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

December 3, 2003

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Dec-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 3 December 2003 Mercredi 3 décembre 2003

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

VISITOR

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXPAYER DAY

DIABETES

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

VISITOR

MEAT INSPECTION

UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE

PUBLIC SAFETY

VISITORS

INTERNATIONAL DAY

OF DISABLED PERSONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

DONALD DEACON

INTERNATIONAL DAY

OF DISABLED PERSONS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

WASTE DISPOSAL

WATER QUALITY

ONTARIO INNOVATION TRUST

DUFFINS ROUGE

AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE

PUBLIC HEALTH

SALT SPILL

COURT BACKLOG

WATER QUALITY

LINCOLN ALEXANDER EXPRESSWAY

HOSPITALS

LANDFILL

HYDRO RATES

COURT BACKLOG

GO TRANSIT

SEPTIC SYSTEMS

MINIMUM WAGE

PETITIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

TUITION

SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE

STABILIZATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA STABILISATION

DES TAUX D'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

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 a 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 order 62(b), the estimates before the committee of the:

Ministry of Agriculture and Food;

Ministry of the Attorney General;

Cabinet Office;

Ministry of Citizenship;

Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services;

Ministry of Consumer and Business Services;

Ministry of Culture;

Ministry of Education;

Ministry of Energy;

Ministry of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation;

Ministry of the Environment;

Ministry of Finance;

Office of Francophone Affairs;

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care;

Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs;

Ministry of Labour;

Office of the Lieutenant Governor;

Management Board Secretariat;

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing;

Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat;

Ministry of Natural Resources;

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines;

Office of the Premier;

Ministry of Public Safety and Security;

Ministry of Tourism and Recreation;

Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities;

Ministry of Transportation;

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.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): With us today in the gallery is a former MPP, Brad Clark. Mr Clark was a member from 1999 to 2003 for the

riding of Stoney Creek.

Is he here? If not, we're giving him that recognition. I know he's in the building somewhere. So let us welcome him when he does come in.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXPAYER DAY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I rise today to inform the House of plans for a Taxpayer Day, right here at Queen's Park. Taxpayer

Day will be next Wednesday, December 10. Taxpayer Day will allow Ontario taxpayers to voice their concern regarding Liberal tax hikes, tax hikes that Dalton McGuinty announced in Bill 2: a dizzying

array of measures that make people in Ontario pay more taxes by cancelling the seniors' property tax rebate; eliminating planned income tax cuts for individuals; scrapping the tax break for parents

who send their children to independent schools; jacking up tobacco taxes; and raising taxes on incorporated businesses, loggers, miners and farmers.

At $2.8 billion a year in increased tax revenue, this law is now rightfully known as the largest single-day tax hike in Ontario's history bill. Wasn't it just a

few weeks ago that Dalton McGuinty stood in front of all of us, on our television screens, chanting his misleading mantra over and over again: "I won't cut your taxes, but I won't raise them

either"?

Either this bill is another massive broken promise or the Premier has a different understanding of what it means to raise taxes.

Anyone who'd like more information on Taxpayer Day can contact either myself or the member for Nepean-Carleton.

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I didn't want to interrupt the member when he was

speaking, but I did hear the words "misleading mantra" in there. I always thought the word "misleading" was unacceptable in this House. I didn't want to interrupt you, though.

Mr Barrett: I withdraw that.

DIABETES

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I rise to talk about diabetes, a serious illness that will become the 21st century's

next deadly epidemic. Today over 600,000 Ontario citizens have diabetes. Today it's the third-largest cause of death in the province. Today, the chronic complications associated with diabetes

account for 32% of heart attacks, 51% of new dialysis patients, 70% of amputations and 30% of strokes.

The Canadian Diabetes Association notes that "complications from diabetes can be prevented or delayed by aggressive management of the disease." But we must act

soon to ease the human and economic toll of this disease. We must move to ensure that vulnerable Ontarians with diabetes have timely and appropriate access to the medicines and supplies they

require through the Ontario drug benefit plan. We must insist on a reintroduction of regular physical education classes in our schools, as there is no better way to protect our children from

eventual development of diabetes than ensuring that they become and remain physically active.

On the morning of Tuesday, December 16, the CDA will present an information breakfast session here at Queen's Park. I would urge all members of this House to

come out and learn the risk factors and to hear from people who deal with this disease every single day.

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): The decision by the Liberal government to transfer responsibility for the Nutrient Management Act from

the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of the Environment is a slap in the face to farmers across Ontario. This arbitrary and wrong-headed decision was made behind closed doors, with

the Minister of Agriculture obviously missing in action. This will justifiably alarm Ontario's farming community. But it's just the tip of the iceberg with a government that's Toronto-focused and

lacks any strong spokespeople for rural Ontario.

The former Minister of Agriculture, Helen Johns, toured the province, consulting with thousands of farmers on the proposed act. One of the main fears farmers

expressed was the possibility that implementation and compliance would fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment. Farmers believed, and with considerable justification born of

past experience, the MOE would simply hire inspectors who would visit farms with legislation in hand, issuing compliance orders and/or laying changes. Minister Johns made a commitment that

responsibility for the program would be retained by the Ministry of Agriculture. Now this Toronto-centric government has thrown that commitment on the manure pile.

Ontario's farmers have endured considerable hardship this year, especially with the far-reaching effects of mad cow. This rejection of their concerns shows a

complete lack of understanding of the current challenges facing Ontario farm families.

The Conservative government understood the need for consultation and co-operation. On the other hand, the McGuinty government, without any consultation, has

reversed this decision, threatening the future of thousands of farmers across this province.

VISITOR

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask permission to welcome and acknowledge the president of the Hamilton

realtors association, Dan Gies, who is in our gallery today.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): It's not a point of order, but we welcome him, anyhow.

MEAT INSPECTION

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I would like to impress upon the members of this assembly how important a proficient and credible

meat inspection system is to the business of agriculture in this province. As producers of broiler chicken, my husband and I have worked many years and very hard to achieve a superior rating for

the product that leaves our farm. We take pride in the product and in the high quality that we send to the processing industry. We don't want our collective years of hard work, market research and

progress as farmers to be jeopardized by a lack of public confidence in the meat inspection system.

Ontario consumers have been very supportive of Ontario agriculture. We appreciate that support, but we also don't want to do anything to endanger that. From the

farm gate to the plate, both farmers and consumers have a right to a science-based and accountable meat inspection system.

This week's announcement that we were going to hire more full-time meat inspectors is welcomed by Ontario farmers.

UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I rise to join with all members in the House to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Ukrainian genocide of

1932-33. As professor Orest Subtelny wrote, this genocide was to be for Ukrainians what the Holocaust was for Jews and the massacre of 1915 was for Armenians: a tragedy of unfathomable proportions

that traumatized the nation, leaving it with deep social, psychological, political and demographic scars that Ukraine carries to this day.

Joseph Stalin himself said, "Nobody can deny that the total yield of grain in 1932 was larger than in 1931," and yet 8 million to 10 million Ukrainians died that

year of a man-made genocide famine because the Communist state systematically confiscated most of its food for its use on its collective farms. This was done to subjugate the Ukrainian people. As

one of Stalin's lieutenants said in 1933, "It took a famine to show them who is master here. It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay." Those words, along with

the Soviet system itself, are today in the dustbin of history.

On behalf of the entire Parliament of Ontario, I extend heartfelt condolences to the Ukrainian community in Ontario and Canada as well as in Ukraine on this sad

occasion. May the memory of all the victims of Ukrainian genocide in Holodomor be eternal. Slava Ukraytni.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): It was Oscar Wilde who, about 100 years ago, wrote that no man can escape from his past. So I was quite

alarmed yesterday when I read the Provincial Auditor's report, because I think that particular statement has been brought vividly to light with the experiences of the Eves administration.

I'd like to highlight just three aspects of the health care system. At least 14% of Ontario's children don't receive the required vaccinations by age seven.

These are serious problems covering the types of diseases that we as physicians had thought were things of the past; for example, diphtheria, polio, pertussis, tetanus, measles, mumps and rubella.

Frankly, Botswana and Nicaragua have better records than the government of Ontario -- the previous administration.

Food-borne illnesses still remain a threat, as none of our public health units in this province have conducted the necessary inspections of all their food

premises. I'm sad to report to you that eight boards do not even have a full-time medical officer of health.

The auditor also concluded that the previous administration has abrogated its entire responsibility for public safety, given, for example, the situation with

West Nile and SARS.

I would like to commend the previous administration for being one of the few governments in the history of this province to simultaneously create a social

deficit as well as a financial deficit. Time for change.

VISITORS

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have an announcement. Members of the Ontario Principals' Council are with

us today to watch us during the session. I'd like to welcome them.

INTERNATIONAL DAY

OF DISABLED PERSONS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Today I rise on behalf of the 1.6 million persons with disabilities in Ontario --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. You had your time in members' statements unless you seek unanimous consent on this.

Mr Jackson: Mr Speaker, do I have unanimous consent to have a second statement?

The Speaker: Do we have the unanimous consent of the House? Agreed.

Mr Jackson: Today I rise on behalf of the 1.6 million persons with disabilities in Ontario to celebrate the International Day of the Disabled.

It was my privilege two years ago, as minister, to develop and pass the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, Canada's most comprehensive disability legislation.

We have a responsibility to ensure all citizens have the right to full citizenship, to fully enjoy and participate in the life of their community. As a result

In August, my community of Burlington launched its first new fleet of 40-foot low-floor buses, providing accessible transit to the frail, elderly and

ambulatory disabled. They invested over $1.5 million of provincial funding through the Ontario transit renewal program.

More municipalities can learn from this. Each year, the Ontario transit renewal program provides over $100 million to municipalities to replace aging buses.

Moving forward, this money should be conditional on the purchase of new, accessible buses.

