the rent control situation. We will be dealing with the problem and we will be dealing with our commitment as set out in our platform.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Let me just say, before members even leave, because I'd like everyone to hear this: I just want to advise the

House that work has continued to find the reason for the division bells' having some malfunction in here. Until we can repair them, we will be using other means to call members to the House for any

divisions that may arise. I ask members to pay really close attention to the proceedings and to consult their whips about any planned votes.

I want to thank all members. I'm not quite sure if Santa has borrowed the bells or not, but we will do our best to make the proceedings run smoothly. I just

want to let you know that. We are continuing to work to fix those bells.

PETITIONS

TOBACCO TAX

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition here signed by a number of my constituents and constituents from our neighbouring ridings.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty has stated that he will increase tobacco taxes by $10 a carton, force store owners to hide tobacco products behind a curtain and

support a smoke-free Ontario; and

"Whereas history has proven that increases in tobacco taxes cause increases in the underground trade for illegal black-market tobacco whose contents are

neither regulated nor inspected; and

"Whereas forcing store owners to hide their tobacco displays unduly punishes both store owners and consumers for the transition of what remains a legal

product;

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

"That the government of Ontario reject tobacco tax hikes, reject a smoke-free Ontario and reject a ban on tobacco displays and protect the rights of consumers

to purchase a legal, regulated product."

I sign this petition as I agree with it.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a petition which I support and will sign when I am finished reading it. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the city of Toronto's new and emerging technologies committee is considering advanced thermal technology (ATT), a form of garbage incineration;

"Whereas ATT, like incineration, squanders valuable resources, pollutes the air and water, and creates toxic residues that must be land-filled;

"Whereas ATT releases toxic metals like mercury, lead and cadmium from plastics, paper and other discarded materials;

"Whereas ATT generates dioxins and furans from chlorine and plastics;

"Whereas ATT requires expensive air pollution control devices to attempt to capture some of the extremely toxic emissions;

"Whereas ATT is prohibitively expensive and does not create local jobs;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to take garbage incineration in any form off the table as an option;

and

"Be it further resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to assist the city of Toronto in meeting its zero waste target by 2010 by

providing support and promoting reduction, source separation, reusing, repairing, composting, recycling and the removal of toxins."

I'm sure you would support this petition, Mr Speaker. I will affix my signature.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have signed my name to my petition. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario.

"Whereas the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 was passed into law in December 2000 by the previous government; and

"Whereas this act contains many changes that affect existing tenants and new applicants who are concerned about new rules that could lead to a large number of

evictions and penalties;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to request the government to look at the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000, and make changes

to it, taking into account the opinions of all stakeholders."

I submit that to the House today.

LANDFILL

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

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

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

landfill at site 41; and

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

are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

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

and

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

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

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

and

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

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

legislation;

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

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

I know how hard the member from Simcoe North has worked, so I'm supporting this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present a petition supporting choice in education for Ontario parents. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris and Ernie Eves government respected the right of parents to send their children to independent schools; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris and Ernie Eves government passed a law providing parents with a tax credit of up to 50% of tuition to a maximum of $3,500 when it's

fully implemented; and

"Whereas the Dalton McGuinty government has now introduced a bill that will cancel this important credit that provides working-class parents with the ability

to send their children to a school of their choice;

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

"To protect the equity in education tax credit and stop the Liberal tax hike bill from becoming law."

In support, I ascribe my signature.

LANDFILL

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

landfill at site 41; and

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

are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

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

and

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

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

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

and

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

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

legislation;

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

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

I echo that the member for Simcoe North has worked very hard on this, and I support this and affix my name.

TUITION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Because of the skyrocketing increases in education, the Canadian Federation of Students keep sending petitions

about that subject. It reads as follows:

"Whereas average tuition fees in Ontario are the second-highest in Canada; and

"Whereas average undergraduate tuition fees in Ontario have more than doubled in the past 10 years; and

"Whereas tuition fees for deregulated programs have, in certain cases, doubled and tripled; and

"Whereas Statistics Canada has documented a link between increasing tuition fees and diminishing access to post-secondary education; and

"Whereas four other provincial governments have taken a leadership role by freezing and reducing tuition fees;

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

"Freeze tuition fees for all programs at their current levels; and

"Take steps to reduce the tuition fees of all graduate programs, post-diploma programs and professional programs for which tuition fees have been deregulated

since 1998."

Since I agree with this petition, I'm delighted to put my signature to it.