Many of us will be able to leave this Legislature today without giving a thought to how easy it is for us. There must come a day when access -- here and

everywhere in the province -- is just as easy for persons with disabilities.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Yesterday's auditor's report is more proof that the Tories were failing to protect the people of Ontario. Not

only did the previous government leave us with a $5.6-billion deficit, but they also left the province with a serious public safety deficit that will take years to restore. Thousands of criminal

cases run the risk of being thrown out of the courts because of a serious backlog. They left the province vulnerable to diseases like West Nile and SARS. There were compliance problems with 22

hazardous waste facilities inspected. Even worse, unapproved handling of treatment of waste happened at 95% of these facilities. After all the lessons learned from the Walkerton tragedy, the Tories

still did not adequately inspect the province's water. In fact, more than a quarter of waterworks didn't properly inspect for the same E coli that caused the Walkerton disaster.

What was the Tory priority? Handing out billions of dollars to Ontario's largest corporations and private schools. They had their staff spend all their time

inspecting adult videotapes instead of water and food. The Tories' fiscal management is deplorable, but it's their blatant disregard for public safety that's their worst legacy. This damning

indictment of the Tories only proves that they were never serious about protecting the people of Ontario. The Tories were only serious about helping themselves and their friends.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The members only have 90 seconds to make a statement. As a matter of courtesy, could we hear those statements

without any sort of heckling?

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise in the House today to make a very special announcement. Since October 2003, the Dalton McGuinty

promise-breakers club has recognized excuses, broken promises and tax hikes perpetuated by members of the new Liberal government. Up until now, official membership in this prestigious club was

limited to Dalton McGuinty, Mr Duncan and Mr Sorbara. Today, I am pleased to announce that we're expanding the Dalton McGuinty promise-breakers club to include Environment Minister Leona

Dombrowsky.

Minister Dombrowsky has earned this special distinction by using her ministerial position to break a promise to the people in the very riding that she

represents, Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. During the recent election campaign, Mrs Dombrowsky and honorary club president Dalton McGuinty promised the residents of Napanee that they

would drop the appeal on broadening the terms of reference in the environmental assessment of the proposed Richmond landfill.

Here's where it gets interesting: The appeal was withdrawn by Mrs Dombrowsky and her ministry, but days later it was re-entered by Michael Bryant and the

Ministry of the Attorney General. How's that for creative promise-breaking? Mrs Dombrowsky thinks she can fool her constituents and hide this one under Michael Bryant's carpet at the Ministry of

the Attorney General.

We've got news for you, Mrs Dombrowsky: Your constituents are too smart to fall for that one. Pawning off your promise only to be broken by another member of

your own team still constitutes a personal broken promise. Congratulations and welcome to the club, Minister Dombrowsky.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): In his report yesterday, the Provincial Auditor used some of the strongest language ever to describe the

ongoing failures of the Family Responsibility Office. He says that without immediate action the FRO "is in grave danger of failing to meet its mandated responsibilities."

The failings are numerous. Arrears owing to families now total $1.3 billion, an 8% increase since the last audit in 1999. The number of case workers has been

cut by 20% but the number of cases has increased from 126,000 to 180,000. There's an average seven-month delay between a case falling into arrears and the start of enforcement. Enforcement usually

only occurs because an advocate for the recipient calls to demand action. Clients have to call repeatedly to get through to the office, and many never do. Twenty-three thousand recipients who are

owed over $200 million in total are on social assistance because they can't get the money that they and their children are legally owed. The computer system is antiquated and regularly crashes,

causing even more chaos in this office.

This intolerable situation can't go on. The former government is to blame for this crisis because the FRO never recovered from the dumb decision made by the

Conservatives to centralize the office in Downsview, to lay off 85% of the staff in one day and to consistently refuse to deal with the outdated technology.

The new government now has this crisis on its hands. You must take your obligation to recipients and their children seriously. We need more staff and new

technology at the Family Responsibility Office, and we need it now. Moms and children should not have to wait, should not have to beg, to get the money they are legally owed.

DONALD DEACON

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I request unanimous consent to pay tribute to the

late Donald Deacon, who was a member of this House. I think there is ordinarily five minutes assigned to this for each of the three parties if it gets unanimous consent.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent for five minutes for each party to pay their respects? Agreed.

Hon Mr Bradley: Very often I end up with the opportunity to pay tribute to people. I guess in many cases it's most appropriate, because I knew

some of these people on a personal basis.

With Don Deacon, who passed away relatively recently, I did know Don. I did not serve in this Legislative Assembly with him, but I knew him to be an extremely

good constituency person, first of all. All of us know that where we make our mark initially is with the people we represent, the people who vote for us. Don, first and foremost, was a person who

was well known to his constituents, a person who worked hard on their behalf at a time when it was often the member's own prerogative and the member's own responsibility to take constituency

problems directly to various ministries and various parts of government. Today we have constituency offices, and far more staff than we would have had in the days when Don Deacon was a member of

this House. For that reason alone, individuals of that era deserve special consideration and special commendation.

He was also a particularly articulate individual who rose in the ranks of the Liberal caucus to the extent that he decided he would contest the leadership of

the Liberal Party of Ontario at a time when the leader of the day had said that he was considering stepping aside, and ultimately said he was going to. That was Bob Nixon. Well, a contest took

place. Don Deacon was a very strong contender in that contest and brought a lot of new ideas to the race, because he was a person with a lot of new ideas.

He was a person who brought a business perspective to his responsibilities as a member of this House as well. He was named the Red Cross Humanitarian of the

Year on Prince Edward Island when he was in Prince Edward Island. So if you look at his total contribution to society, not only as a member of this Legislature but as a member of our society, Don

contributed an awful lot.

I know that his family was very proud of him. We who knew Don noted his passing with a good deal of sadness. When it happened, I know that those who had

contested the leadership with him were people who would have recalled so many fond memories about him. He had a great sense of humour, which he shared with others in the Legislative Assembly and

certainly within the Liberal caucus. His sobering second thought on many of the ideas that were brought forward was very much appreciated as well. As I say, as a person involved in the field of

business, he knew when proposals were put forward that one of the tests that he would put those proposals to would be the test of how it would affect the business of Ontario or of his own

community. So Don understood that extremely well.

Sometimes, if we have not served with these individuals, we do not know of the contribution they make. Certainly the people of York Centre will remember for

many years to come the contribution that Don Deacon made.

Another area where he was particularly strong was in legislative committees. We lament today from time to time that our legislative committees don't seem to

mean as much as they once did. All of us have expressed that concern at some time or other, and it's something all of us will want to address. But Don Deacon knew the value of those legislative

committees. He knew that he could have an impact on government legislation even as a member of the opposition, that he could question people coming before committees in such a manner as to be able

to bring out the necessary points to change legislation or to change government policy.

All of us certainly will miss him and will remember his contribution not only to the people of his riding but to the people of the province of Ontario. I

particularly want to say, on behalf of the members of the Liberal caucus and the government, that we extend to the family our, in this case belated, condolences, but this is one of the first

opportunities we have to pay tribute to those who have made a contribution to this House.

The name Don Deacon will be remembered for many, many years to come to the people of the county of York and the constituency of York Centre, but also to those

who served with him and those who were part of the Liberal Party which he was part of at that particular time. Our province is a better place because of the contribution that Don Deacon has made,

and all of us will miss him greatly.

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to remember the accomplishments of a very distinguished and respected former member of this House

on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus.

Donald MacKay Deacon, born in Toronto in 1920, was elected as a Liberal member of the Ontario Legislature for York Centre, serving from 1968 to 1974, during

which time he rose to become deputy leader of the opposition.

Mr Deacon married Florence Campbell in 1947, and they had six children. He served in Europe during World War II with the Royal Canadian Artillery, reaching the

rank of major. He was a forward observation officer. This job required him to get as close as possible to sight the enemy guns, a task he performed during the liberation of Europe, from Normandy to

the Netherlands. He was awarded the Military Cross for his service and said that his military service was what motivated his efforts in volunteer organizations and public service.

After the war, Mr Deacon was elected councillor and then deputy reeve of the old township of Markham.

Donald Deacon is remembered as one of the founders of the Markham Stouffville Hospital. He used his experience and knowledge to work with the Ministry of

Health to build the hospital. Markham Mayor, and former MPP, Don Cousens remembers that it was Mr Deacon who was instrumental in convincing local philanthropist Art Latcham to donate land for the

hospital. He worked hard with local residents such as Lachlan Cattanachan and Len Mason to see that the hospital was built.

His business career in the financial sector saw him serve as chair of F.H. Deacon Hodgson Inc. He was president of the Canadian Club in 1968-69.

His dedication to the arts is honoured in the Frederick Horsman Varley Art Gallery in Unionville, where exhibition rooms are named for Donald Deacon and his

wife, Florence.

His daughter became a teacher in the province of Prince Edward Island in 1972, a son moved there in 1973 and the Deacons eventually moved there full-time in

After moving to Prince Edward Island, he continued his busy career of public service. He became president of the PEI Red Cross and a member of the Red Cross

national board of governors. From 1982 to 1987 he served on the board of Mount Allison University, and he was vice-chair of the PEI United Way campaign in 1982. He also served as president of the

PEI Royal Commonwealth Society.

Mr Deacon was a highly regarded scouter, eventually becoming national commissioner of Scouts Canada from 1982 to 1987, and was founding co-chair of the

national Katimavik youth program, where he served between 1977 and 1980.

Mr Deacon was a committed environmentalist, which spurred him on to become a director of the Trans Canada Trail Foundation. He is considered by many to be the

reason the Trans Canada Trail exists today. By examples elsewhere, Donald Deacon saw the opportunity to convert abandoned rail lines into trails, not only for Prince Edward Island but for all of

Canada. He worked tirelessly for the rest of his life pursuing this cause.

Donald Deacon came from one of the leading families in Unionville and Markham. I met him several times years ago, before he became an MPP, when I lived in

Unionville. Don Cousens recalls that one of the first people he spoke to when he thought about seeking nomination in the riding of Markham was Donald Deacon.

Donald Deacon was made a member of the Order of Canada in 1987 and a member of the Order of Prince Edward Island in March of last year. He was also named Red

Cross Humanitarian of the Year for PEI.

As you can see, Mr Deacon served the people of Ontario with distinction and integrity both in and out of the Legislature. When he moved to PEI later in life,

he began a second career, with accomplishments equal to those in Ontario. He contributed greatly to making two provinces better places to live for their citizens. On behalf of our caucus, our

condolences go to the Deacon family.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): It is my honour to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party today and pay tribute to Donald Deacon,

who is somebody that I didn't know. It's always hard, of course, to do justice when you rise and speak about a person who served this place with distinction and at the same time somebody whom you

never had the opportunity to meet.

I took the time to do some research on Mr Deacon, and I was incredibly impressed by his record, not only his record of service to the people of Ontario but

indeed his entire life.

Mr Deacon died at age 83. After being elected as a Liberal to the Ontario Legislature, he served from 1968 to 1974. He served as the deputy leader of the

opposition. I don't know if people here are aware, but when you look up background about previous members, you find out very interesting things about them. I read in this

article that Mr Deacon

became famous for ordering ready-made frozen dinners and serving them to citizens' meetings he organized that often included people from opposite sides of the issues or in a dispute. He served

those dinners to everybody and got everybody to sit down and talk. I was very impressed by that. I think that perhaps all of us in this Legislature today should go and buy some frozen dinners and

put them on a table and sit down and talk.

I was impressed by some of the things that I found out about Mr Deacon. He was known as a man of vision and determination. Again, I'm not sure if people are

aware that Mr Deacon -- this is an

article from May 15, 1973 -- became the first man to enter the race to succeed Robert Nixon as the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. He took that on, and one

of the things that he said when he announced that he would be running for the leadership was that a Deacon government would look after "`the forgotten people ... the under-represented and the

over-taxed.'

"He said the Tories had forgotten about the secretaries, the clerks, the waiters, the junior executives, white collar workers and unionized blue collar

workers."

Clearly, during Mr Deacon's service here for the people of Ontario, he stood up for the underprivileged in this province. I am proud to have the opportunity to

remind people in this House today of the service that he contributed to the people of Ontario.

In 1972, his daughter took up teaching in PEI. A son came to the island in 1973, and his first grandchild was born there in PEI. The Deacons liked, of course,

to visit their children and their grandchildren in PEI. They visited PEI a lot and bought a house in 1978. Over a number of years, they fixed it up and then in 1981 they moved there

permanently.

As has been pointed out by previous speakers, Mr Deacon's work did not stop. He did not retire in PEI; he continued to get involved in many public service

opportunities in PEI.

I want, on behalf of New Democrats, to send our condolences to the wife, the children and grandchildren, and the friends of Mr Deacon. We certainly wish them

all the best and send our condolences to the family.

The Speaker: Could I just say that the tributes paid by all parties on behalf of the late Donald Deacon will be made available to his

family.

INTERNATIONAL DAY

OF DISABLED PERSONS

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

we have unanimous consent in the House for each party of the House to speak for up to five minutes in recognition of the International Day of Disabled Persons.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: Mr Speaker, honourable members, it is my great pleasure to rise today in recognition of the International Day of

This day, first designated by the United Nations in 1992, is an excellent opportunity for all of us to acknowledge and celebrate the many contributions people

with disabilities have made to the province of Ontario. In Ontario there are more than 1.5 million people with disabilities. As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I am honoured to have

responsibility for overseeing the implementation of an effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act and working with key organizations to bring about meaningful change. This is the commitment that we

made in the throne speech November 20, and it is one that we intend to move on quickly. The intent of our government is to make the implementation of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the ODA,

more effective and more responsive to the needs of people with disabilities.

Early stakeholder input will play an important role in identifying areas of the ODA that need to be strengthened or changed. It will allow us to gain a deeper

understanding of the barriers that still affect the daily lives of people with disabilities, their families, and all of us.

The UN theme for 2003 is "A Voice of Our Own." Our government will be consulting with and listening to people with disabilities. We want to know about their

experiences and we want to have their input. It is critical that we account for the full scope of disabilities and the impact of barriers on daily life in Ontario.

Dr Kuldip Kular, my parliamentary assistant from Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, and I have scheduled a series of fully accessible consultation meetings with

people with disabilities and a diverse range of key stakeholders. The consultations begin in January. This is our opportunity to gather valuable insights and to move forward in strengthening the

the Whitney Block. We're going to address that, Mr Adams.

The McGuinty government is committed to a province where all people have a chance to participate fully and to achieve their potential in all aspects of life.

We can all make a contribution; we can all make Ontario a place where everyone can build a future and realize their dreams. Mr Speaker, honourable members, please use the International Day of

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I want to thank the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who is also the Minister of Children's

Services, for her statement today. This is the first time I've had the opportunity to rise in this House as opposition critic for both of her ministries, so I wish to begin by wishing her well as

she undertakes these important responsibilities within the government. I also need to let the minister know that I intend to provide constructive advice to her, sometimes in the House, sometimes

other ways, and to the government when possible, and provide criticism when necessary and appropriate.

The International Day of Disabled Persons was proclaimed by the United Nations, as was said, in 1992 to promote understanding about disability issues and

increase awareness of the gains to be derived from integrating disabled persons into all aspects of political, social, economic and cultural life. I'm certain that I speak for all members of this

House when I say that we all support these goals. I also believe that we need to support these goals by thinking of disabled people first and foremost in terms of the remarkable things they can do

and contribute. We need to recognize their extraordinary talents, always be improving our society, our systems and all programs and services of the government to ensure that all Ontarians have

opportunities to contribute to the greater good.

I commend the member for Burlington, who has spoken in this House today and provided a thoughtful idea to enhance access for disabled people in the public

In the throne speech the government made reference to the need to do more to support Ontarians with disabilities, and I'll quote from the speech: "Your new

government will work with Ontarians with disabilities on meaningful legislation that will allow them to fully participate in building a stronger province." While this statement is laudable in a

general sense, this commitment has no time frame, no specifics, no way of measuring results, no reference to the involvement of any MPPs in the process, save and except the minister and her

parliamentary assistant, I guess, and no plan for implementation. In short, it is nothing more than a motherhood statement which is intended to appease the disabled community for the time being,

while little concrete action is likely to be taken in the coming months.

I want to offer the minister a constructive suggestion. She should announce today that the government will support the appointment of a select committee of

MPPs on supporting disabled persons. This select committee of MPPs could be charged with the responsibility of reviewing the legislation and the programs that we have, measuring what works and what

doesn't, and advising the government on what needs to be done to move toward full participation for disabled persons in Ontario and the goals outlined by the UN. This committee would allow for all

three political parties in this House, including the New Democrats, to participate in a meaningful dialogue with disabled persons and participate in a renewed effort to support their needs.

I commend this idea to the government and encourage their consideration.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): It's a pleasure for me, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, to make some statements today on the

International Day of Disabled Persons.

I want to begin where the minister left off, and that is to point out that her government indeed has made a very specific commitment to strengthen the

Ontarians with Disabilities Act. I'm hope it's one of the first pieces of legislation that comes before this House when we sit again in the spring session.

I have a copy of a letter that was written by her leader, now the Premier, to David Lepofsky. Members will recall that David Lepofsky is the chair of the

Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. The letter is dated October 27, 1998. He says very clearly:

"As you know, I have personally called many times for Mike Harris to follow through on his campaign promise to introduce and pass such

an act. Having heard

from my caucus colleagues who joined you at your meetings across the province, it is clear that Ontarians agree this legislation is important and long overdue.

"If Mike Harris fails to live up to his commitment, a Liberal government will act. We will pass an Ontarians with Disabilities Act."

Those of us who were here before know very clearly that the act that was eventually passed doesn't have any teeth, doesn't have any strength, needs very

significant amendments if it is to work on behalf of Ontarians with disabilities. I read into the record today this letter because I want to reinforce what the commitment of the now Premier is, and

to ensure that the minister, her staff and her colleagues will move forward on what is a very important issue.

Let me make some other concrete suggestions about what else might be done if we are truly to remove barriers that are facing Ontarians with disabilities and to

ensure that they are able to contribute to both the economic and social life of Ontario. The first thing that should be done in this Legislature is to pass a bill so that we index ODSP payments to

inflation and ensure that there is an annual increase in ODSP benefits. Members will know, because we have been lobbied very frequently, that it has been 10 years since those who live on ODSP

pensions have received an increase. There is something dreadfully wrong about a province that is as rich as Ontario is where so many people live in such poverty. It's the same with the minimum

wage.

My colleague Tony Martin introduced a private member's bill on two occasions in this Legislature which would have indexed ODSP benefits to the rate of

inflation, so that people would see an annual increase. It was a shame that on those occasions we could not get the government's support to get it to committee and to get something done. We had a

former Minister of Community, Family and Social Services who promised that people on disability benefits would see an increase -- nothing happened. If this new government were truly committed to

disabled persons, they would bring that bill in, we would deal with it promptly and we would ensure that some of the people who have the lowest incomes in this province -- the disabled -- finally

see an increase in their pensions.

Secondly, we should audit and catalogue all programs and services for people with disabilities and create a single coordinating body for easy access to

programs and information. We need to bolster the funding that we have for home care so that both seniors and the disabled can remain in their own homes and not be forced into long-term-care

institutions, which are much costlier for the system and decrease the dignity of those people. We know that so many people can remain in their own homes. The problem under the previous government

was that they continued to cut funding for home care so that people didn't have the choice to remain in their own homes. Your government has to reverse that trend.

We need to assess special-needs children promptly and support them in the public school system. We know there are 37,000 children who are on a waiting list for

special needs in the Ontario school system now. Those are children who, with a small bit of support, would be able to participate fully in the education system. We need an investment. It was part

of your election promise in the education platform. We need to get rid of those waiting lists for special ed.

We need to introduce a charter of rights for persons with disabilities that will contain very specific commitments for accessible public transit and accessible

and affordable public housing. We should be dedicating a portion of transit funding to fully accessible transit, and we should make sure that a portion of that is etched in legislation,

particularly in rural areas.

We need to change funding for post-secondary students to recognize that many of these students who are disabled will take longer to complete their

post-secondary education. Grant funding should be in place to allow them to do that.

In conclusion, I say to the minister that I've offered a number of concrete suggestions. I hope you will take them into account on this important day.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

revert to motions for the purpose of putting a routine motion without further debate.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Duncan: I move that notwithstanding the order of the House dated November 26, 2003, when the House adjourns today at 6 pm it shall

stand adjourned until 10 am tomorrow morning.

The Speaker: All those in favour, say "aye." I don't hear any nays, so it's carried.