WATERLOO-WELLINGTON TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the residents of Waterloo-Wellington need and deserve excellent roads and highways for their safe travel; and

"Whereas good transportation links are vital to the strength of our local economy, supporting job creation through the efficient delivery of our products to

the North American marketplace; and

"Whereas transit services are essential to managing the future growth of our urban communities and have a relatively minimal impact on our natural environment;

and

"Whereas Waterloo-Wellington MPP Ted Arnott has asked all municipalities in Waterloo-Wellington to provide him with their top transportation priorities for the

next five years and beyond, all of them responded, and their recommendations form the Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan; and

"Whereas Transportation Minister Frank Klees responded quickly to MPP Ted Arnott's request for a meeting with the councillors and staff of

Waterloo-Wellington's municipalities, and listened to their recommendations; and

"Whereas the Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan contains over 40 recommendations provided to MPP Ted Arnott by municipalities, and there is

recurrent support for implementing the corridor study of Highway 7/8 between Kitchener and Stratford, a new four-lane Highway 7 from Kitchener to Guelph, assistance for Wellington county to rebuild

Highway 24 from Guelph to Cambridge, a repaired and upgraded Highway 6 from Fergus to Mount Forest, Waterloo region's light rail transit initiative, OSTAR funding for transportation-related

projects, and other projects;

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

"That the provincial government support Ted Arnott's Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan, and initiate the necessary studies and/or construction of

the projects in it."

This is signed by a substantial number of my constituents, most of whom reside in Mapleton township.

LANDFILL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I appreciate this, especially with the messages being brought today from the Minister of the Environment

and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

landfill at site 41; and

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

are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

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

and

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

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

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

and

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

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

legislation;

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

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

I'll be pleased to give this to Katie, and I sign my name as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA GESTION

RESPONSABLE DES FINANCES

Mr Bradley, on behalf of Mr Sorbara, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 2,

An Act respecting fiscal responsibility / Projet de loi 2, Loi concernant la gestion responsable des finances.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Minister?

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): You've called for debate?

The Speaker: Yes.

Hon Mr Bradley: I will be sharing my time with Mr Duguid, Mr McNeely, and Ms Cansfield -- I think that's what I see here -- on our leadoff

time.

I'm very pleased to be able to speak to this piece of legislation, which of course does restore fiscal responsibility to the province of Ontario.

During the election campaign there was a choice that was put before the people of Ontario, and that choice was whether people would have their government

proceed with further tax cuts which would rob the people of the province and the government of Ontario acting on behalf of a revenue base that was necessary to carry out all the programs, or

whether they would proceed with further tax cuts that had been announced by the previous Conservative government. This was clearly put to the people of Ontario; it was no surprise at all.

During the campaign there was an effort put forward to explain to the people of the province that we could not do, for instance, as President George Bush of

the United States is doing at the present time, where he has invoked massive tax cuts. They are now running a huge, unprecedented deficit in the United States.

Many of the states within the United States did the same thing. They, of course, in a time when they felt their economies were booming, decided they were going

to engage upon, ideologically speaking, massive tax cuts, and at the same time continue to make some significant expenditures to meet their obligations to their people.

As a result, many of these states are in a very difficult situation today where they are unable to meet their fiscal commitments without making drastic cuts to

essential programs. So even in states where purportedly the government is what you would call pro-law and order, we have people being released from prison early simply because of budgetary

considerations and not the safety of the public. We don't want to see that happen in the province of Ontario.

The message was clear from people whom I talked to. There were some exceptions, and I accepted that because not everybody votes for one party or another. But

it was clearly put out there. If people were looking for the tax cut or the tax credit, as the previous government described it, for private schools, then they had a choice. I'm sure that every one

of those people was made aware of what that choice was, and when they went to the ballot box, they knew how they were voting. So today, if they write to us and say, "Why are you taking away this

particular provision?" we, of course, know that it was very clear.

The government of the day and the Conservative Party certainly said clearly -- and I want to give them their credit for being very clear on that -- that they

would be continuing with, and perhaps escalating over the years, the tax credit for private schools in this province. The Liberal Party in the election campaign said they would not be proceeding

with that and, in fact, that they were going to rescind the tax cuts which had been promised by the government of Ontario. I think some of them were contained in that budget that you will recall

yourselves was held in the training centre at Magna corporation.

For the first time, a budget was not held in the chambers or at least in the building of the province of Ontario, but instead at the instigation of -- I'm sure

not the member for Waterloo-Wellington or, I would suggest the member for Erie-Lincoln, but the whiz kids of the day in the Premier's office and perhaps a couple of other political operatives, who

said, "Wouldn't it be clever to hold this budgetary exercise, present this budget, at Magna corporation?"

I'm going to say, as a political observer, that that was a major turning point in politics in Ontario, that it was symbolic of something happening. Today, I'm

sure many of my friends o