VISITORS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to introduce a couple of very important dignitaries to this House:

Brother Brendan Mackin, president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions; and Brother Joe Bowers, chairman of the Massines Association in Ireland, visiting here from Ireland as guests of, amongst

others, the Canadian Union of Public Employees. They're accompanied by Daithy Conaughton from the Canadian Ireland Fund and Judy Wilkings of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. I'm pleased to

have these brothers from Ireland joining us here in this Legislature today: good trade unionists, active advocates for working women and men.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Welcome.

May I ask your indulgence to again introduce Mr Brad Clark from Stoney Creek, former member. This time he's here.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Last Thursday, we heard you tell the House that you had brought

all compliance and enforcement requirements to the Nutrient Management Act under the direction of your ministry. You told us your ministry would work with the Minister of Agriculture and consult

farmers to ensure all rules were implemented properly.

Imagine my surprise that very evening, while attending a meeting of the Oxford Federation of Agriculture, when I heard the president use his time and his

remarks to speak to that issue. He said that transferring the inspection of nutrient management from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to environment was the single most damaging legislation for

farmers your government could be putting in place.

His sentiments were echoed by the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition, who wrote to both you and the Minister of Agriculture and said, "Ontario farmers are

profoundly disappointed with your recent announcement of a major change in direction on Nutrient Management Act regulations without discussion with members of Ontario's farm community. Clearly, the

promise for full consultation and transparency ... committed to by the Premier and his cabinet ministers has not been carried out."

Is this the type of treatment Ontario farmers can expect from your government? Is this lack of consultation just another example of a Liberal broken

promise?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'm happy today to stand in the Legislature and say that this move by the government is a

move to keep a promise that was made during the election.

This government intends to implement every one of the O'Connor recommendations. For the member opposite, in part two of the O'Connor report, recommendation

number 11: "The Ministry of the Environment should take the lead role in regulating the potential impacts of farm activities on drinking water sources. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural

Affairs should provide technical support to the Ministry of the Environment and should continue to advise farmers about the protection of drinking water sources." That is exactly what this

government will do.

Mr Hardeman: I guess it's quite clear that we have a difference of opinion on what "lead" means. You claim you will consult with stakeholders

and work with the Minister of Agriculture, yet you have clearly made changes to the legislation that the industry does not want or agree with. The Ontario Environmental Farm Coalition, which

includes many large farm organizations as its members, is in definite opposition to the movement of inspection of the Nutrient Management Act from agriculture to the Ministry of the Environment.

The farmers this organization represents are convinced that having the Ministry of Agriculture inspect farms and the Ministry of Environment enforcing the regulation is necessary for proper

convictions.

To the farmers, the minister responsible for training farmers and approving nutrient management plans should also be the ministry to check compliance. The

Ministry of the Environment's role is to investigate and to prosecute farmers where there is clear evidence of offence under the Nutrient Management Act. Your government promised that the Ministry

of Agriculture would have a prominent role in the implementation of nutrient management. Now the power has been taken away. Is this another promise broken by the Liberal government to Ontario's

farmers?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: This government has its priorities in the right place. We will work with all stakeholders to ensure that drinking water in

the province of Ontario is safe. We will also work to ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of the Environment play a joint role in working with the agriculture

community to implement the Nutrient Management Act. We will not apologize for being responsible and acting to protect the water sources in this province.

Mr Hardeman: That is the question, working with farmers. You claim you will consult the stakeholders and work co-operatively with the Minister

of Agriculture and Food. You've already broken that promise to the farmers of Ontario. Why else would the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition say, "The announcement on Wednesday came as a complete

surprise to Ontario farm leaders. Given the commitment that the farm organizations have had to the nutrient management process over the past three years, it was disrespectful to make such an

announcement without first providing full explanation to farm leaders"?

Perhaps you were also being disrespectful to the Minister of Agriculture when you told the farmers they would not be getting any extra time in the agreed-upon

time frame for the implementation of the regulation. They were told they would not be able to wait for public funding to be in place.

The Minister of Agriculture was fully prepared to follow the timeline set out by the previous government, obviously recognizing the need, and then you vetoed

that idea in favour of your own agenda.

Can we assume that you do not plan to consult with anyone at all, not even your own government, or should we assume that the Minister of Agriculture's not up

to the job?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: Let me tell you about our own agenda. When the Minister of Agriculture responded, he responded appropriately. What I was

referencing was the fact that this government is going to stop the spreading of untreated human septage on farmlands as soon as possible. The calendar that is in place at the present time is that

that would not happen for five years. With this government, we're saying that is not acceptable. We want to move forward on that initiative as soon as possible. That's what that reference was

to.

I would suggest that the member opposite get his facts straight, do his homework and understand that we take the safety of our communities very seriously, and

we're going to act on it.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is also for the Minister of the Environment. Congratulations to the member for

Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington for being appointed environment minister. I should also extend my congratulations to the minister on her most recent appointment as the newest member of the

promise-breakers club. I know the competition is fierce, but the minister is clearly going the extra distance to earn her appointment.

Reports indicate unease in Michigan with respect to continuing as Toronto's personal landfill, given environmental and post-9/11 security concerns. The

National Post has indicated, "Toronto's Trash is Ticking Bomb for Canada." Given the daily tonnage of garbage that's trucked over the border, there's much at stake.

If the Americans turn away GTA garbage trucks, what is your interim plan to deal with Toronto trash?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): The member opposite would know that the responsibility for managing municipal solid waste

is the responsibility of municipalities.

However, I am very delighted to stand in this House and talk about the commitment of our government to waste diversion. It is our plan to divert fully 60% of

municipal solid waste away from landfills. We believe that we need to investigate ways to stop simply putting our garbage in landfills. We must explore ways to divert more of it. That is the

commitment that this government has made.

Mr Barrett: I didn't hear a specific plan for Michigan garbage. Currently, GTA municipalities and their contractors have no viable long-term

contingency plan. They don't have a plan for disposal, should there be either an extended border disruption or a closure. As well, Ontario has no capacity to absorb these exports in the long

run.

My question: Are there any plans on behalf of the province for new long-term garbage disposal to deal with Toronto's garbage situation? A second question: Is

incineration an option that you're considering?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: Again, I would say to the member opposite that if he wants to know what Toronto's plans in the future are for their

garbage, he should ask the city of Toronto. What I am saying to the members of this House is that this government intends to assist municipalities to divert 60% of their municipal solid waste by

the year 2005.

Mr Barrett: My question did relate to incineration. It is incumbent on the province to have an overall strategic plan. As environment critic,

I've been hearing reports from people who feel shortchanged by the McGuinty government's refusal to live up to its word on Adams mine. There is a connection there. They were given a commitment for

a comprehensive review of the environmental assessment process as it relates to Adams mine. Is your government planning on living up to its word and conducting a review, or is this yet again

another broken promise?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: This government is committed to an open and transparent process with respect to communications with citizens and

stakeholders around this very important issue. I am open to hearing from people who have issues and concerns around this project. We met as recently as yesterday with some of those individuals. We

certainly are intending to be open, and I expect that there will be more information in the near future on this project

WATER QUALITY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is also for the Minister of the Environment. The question concerns the future development

of site 41 in the township of Tiny. It's a very highly sensitive proposal in many ways. Just this Monday in the House you said in a response to the member for Huron-Bruce, and I quote from Hansard,

"I'm happy to stand in the House today and say that ensuring clean, safe water is a top priority for this government. We agreed with Justice O'Connor that proper management of our drinking water

must be a priority."

I'm assuming this has to include protecting groundwater sources and supplies around future landfill facilities. Are you prepared to stand in this House today

and place a moratorium on the development of site 41, which at this time has over 200 recommendations from peer reviews, most of which are related to the possibility of groundwater and surface

water contamination?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): With respect to site 41, I have had an opportunity to review that particular issue. At

this point in time, the community monitoring committee -- which you know includes representatives from the community -- has participated in a peer review. The peer review comments from this

committee were forwarded to the ministry, and they are at this point in time being considered by the ministry.

Mr Dunlop: Thank you very much, Minister, for that answer and that non-answer.

The peer review actually came up with the 200 recommendations. They're waiting for the ministry to actually approve it.

On November 14, in Alliston, as part of Justice O'Connor's recommendations, you announced the creation of two expert advisory panels on protecting water

sources. Just yesterday you stood in this House and promised legislation, and again I quote from Hansard, "to ensure that our source water is protected."

In light of these actions, and in light of your passion for clean and safe water, will you please wait until you have recommendations from your own advisory

committee, and will you wait until legislation is passed before you allow staff at the ministry to allow the county of Simcoe to proceed with any further development of site 41?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: The Ministry of the Environment has received information from the local committee. This is a process -- it's not new to

this province -- that was followed by your government. Staff at the ministry have a responsibility to ensure that whatever is proposed is not going to have a negative impact on the environment.

When they have made those assessments, then recommendations may or may not be brought to the minister. I am not going to pre-empt their good work. I trust the people who work at the Ministry of the

Environment. I believe that if they have identified, if the community has identified, a reason to be concerned, then people at the Ministry of the Environment will bring that to my attention and I

will certainly act to protect the local groundwater.

ONTARIO INNOVATION TRUST

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. The Provincial Auditor

identified serious concerns regarding the previous government's establishment of the Ontario Innovation Trust. The auditor points out that the former government failed to put in place even the most

basic requirements for reporting and accountability despite the fact that a billion dollars of public funds was committed to the trust. As I understand it, the former Premier, as Minister of

Finance, did not set out any provincial expectations or outline how the trust would be accountable. Minister, how is it that a billion dollars in public funds could be committed without any

established provincial expectations or accountability requirements?

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): This government shares the grave concerns expressed by the auditor. It was

reckless and irresponsible of the previous government to commit a billion dollars with no accountability. In fact, it was even worse than that; they didn't even make a proper cabinet submission.

They didn't even make a good business case for this. They completely ignored any reporting requirements. It showed a total disregard for the public interest and utter contempt for this Legislature

Assembly. It's just another case of Tory mismanagement with public funds.

Ms Broten: Our government ran on a platform of increased accountability that would put the public interest first. We're committed to ensuring

transparency and accountability at all levels of government. It is clear that the former government mismanaged the creation of the Ontario Innovation Trust and ignored their responsibilities to the

people of this province. Minister, how do you intend to fix the problems left behind by the former government?

Hon Mr Cordiano: Let me reassure every member of this House that this government takes accountability very seriously. We'll make certain that

the trust becomes accountable and transparent. I've already expressed my concerns to the trust. They know that this is a new government and that we're going to do business differently. The trust

already committed in writing, and I have a letter from them, that they will at the very least appear before legislative committees, they will file annual financial statements and annual reports and

be subject to the auditor's reviews. I've got to tell you that the days of Tory mismanagement are over.

DUFFINS ROUGE

AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I met yesterday with some environmentalists who are very

concerned about your Premier's broken promise on the Oak Ridges moraine. They informed me that the former mayor of Pickering, now your MPP for Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, has commissioned a study

financed by local developers that has called for development on the Duffins Rouge agricultural preserve. Minister, can you commit to the House today that you will rip up your member's report and

not allow one stalk of corn or one soy plant to be developed locally? Will you commit to the environmentalists' request?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): No.

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Well, I have a letter in my hand that reads as follows: "We will build a Golden Horseshoe greenbelt by linking

the lands already protected in the Niagara Escarpment, enacting real protection for the Oak Ridges moraine and protecting all of the land on the Dufferin-Rouge Agricultural Preserve."

Madam Minister, this is signed by your leader and Premier of Ontario, committing to preserve 100% of that land. You just told me that you will not commit to

protecting 100% of this land. It's another campaign flip-flop, another broken promise. I am going to ask a page to bring this over to you. Could you identify whether this is Premier McGuinty's

signature on the bottom of the page, and then could you rip it up to demonstrate the value of the Premier's words.

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: I'm very happy to stand in this House and talk about the commitment of this government to greenbelt protection of the

province of Ontario. If you want to play around with words, that's one thing, but there's no question that this government is going to move ahead. We are going to protect a greenbelt around the

Golden Horseshoe and we are very proud to say that there will not be a government in history that has moved in the scope that we are intending to move in.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): My question is for the Honourable George Smitherman, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Sir, it

seems to me that the former government did not take public health seriously. I ask this question of you, with particular import not only as the representative of the great riding of Etobicoke

North, but also as a physician. There are four areas in particular.

According to the auditor, the previous government left us very weak in our ability to respond to new diseases like West Nile and SARS. It seems to me that

steps were not taken to control the spread of communicable diseases.

As well, I'd like to inform the House that 80% of health units surveyed indicated that they encountered problems for effectively enforcing the Tobacco Control

Act. I think an area that is especially important to those of us who are entrusted with children in our various responsibilities is that at least 14% of children have not received the required

vaccination by age 7.

My question is Minister, how could the previous government ignore all the warnings that our public health system was heading for disaster?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm delighted to have the opportunity to answer a question from the fine member

for Etobicoke North.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Smitherman: Yes, he's a doctor. Yesterday, we were all saddened and astonished to learn about the extent to which this party, when they

were in government, didn't do their job with respect to public health. The Progressive Conservative Party, when they were government in Ontario, didn't fulfill their obligation to protect the

public health of Ontarians. Protecting the public health of Ontarians is job one for our government, and we're committed to move on with the job because they were unable to do it.

Today in the House is the member for Kitchener-Waterloo. When she was the Minister of Health, seven communities suffered from not having a chief medical

officer of health to help direct the necessary public health programs in their community. That's a situation that is intolerable, and it will not be tolerated under our government.

Mr Qaadri: After the lessons of Walkerton, it seems that the provincial government was supposed to make dramatic improvements to public health

in Ontario. Again, it seems these problems that were raised by the auditor are perpetual -- they were raised in 1997. In fact, some health programs were receiving the same level of funding as they

received in 1991. It has also been brought to light that there were no regular assessments of health units for the past five years. Apparently, the previous government has simply ignored the

warnings about public health. It seems to me that this reckless behaviour puts the lives of Ontarians at risk. Minister, how will you address these problems the previous government has simply

ignored?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I give the member this assurance and I give this to all members of the House and to the people of Ontario: We take the

responsibility of protecting the public health of Ontarians more seriously than ever. In this province we had opportunities to learn lessons, and we have learned them. I'm very much looking forward

to receiving a report from Dr David Walker, who has been leading an expert panel that next week will give us further advice, direction and guidance with respect to restoring confidence in the

essential public health services in this province. The people of Ontario can expect from this government to see early action on commitments that are designed to make sure that we do our job, and

that is to adequately protect the public health of the people of the province.

SALT SPILL

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. On Monday morning a 34-tonne truck spilled an

unknown quantity of road salt into Lake Rosseau within my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. I would like to know what is being done to clean up this spill and what the protocol is for notifying

members of environmental spills within their riding.

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): The member has brought to the attention of this House a very serious issue. We are very

concerned when we hear that there is any event that jeopardizes the local environment or the larger environment.

I was notified that the spill did occur and I am receiving information in terms of what has happened locally, what actions have been taken by the Ministry of

the Environment to ensure that the people who need to be notified have been and that there is appropriate remediation taking place.

Mr Miller: Yes, minister, I would think that your need-to-notify list also includes the member for the riding. Minister, I first heard of this

spill from municipal officials and from MCTV, who contacted my office to ask for my assistance in getting a response from your ministry. Let me repeat that: MCTV called my office to get a response

from your ministry because your ministry wouldn't respond. I would think it is a common courtesy to inform members of environmental events that occur in their riding, not to mention the service to

constituents who call a member's office looking for information. Please tell me, minister, why your staff are not responding to MCTV's inquiries about this spill.

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: I cannot believe that a member of the opposition is standing in his place and suggesting that this government somehow

isn't appropriately notifying people within the community, not when they have the record they have. Talk about Walkerton. When were those people notified? How long did it take your government to

respond and to notify the people in that community? I think that it's totally unacceptable that they would bring this sort of question to the attention of this House.

COURT BACKLOG

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr Speaker, I believe I have unanimous consent for New Democrats to ask a question of the

government.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do I have the unanimous consent of the House for the third party to ask a question? Yes.

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Premier. Premier, the Provincial Auditor has issued a red alert to Ontario's criminal courts. He says

Ontario's criminal courts have the highest backlog of criminal cases in 10 years: over 100,000. In some locations -- Ottawa, Toronto, Brampton -- it takes up to a year before serious criminal

charges can be scheduled for even one day of trial. As a result of these delays, witnesses forget their evidence, charges are being withdrawn and some very serious criminal charges -- murder,

sexual assault -- are in danger of being thrown out. Premier, what is your government's plan to address this very serious problem before very serious criminal charges are thrown out because of

undue delay in scheduling a trial?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the member for his question. I must tell him that I

share his concerns. We were taken aback, frankly, by the Provincial Auditor's report, which demonstrated so clearly the extent of just how far we have fallen behind after the Tory government. I can

tell the member opposite that we have already hired, I believe, some 10 judges.

I know the member opposite is particularly sensitive to this because, as I understand it, he was the Attorney General when the Askov decision came down and had

to grapple with that particular aspect, so I'm sure that the member opposite will have more questions and I'm sure that the Attorney General will be glad to expand.

Mr Hampton: I wanted to know what is your government's plan, and I didn't hear a plan. Let me say this: You need a plan now, not two years

from now, but a plan to ensure that serious criminal charges are not lost and thrown out of the system because of unreasonable delay in bringing them to trial.

Now, Premier, I don't know how you could be surprised, because this is the 2003 auditor's report. The auditor reported on this back in 1998 and said that the

list was growing, that the backlog was growing, so this can't be a surprise at all. What is your government's plan? Are you going to say, "Oh, the deficit won't allow us to do anything?" or do you

have a plan? What is it?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'm sure the Attorney General would like to expand on this.

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

member for the question. You're right, this is a very serious matter. We were very concerned before forming government about the state of the Tory backlog. But the auditor's report has got the

people of Ontario extremely concerned about the state of our justice system, and this government has and will be acting upon it.

We have already appointed 10 new justices to the Ontario Court of Justice. We have another 10 appointments that will be made. We will be hiring 50 additional

crown prosecutors. We will be hiring additional court services workers and we are in the process of doing it right now. We are going to be assigning additional crown attorneys to deal with the

particular problem areas so that we can blitz the backlogs where they are at their worst. We are going to be moving forward with procedural reforms to expedite matters to reduce the number of cases

that were adjourned. We already have, and we are doing everything we can to bring back some confidence in the justice system, which has received a very injudicious backlog from the previous

government. We have already done something and we are taking a brand new direction --

The Speaker: Thank you.

WATER QUALITY

Mr John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Despite the Walkerton disaster and the O'Connor report,

the Provincial Auditor revealed yesterday that the previous government had little regard for protecting Ontario's safe drinking water. Let me just cite a few examples: Waterworks were not

submitting a minimum number of water samples for two of the highest-risk substances, E coli bacteria and fecal coliform; hundreds of drinking water treatment plants were not inspected; and

more than 1,000 registered non-municipal waterworks provided no test results.

Would the minister comment on the auditor's report and tell the people of Ontario what these findings have to say about the mismanagement of our water safety

under the previous government.

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): Certainly I share the member's concern over what was revealed yesterday in the auditor's

report. I was very disturbed with what we had suspected, but certainly not to the degree that was revealed yesterday. Clearly, the previous government left us with a very serious environmental

deficit that we are now going to have to deal with.

A basic responsibility of government of course is to keep drinking water safe, and if Walkerton has taught us anything, it has taught us that. Yet 300 of 1,476

non-municipal waterworks have never submitted any tests; 27% of the registered waterworks haven't submitted the minimum number of water samples for E coli bacteria and fecal coliform.

Mr Milloy: The list of failings discovered by the auditor continues. Since 2001, there have been over 6,500 water exceedances, 45% of which

were at levels that could affect human health. Furthermore, total inspection activity is at just 73% of 1995 levels. There are no records of the problems being followed up or resolved.

It's hard not to question the previous government's commitment to safe drinking water. I ask the minister to say what she will do to ensure safe drinking water

for the people of Ontario.

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: I can assure the member opposite that this government is most definitely going to address this serious issue. We will not

shirk our responsibility as the previous government did.

I can assure you that under my watch the ministry's drinking water information system will be upgraded so that this does not happen, and to ensure that the

quality of our drinking water is properly monitored and that timely inspections and follow-ups do occur.

I have asked my ministry to review the Provincial Auditor's report and to bring back to me within two weeks how our ministry is going to address this serious

issue so that the people in Ontario can be confident in their water.

LINCOLN ALEXANDER EXPRESSWAY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a further question for the Minister of the Environment. Several weeks ago, I had the

pleasure of meeting and chatting with the Lake Ontario waterkeepers regarding the Red Hill Valley and the expressway. I'll mention that Marilyn Churley-NDP also met with these good people right

here at Queen's Park.

Minister, I've read reports that you've had problems identifying where the Red Hill Valley is located. Have you been able to find your way clear to meet with

people concerned about the Red Hill situation?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'm very aware of the issues with respect to the Red Hill Creek Expressway. I believe it's

also known as that. It's important to remind everyone here that there has been a full environmental assessment done of the Red Hill Creek Expressway. It was an environmental assessment that was in

place when the NDP government was in power in this province as well. No new information has been brought to my ministry. You would know the process that would enable me to make some special

considerations around the environmental assessment.

I can say to the member opposite that I will be very open to receiving any new information around this project.

Mr Barrett: My question was, have you had a chance to meet with them? They would very much like to chat with you. You indicate no new

developments in the previous 17 or 18 years. I will draw to the attention of you and your ministry two developments. As you will know, I'm sure, toxic waste from a neighbouring landfill entered Red

Hill Creek a number of years ago, within that 18-year window. Secondly, there is requirement to remove rock from part of the Niagara Escarpment. Does this new information that I am presenting to

you qualify? Does it impact the social, economic or scientific evidence needed to grant a review of this project?

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question.

Mr Barrett: Can you tell these people concerned, the waterkeepers, the aboriginal people from my riding and Six Nations -- can you tell them

today in this House, are you reviewing the Red Hill project?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: With respect to the question from the member opposite, perhaps the information that he's brought to the floor of the

Legislature today is new to him. It is not new to me and it is not new to the ministry. I'd like to inform the member opposite that as part of the environmental assessment, and some years ago, the

contamination he's referred to was identified. It is part of the plan for the expressway that the proponent will deal with that in an appropriate fashion, and the Ministry of the Environment has a

responsibility to ensure that the terms of the environmental assessment and how these things are managed are carried out safely and will protect the environment, and that is exactly what the

Ministry of the Environment is prepared to do.

HOSPITALS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. On Friday, November 21, 2003, our Ontario

Liberal government held true to its word and announced that the new Royal Ottawa Hospital, which resides in my riding, will be built without delay as a publicly owned hospital. The news was not

only well received, people were exceedingly happy with the news following weeks of anxiety about the future of the project. This commitment means hope for a lot of patients, for a lot people in the

community and a lot of families.

I accompanied the Premier when he made the announcement. We pointed out that the Royal Ottawa Hospital is obviously --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question.

Mr Patten: -- an important hospital not only to Ottawa but also to the people of eastern Ontario.

Minister, can you please clarify the arrangement that is different from this public-private partnership than arrangements that were previously negotiated with

the previous government?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm very honoured to have an opportunity to answer the question from the member

from Ottawa Centre. Indeed, we fulfilled our campaign commitment, which is to bring these private hospitals into the public domain. How do we do that? We take deals that were cloaked in secrecy and

we make those public. That's public accountability.

We have inserted language and forced language to be inserted into the contract that very clearly stakes out the territory and responsibility of the public

hospital corporation that will run that hospital just as other hospitals are run in our province. That's public control. We have made sure that the property, the title, the land and the buildings

never leave the public domain as was planned under the deal that they offered. That is public ownership.

Public control, public accountability and public ownership make these public hospitals, and these are hospitals that the community in Ottawa and the community

in Brampton will be very proud of, as will all members of this House and all citizens of the province.

Mr Patten: In this instance, the press sometimes forgets some aspects. I'm glad you had a chance to clarify that it's not always just the

finances, it's who controls something, it's who relates to the contractors: Do the contractors have control or does the hospital and the ministry? I'm glad you clarified that.

In some recent reports there was some very hard-hitting analysis of P3 models and I wonder if you could elaborate on that and your view of what this means for

new hospitals and medical services in the future.

Hon Mr Smitherman: What we're delighted about with these deals is that we've been able to take them back from private sector control, and

control is an operative word because at the end of the day it's about who makes decisions and who offers direction. Under their deal, under the deal of the past government, they were very happy to

sign over the responsibility for controlling these facilities to the private sector. We reject outright the notion that in our public health system we can allow for private entities to run things,

to be in charge and to be in control.

The party across the way that had the honour and opportunity of being the government in Ontario for eight long years sold out our public hospitals. They were

prepared to sell out our public health system and begin to introduce even more opportunities for private sector involvement. We said no. We started to scale that back. Anyone who suggests that

public ownership and public control are not important things obviously doesn't understand the distinctions. I've been a landlord, I've been a tenant and I've been a homeowner, and I understand

these differences. Public hospital boards that have always controlled our public hospitals in Ontario are back in charge in Ottawa, they're back in charge in Brampton, and these are hospitals that

we should be very proud of.

LANDFILL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question again is to the Minister of the Environment. I have to tell you that I was very disappointed in

her response to the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I don't know why she got so mad. He only asked why the ministry would not respond to the local TV station or contact his office. I think that's

only common courtesy when there's a salt spill or any kind of tragedy like that.

But, Minister, what I want to know is, why did you and Dalton McGuinty and the Attorney General break your promise to the people of Napanee on withdrawing the

appeal on the terms of reference for the expansion of the Richmond landfill?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'm very happy to stand in this House this afternoon and say to the people of Ontario and

say to the members opposite, we kept our promise. My ministry filed a motion to abandon the appeal and that is exactly what we committed to the people on the Richmond issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Am I observing that the member for Simcoe North has a picture of the minister on the back of that?

Mr Dunlop: Yes.

The Speaker: I don't want any placards or things like that in here. I don't want that in the House. Thanks.

Mr Dunlop: Maybe the minister wouldn't mind telling the whole story the next time, about Mr Bryant's involvement in this particular --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Dunlop: Thank you very much. Minister, on behalf of the citizens of Napanee, are you committed to stopping the expansion of the Richmond

landfill?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: I have to tell you that I really am surprised. I am certainly surprised with the new-found interest in the environment

from the member of the Conservative Party. It's taken them eight years. I am delighted to answer the questions coming to me from the opposition, because it demonstrates to me, obviously, a

new-found interest in the environment and its protection. Hopefully when we introduce our initiatives, they will get the full support of the members of the opposition. I am committed to protecting

the environment in Napanee as well.

HYDRO RATES

Mrs Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Energy. We have taken immediate and decisive steps to address the

problems in the electricity system. However, many of my constituents are concerned that they will pay a disproportionate amount for the price of energy they consume. Many of those who are concerned

are low-volume users. Will they be forced to bear the burden for 12 years of mismanagement of our electricity system by the Conservatives and NDP?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The plan we put forward, which is going to be subject to committee hearings,

which hasn't been the case in many bills of this instance in many years, does protect small consumers. There's a threshold of 750 kilowatt hours per month at which they'll pay the lower rate. It is

an incentive for conservation. In spite of what the NDP says, it's one of the largest steps toward conservation that we've seen in the history of this province.

So the short answer is, your constituents will -- and I believe most Ontarians accept that we all have to pay the market price or a fair reflection of the

market price. We believe our bill has gone a long way to shield those consumers of more modest means who consume smaller amounts of energy any given month.

Mrs Sandals: Since the August blackout, most Ontarians are aware that conservation is essential, and I thank you for your interest in that. As

you know, the previous government, just like they had very little concern with the environment, also had very limited concern about conservation. How will our changes to electricity pricing promote

conservation?

Hon Mr Duncan: Well, you're certainly right, the NDP government cancelled conservation programs. The Tory government, the previous government

-- let me just tell you what their former energy minister said. Former Energy Minister Jim Wilson told Report on Business, "The private sector asked us to get out of large-scale government

conservation programs. They may have made the odd person feel good, but they had absolutely no effect."

That is not the position of this government. We reject it, just as we reject their entire energy policy. The position of this government is that conservation

is essential to ensuring long-term security and relatively fair pricing on electricity. Unlike the NDP, which cancelled conservation programs, we're moving forward with conservation programs.

Embedded in the policy we announced --

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): What a lie.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. The member from Toronto-Danforth knows that that's not parliamentary.

Ms Churley: But that wasn't the truth that he just said, and I'm not going to withdraw it.

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to ask the member to withdraw. If she refuses, I'm going to name the member.

Ms Churley: No.

Ms Churley was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Duncan: Embedded in this policy are two initiatives toward conservation: First is the tiered pricing; second is a $225-million

commitment through our LDCs to the broader community aimed at encouraging the use of time-of-use metering, interval metering, something that will save consumers money in the long term and will help

us deliver an affordable, adequate supply of reasonably priced energy well into the future.

COURT BACKLOG

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): My question is to the Premier. Mr Premier, you know that before October 2 the previous government had

taken significant steps to deal with the court backlog situation. You knew yesterday that the auditor's report was out of date with regard to the criticism with regard to the court backlog

situation. Do you think you have fairly characterized the past government's actions to deal with this problem?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The auditor was very clear in the report that we received yesterday,

just as he was very clear in his review of the state of the finances of the province. In both cases, representatives of that government maintain that they cannot agree with what Mr Peters said.

I say, if we are given the choice on this side of the House between the opinion of Mr Peters, the former Provincial Auditor for the province of Ontario, and

the former government, we're with Mr Peters.

Mr Sterling: Mr Premier, you know that on June 30 this government pledged $16 million to hire 15 new judges, at least 36 crown attorneys and

other courtroom staff. On August 12, I wrote to the judicial advisory committee to ask them to hire those judges.

I believe that a responsible Premier has to present the facts as they are. The former government dealt with the situation and you are not being straight-up

with the people of Ontario with regard to our actions. Mr Premier, would you now withdraw your criticism of the former Attorney General and the former Ministry of the Attorney General with regard

to this matter?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Here is what Mr Peters said with respect to a matter which the member is obviously very sensitive about. He's telling us that

the Ontario Court of Justice has the highest backlog in 10 years. He told us there has been little progress since 1997. He said there is $60 million in uncollected fines. He listed security risks

at our courthouses, including theft, assault, weapons and sabotage. That is the bible according to Mr Peters. I again say to the member opposite, if we have the choice between believing Mr Peters

and representatives of this government, we're with Mr Peters.

GO TRANSIT

Mr Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): My question is for the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. GO Transit is an incredibly

important service for the people of my riding and other ridings. As the population grows in those areas, so does the need for GO Transit to meet the demands of the system. Improvements to the

service, however, could be interrupted. Development charge bylaws in the 905 regions are set to expire on December 31 of this year. If these bylaws are not extended, the flow of municipal funding

for GO Transit growth projects could be disrupted. This will make it difficult for municipalities to ensure that there is enough GO Transit capital to serve the expanding needs of GO Transit.

Minister, what's being done to ensure municipalities have the necessary money for Go Transit capital?

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The Minister of Public Infrastructure and Renewal.

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): It doesn't roll off the tongue, Speaker, but thank you. I want to congratulate

the member on his election and thank him for the question.

GO Transit does play a vital role in moving people safely in and out of the 905 region. That is why my colleague the Minister of Finance, as part of Bill 2,

introduced an amendment that, if passed by this House, would allow municipalities to continue to collect development charges to support important GO Transit expansion initiatives, expansion

initiatives like increasing the parking on GO lots, adding more trains on the lines. The interim measure, if passed by this House, would allow us to maintain the existing funding framework by

allowing municipalities to charge the development fees. Our government is committed to investing in public transit because we believe that it will ease gridlock, build up our quality of life and

build our economy.

Mr Arthurs: That will certainly be welcome news for the 905 municipalities as they work through the beginning of their new year. GO Transit,

though, is just one aspect of municipal systems. It's a hassle for people to make their way through the tangled web of transit services, not to mention the headaches caused by being stuck in

gridlock on a daily basis. People want to know what steps are being taken to coordinate and improve all aspects of transit in the GTA. People want to know that this government's commitment to a

seamless system is genuine. What will the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority do to address the transportation issues facing many of my constituents?

Hon Mr Caplan: Our government is committed to easing gridlock. Since the announcement in the throne speech of the Greater Toronto

Transportation Authority, we have received wide support from the chair of GO, from the chair of transit authorities and from stakeholders across this province. We are committed to making the

necessary improvements that are going to coordinate, plan and expand our transit systems. The Greater Toronto Transportation Authority is a necessary first step to get that job done. We're going to

start a new dialogue between transit partners and between municipalities as we plan future initiatives and improvements to the service we have.

As a first task, the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority is going to be asked to implement a one-pass fare system to provide that seamless coordinated

transit system. I am very excited about this and I want to thank the member for his question.

SEPTIC SYSTEMS

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I would like to address this question to the Minister of the Environment. First of all, I'd

like to congratulate the minister for her appointment to the ministry.

In your party's election platform, you announced that if elected you would immediately ban the spreading of raw human waste on fields. You reiterated that

position today in the House, knowing full well that the facilities to deal with this increased volume do not currently exist. My question to the minister is this: Specifically, how much money have

you allocated or earmarked to assist rural municipalities in disposing of waste from the thousands of homes throughout rural Ontario that are currently on septic systems, from the tens of thousands

in my riding alone?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I thank the honourable member for his question. I'm not aware that rural municipalities

have any obligation to support private homeowners in managing their septic systems. I'm certainly not aware of a program that the previous government had. It strikes me strange now that the member

opposite suggests this government should assume that responsibility.

We have taken the recommendations of the Walkerton inquiry, the O'Connor report, very seriously. I am very proud to say that it has been the commitment of this

government to stop the spreading of untreated human septage as soon as possible.

Mr Yakabuski: Minister, are you suggesting to this House that each individual rural homeowner in the province of Ontario will now be fully

responsible for dealing with the septage from their system?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: That has been the case in Ontario these many years. I don't remember any commitment that we would do otherwise. However, I

am very happy to report to this house that the Ministry of the Environment has formed a working group and we are working with stakeholders to explore and investigate ways to ensure that this very

unhealthy practice of spreading untreated human septage on our farm fields is stopped as soon as possible. Your party was only going to do it in the next five years. We're going to do it as soon as

possible, and I'm very proud of that commitment.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Labour. I was pleased to hear our announcement in regard to the minimum

wage being raised in Ontario. Many of us who represent ridings of people who are working at the minimum wage certainly saw this as a long-overdue raise to a group of people who basically have been

ignored. Eight years of this government -- not one cent to minimum wage earners. Finally there's a government here that understands the plight of the working poor, the plight of people who need

assistance, the plight of people who are struggling to get by. That announcement will certainly help from that perspective.

Minister, I want to ask if you can outline for this House the implementation process for this new increase to $8 an hour over a four-year period and the kind

of impact it may have on people who are now working and have been working for minimum wage for the last eight years.

Hon Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): I thank the member for his question. This is a very important issue, because minimum wage

earners have been shut out of the prosperity of Ontario for almost nine years now. It was time they shared in the prosperity which is this province.

The other day I rose in this House and announced that for the first time in almost nine years there would be an increase in the minimum wage for minimum wage

earners. Almost 11% in the year 2000 were earning up to or below $8 an hour. It's time they had a raise in their wages, and we're going to do that.

That raise is going to take effect, the first instalment, on February 1, 2004, and every February 1 thereafter until it's raised to $8 an hour for the general

minimum wage on February 1, 2007 -- the first time they've received a minimum wage increase in almost nine years. I thank the member for the question.

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka raised a very

important issue around the ministry not contacting a local television station, and I do have proof that in fact the ministry did contact the station. I have the transcript, and I will send --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): That isn't a point of order.

PETITIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I would like to file a petition with the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and just read it

into the record.

"Whereas the Provincial Auditor, on December 2, 2003, released his report stating the previous government wasted taxpayers' money by failing to provide

services that have gone unheeded in some cases for as long as a decade, such as a 65% increase in criminal charges taking more than eight months to get into courts, failing to enforce $1.3 billion

in support payments to mothers and children, and a failure of more than one quarter of Ontario's waterworks to submit the minimum number of samples of two of the highest-risk substances, including

E coli bacteria, in the year 2000;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario so that the new Liberal government not allow such incredulous, reckless mismanagement to

ever occur again."

I'd like to file that with the assembly today.

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a petition titled, "Don't Scrap the Seniors' Property Tax Credit."

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

renters and owners; and

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

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

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

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

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

I sign this petition.

TUITION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario from the student association of George Brown College,

Local 92, Canadian Federation of Students. 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 even 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 as follows:

"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 sign my name to it.

SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by a great number of constituents who have a great

interest in this issue.

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

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

and

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

and

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

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

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

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

Again, it's been signed by a great number of constituents and I will add my name to the list of their signatures.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I rise in my place today to present the results of several months' efforts by a group

known as Free Flamborough. Five representatives are here today, and I'd like the House to acknowledge them. Over the last several months they have been gathering signatures, and I'm pleased to

report that there are 11,129 names. Over 50% of the eligible voters in the town of Flamborough have signed this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of Flamborough had no direct say in the creation of the new super city of Hamilton; and

"Whereas the government by regulation and legislation forced the recent amalgamation, against the overwhelming majority of the people of Flamborough; and

"Whereas the government has not delivered the promised streamlined, more efficient and accountable local government, nor the provision of better services or

reduced costs," as promised; and

"Whereas the promise of tax decreases has not been met, with an average increase of 30% since amalgamation, and the expected transition costs to area taxpayers

of this forced amalgamation have already exceeded the promised amount by 88%;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order, return our local

municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Flamborough, and in so doing remove the bureaucratic, inefficient, single-tier governance it has

imposed on the residents of Flamborough."

I offer that up. We may need more than one page to carry them to the Clerk's office, although Emma looks eminently strong enough to do this.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas Hughes Public School at 17 Innes Avenue in the city of Toronto closed down and its premises have been declared surplus by the Toronto District School

Board;

"Whereas the city of Toronto has issued a building permit to the Toronto District School Board permitting the reconstruction of Hughes Public School for an

entity called Beatrice House, for the purpose of a private academic school;

"Whereas the Beatrice House is not a private school registered with the Ministry of Education, nor a mident has been issued to that organization;

"Whereas within the context of the zoning bylaw (438-86) the subject lands have been designated as R2 Z0.6 a `private academic, philanthropic or religious

school';

"Whereas the Toronto District School Board has chosen not to lease the subject premises to a computer training company for $1.25 million annually. Instead the

board has chosen to lease it to the Beatrice House for a fraction of the current market value;

"Whereas the lease has not been signed between the Toronto District School Board and Beatrice House, while renovations to the building are underway;

"Whereas local taxpayers' concerns have been ignored have been ignored by the Toronto District School Board;

"Whereas other locations, such as the Brother Edmund Rice School at 55 Pelham Park, or the Earlscourt Public School at 29 Ascot, which are being closed down,

have been offered to Beatrice House to no avail;

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

"That the Honourable Minister of Education investigate the leasing arrangement between the Toronto District School Board and Beatrice House inasmuch as:

"

(1) Boards are to seek fair market value when selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of schools, except that the price for the property not to exceed the

value of the ministry's grant for the new pupil places when the purchaser is coterminus board, a provincial school, or a publicly funded care and treatment facility offering programs leading to a

diploma.

"

(2) Boards are to offer the property to coterminus boards and other public agencies operating in the area in accordance with the priority order currently

specified in regulation 444/98.

"

(3) Toronto District School Board has not dealt in good faith with our neighbourhood residents.

"Therefore, we respectfully ask you to consider our plea for justice. The Toronto District School Board has ignored our concerns and due diligence. We as a

community tried everything within our power to fight the glaring and obvious wrong done to us, to no avail."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE

STABILIZATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA STABILISATION

DES TAUX D'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 2, 2003 on the motion for second reading of Bill 5,

An Act to temporarily freeze automobile insurance rates for

private passenger vehicles and to provide for the review and regulation of risk classification systems and automobile insurance rates for private passenger vehicles / Projet de loi 5, Loi

visant à geler temporairement les taux d'assurance-automobile dans les cas des voitures de tourisme et à prévoir l'examen et la réglementation des systèmes de classement

des risques et des taux d'assurance-automobile les concernant.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): When we last dealt with this issue, the member for Waterloo-Wellington had completed his remarks, so I

would call for questions and comments. The member from Timiskaming -- Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Timiskaming is south of Timmins-James Bay, Mr Speaker, and there's somebody else in that riding. I

wouldn't want to push him out just yet. We'll wait four years.

I listened intently to the comments made by the member in regard to this whole auto insurance fiasco. I just want to say, I agree with part of what he said,

but I have a little bit of a problem on the other part of what he said.

Let me start with the first part. First, this plan is going to do nothing, quite frankly, in order to really assist people to get their rates down. The

government ran on a promise that they were going to reduce people's auto insurance within a 90-day period by 20%. A 20% reduction from an increase of $800 a month to $4,600, which is what some

people are now paying, doesn't cut it. I've got people in my constituency who had a bill last year of about $800. Because of no fault of their own, they're in a situation where their automobile

insurance has gone up to $4,600. So, even if the government was to carry through on the promise they made in the election, the 20% doesn't cut it.

First of all, this bill does not roll back rates by 20%. What it purportedly does is freeze auto insurance rates at elevated rates that insurance companies

have already passed on to consumers. The problem is that

section 6 of the bill -- that's called the Mack truck

section -- says that any insurance company that is having financial difficulties is

able to pass on an increase to the consumer. I just want to point out that that's basically what's in the current legislation.

Section 6 is not verbatim but it's basically the same type of

provision that we have in the existing legislation.

Even with the so-called freeze, people will still be gouged by automobile insurance companies. That's why we, as New Democrats, argue that the only way to fix

this is to move to a publicly funded, not-for-profit system, as they have in Manitoba, another province where the rates are a heck of a lot cheaper than here.

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I'm pleased to rise and respond to the Waterloo-Wellington member's comments on this

important piece of legislation.

When the member from Waterloo-Wellington speaks, I've long ago learned that it's really important to have two listening ears, because he so often offers such

fresh insights and some really cogent suggestions as to where we should be going. I was delighted to hear some of his helpful, constructive remarks about standards yesterday, and his reference to

some of the procedural aspects of this bill. I would point out to the member that this bill, although it is but a temporary freeze, will buy us the time we need to do the very consultation that he

has indicated is so incredibly important with an issue that -- in fact, it's compulsory. People must have auto insurance, and that's why governments of all stripes have the requirement to be

somewhat interventionist in terms of this issue.

He also raised an interesting paradigm that I was pleased to see read. That was the question, and it was more than just a rhetorical question, about the injury

system: Does it in fact work? That has all kinds of spin-offs around the designated assessment centres and some of the other issues that he and I are all too familiar with, answering the phone in

the constituency office.

The need to streamline the process that we bring to the table with respect to common injuries: I want to say to the member opposite that we on this side found

that a particularly helpful suggestion. We do indeed need to streamline it, thinking of the victims and the people of Ontario we're all here to serve.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It's a pleasure to rise this afternoon to make a few comments on the speech and the comments made by my

colleague Mr Arnott, from Waterloo-Wellington. I can tell you that with his family's connections in the business world and his connections from his many years in politics, watching different

governments pursue different styles or different proposals on automobile insurance, I too take him very seriously.

Mr Arnott and I were talking the other night about this auto insurance bill. One of the things he said to me was -- he's a man of his word and he's a very

honest person -- "You know, I don't think that this will correct the problem here. I believe it's a worldwide problem." It's something I have to agree with him on.

I look back at the impact on the insurance world as a result of September 11, when billions and billions of dollars in lawsuits are actually outstanding right

to this day. Also, there were some poor investments and that sort of thing. A lot of things, along with the courts system, drove auto insurance up. I'm not so sure that this bill will do anything

at all. I think it really is a time delay type of bill, to see that they can think about it after we get the House adjourned. Maybe there will be some other opportunities or some other legislation.

I doubt if it will be corrected in one piece of legislation.

I look forward to hearing about the committee that will travel around and visit different communities to seek input. I think it is important to do that, as we

try to keep auto insurance rates down in this province. Whether the government can guarantee, as they did in their election platform, a 20% decrease in rates will be seen in the future with the

results of the proposal and the committee's work.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I too listened with some interest to the member when he spoke on the last occasion. I have to tell you

that although much of what he had to say could in fact be correct, I think far too much blame is being put by people on the events of September 11 in New York for what is happening to the insurance

industry.

Whereas that may have had some small effect in terms of the amounts of money that are being paid out on automobiles in Ontario, it is not the real reason that the rates are going up. The

real reason the rates are going up is quite clearly that the insurance industry invests the money that drivers and other people give to them -- that's one of the ways they make their money. And

their investments in the stock market over the last number of years, in the declining stock market, is the number one cause of the reason that insurance rates are skyrocketing in Ontario.

I invite the members here to look no further than what has happened where those monies are not invested, the not-for-profit situation in three separate

provinces of this country. I ask them to look at British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and they will see that in those three provinces, which do not have the same problem of investing the

money in the stock market the way private companies do, the insurance rates are going up in single digits only. The reason, perhaps, they are going up in single digits is something that affects all

of us, and that is the increasing costs of the claims. But in Ontario we are looking at, and have looked at, a 30% increase, and it is not because of September 11, or at least not in large part; it

is mostly because of bad investments in the stock market.

We need to understand how private insurance works. It works on investing money, and the investing has not been good. We need to look to a term of public

insurance so that we do not have to look at the vagaries of the stock market in the future.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Waterloo-Wellington has two minutes for

summary.

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I was pleased to have the opportunity to give my thoughts to the House on this bill yesterday afternoon,

after question period and routine proceedings. People had an opportunity to respond the very next day, and they still remembered what I said. I'm glad that some people were actually listening to my

speech yesterday afternoon, because I have difficulty remembering what I said myself. And to see other members who actually seem to be able to restate some of my thoughts -- I appreciate that very

much.

Two New Democrats responded to my speech: the member for Timmins-James Bay and the member for Beaches-East York. Where we have a fundamental disagreement with

the New Democrats is of course on the issue of whether or not public auto insurance would be in the public interest. New Democrats continue to espouse this particular policy at the present time,

but of course, as we know, when they had the opportunity to govern, between 1990 and 1995, they seriously considered it, they were committed to doing it, I believe in the 1990 campaign, in the

Agenda for People. I don't know what the discussions were during those years -- I wasn't privy to those discussions, not being a part of the government caucus -- but I sat in opposition and watched

it unfold, and certainly I think the Premier of the day, Bob Rae, struggled with the decision. I know the member for Niagara Centre was prepared to go to the wall to fight for the principle, but in

the end, the Premier decided that it was not in the public interest to move forward in that respect. I think he was concerned about the potential job loss that would have resulted. There would have

been probably thousands of people put out of work at that time. Particularly during a recession, I think he considered that those working people's interests needed to be considered.

I believe that to change the system of auto insurance the way the New Democrats would have us do would probably cost in the billions of dollars, from what I

have been told and advised by the Insurance Bureau of Canada. It's not a practical policy, and it's not one that I support. But I do appreciate their interventions in response to my speech.

I also appreciate the response from the member for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, who spoke quite eloquently about the need for an important role for

the provincial government to regulate auto insurance. I certainly agree with that.

I thank my colleague the member for Simcoe North for his kind comments. But he also questioned the effectiveness of this bill, and certainly we'll see how

effective it will be over time.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 5,

An Act to temporarily freeze automobile insurance rates for

private passenger vehicles and to provide for the review and regulation of risk classification systems and automobile insurance rates for private passenger vehicles. That's a mouthful and when you

read through it, it's almost difficult to say exactly what it is. But what it really is, is our commitment that we made during the previous campaign being met.

I'm delighted to rise today. We have just got going here in this term, and it really shows how committed we are to this particular issue that this would be

before us already.

This really was one of the top three or four issues that we faced at the doors over the course of the last election campaign. Our electors at the doors raised

a number of important issues: education, health care, crime, the new deal with municipalities. All of that was discussed at the doors, but insurance was right up there with all the other ones.

People don't tend to recognize how important an issue is until it touches them or someone close to them. For example, health care has grown to become one of

the top issues, if not the top issue, across the country. That wasn't always the case. That happened over a period of time as health care deteriorated in Ontario and in other places in Canada.

There were longer waits for procedures. People would go to hospitals and recognize that there was a shortage of nurses, a shortage of doctors. The quality of health care just wasn't what it used to

be and that's when it became important to people, when they experienced it themselves or their loved ones experienced it -- their mothers, their fathers, their children, their uncles and aunts or,

as I said, themselves.

It's the same with education. As our education system was allowed to deteriorate under the previous government, people began to recognize it. They didn't rise

up all at once; they didn't recognize it all at once. As parents and grandparents started seeing their kids in classrooms of 30 and 40 people, as they started seeing their kids coming home without

textbooks because there were no textbooks for them, when they started hearing about stories of kids not having soap in their washrooms because of cutbacks, when they started finding out that their

kids weren't getting outdoor education, for instance, or that music programs were being cancelled or sports teams had to be eliminated because they didn't have proper equipment -- when they started

finding these things out, that's when they started to rise up against this government and decided that it was time for them to go.

If you look at issues like crime, crime has always been one of the major issues in Toronto and in major cities across the province. Again, that was a major

issue in this last election. I think that's an issue where everybody has either been touched by it or knows somebody who has been touched by it.

The new deal with municipalities was a new one. That wasn't a big issue in the previous provincial election, but that started to become an issue certainly in

communities like Toronto, where people started to feel the impact of this government's policies with regard to municipalities. They started seeing how the cutbacks in transit were impacting public

transit. They started seeing how their quality of services were starting to diminish because of the treatment they were getting from this particular provincial governme