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

December 2, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Dec-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 2 December 2002 Lundi 2 décembre 2002

WEARING OF RIBBONS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CENTRAL NORTH

CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

WEARING OF FLOWERS

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

SCHOOL BOARDS

PRESS GALLERY CHARITY AUCTION

MEGHAN LOHSE

MARJORIE HOUSE

HEALTH CARE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REDEEMER UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE ACT, 2002

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

WORLD AIDS DAY

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO DEREGULATION

CONFERENCE FACILITIES

PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SERVICES

HYDRO DEREGULATION

MINISTERS' EXPENSES

NORTHERN ROADS IMPROVEMENT

ANAESTHETISTS

SITE OF EARLY PARLIAMENT

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HAZARDOUS WASTE

MEDICAL AND RELATED SCIENCES DISCOVERY DISTRICT

AIDS TREATMENT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SITE OF EARLY PARLIAMENT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

VISITORS

PETITIONS

GOVERNMENT OFFICES IN BRANT

NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE

EDUCATION FUNDING

PROGRAMME D'ALPHABÉTISATION

ET D'INTÉGRATION COMMUNAUTAIRE

LONG-TERM CARE

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

ADULT EDUCATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

POLICE SERVICES

NATURAL GAS RATES

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

PENSION PLANS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

JUSTICE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

DANS LE DOMAINE DE LA JUSTICE

Monday 2 December 2002 Lundi 2 décembre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to wear red ribbons in the Legislature

today in recognition of World AIDS Day.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CENTRAL NORTH

CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise in the House today to respond to a statement from the member for Simcoe North last week about the Central North

Correctional Centre in Penetanguishene. I was appalled to listen to the member praise Management and Training Corp Canada for operating a "correctional centre that has represented a win-win

situation for everyone involved, including the inmates."

Obviously the member is quite ill-informed when it comes to actual occurrences at CNCC, where over the past year there have been countless problems with many

areas at that super-jail. Besides security breaches, which I witnessed on an unplanned tour, guards working entire shifts without meal breaks, a riot which caused severe damage to a whole

section

within the jail and questionable medical care practices tell me this private prison experiment has not been a success, as the member opposite wants everyone here to believe.

I was outraged this past week when it came to my attention that a male inmate had been sodomized while in custody at the jail last weekend. I have recently been

contacted by a former inmate who has recently filed a lawsuit against the province of Ontario and Management Training Centre, the operators of the jail, for an incident which occurred while he was

incarcerated at that super-jail. Another inmate bit off his earlobe in a lengthy scuffle in a video-monitored common room. This man suffered numerous injuries before a guard entered the room and is

now having problems obtaining that surveillance so that he can do his court case.

This raises a number of questions on the procedures at CNCC and the measures taken to protect those within its walls and the community surrounding it. It's my

hope that the Harris-Eves government will soon realize that private, US-based prisons are out of the question in the province of Ontario.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, sometimes called Lou Gehrig's disease, is a rapidly progressive, fatal

neuromuscular disease. There are an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 Canadians who are living with ALS. This disease knows no social or economic boundaries and affects men and women in equal numbers. ALS

can strike at any time. Generally, there is little impairment of the intellect, sight, touch, hearing or smell even as the disease progresses.

The average life expectancy from the time of diagnosis ranges from three to five years. There is no treatment that prolongs life significantly, although research

is looking at possibilities. During the latter stages of the disease, when there is extensive paralysis, home and nursing care are required to assist with the tasks of daily living. The type of

care needed can be costly. While provincial health care systems cover some of these costs, patients and families must bear any remaining costs, including some equipment purchases and private

nursing.

The recently released Romanow report recommends that the federal government set up a national home care plan. Canadians with ALS know how important this

recommendation is, especially for palliative care.

The ALS Society provides advocacy and support to ALS sufferers. Today the ALS Society has been at Queen's Park. I want to welcome the ALS Ontario president,

Deborah Lavender, and her team, and encourage them in their important work.

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I rise today to ask the Minister of Finance where our economic and fiscal outlook statement is. It is

customary that the government prepare this document. Last year, it was released on November 6. It is a key document for the province of Ontario to understand the state of our economy and

finances.

Since the Premier has become Premier, frankly, we've seen a series of these things. This year's budget was the latest it has ever been. In 1995, Mr Eves promised

that the budget would be released before the fiscal year started. This year's budget was presented in June, three months after the fiscal year started. The public accounts were released about two

weeks ago -- these are the audited statements -- seven and a half months after the fiscal year closed, the latest we've ever seen them.

By the way, if you look at the public accounts, we still find two sets of books. There's a $1-billion difference between the financial statements and these

financial statements, both issued at the same time. We still have two sets of books, in spite of the fact that the Premier, then the Minister of Finance in 1995, promised that would be

eliminated.

I say again to the government, the business world and the province of Ontario looks for sensible, strong leadership. We're not getting that. The latest example

is the fact that we still don't have our fiscal and economic outlook, several weeks later than it has ever been.

WEARING OF FLOWERS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to wear the flower which depicts awareness of ALS, Lou

Gehrig's disease.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): It's my hope today to get a clear answer from the Liberals across the floor about whether or not they

plan to close coal-fired electricity-generating plants by 2007.

I understand that there has been a great deal of indecision about this issue within the Liberal caucus. One day they were for closing the plants, the next they

were for keeping them open, and then again they flip-flopped. Now, as I understand it, they are for closings, at least for the moment.

It seems that some Liberals believe their leader is blowing smoke on this issue. Understandably, they do not comprehend how Ontario would replace the lost power

from the coal-fired plants. I understand that the coal-fired plants contribute approximately 35% of Ontario's electricity, yet Dalton keeps us in the dark about how he would counterbalance this

shortfall.

I ask Liberals to come clean today. I ask them to tell voters that they really have no plan to replace the lost generating capacity. Alternatively, I ask them

why voters would ever support blackouts and brownouts across Ontario.

Should we call the Liberal leader "Blackout Dalton"? Possibly so, since Dalton's policy will lead to blackouts and people freezing in their homes. Frankly, it's

very hard to imagine voters supporting a party that has so clearly failed to do their homework on such an important issue.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): There are times in which I feel this government operates the theatre of the absurd, when black means white

and white means black.

Last August, the Minister of Education replaced the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board with a supervisor because, according to the minister, the trustees

broke the law by not submitting a balanced budget. Now the supervisor admits he cannot balance the budget, so he will borrow $13.9 million, even though he has just cut $3.7 million in special

education, a clear classroom cut.

According to the Ottawa Citizen's Randall Denley, "Beyond the political guff, Beckstead's actual plan is pretty thin. A good portion of it involves money that

wasn't going to be spent anyway. Just as curious was the reaction of our local Tory cabinet ministers (Baird, Sterling, Coburn) who praised Beckstead for his partial accomplishment. If the local

trustees had done the same thing, the Tory thinkers would have had apoplexy. The three cabinet ministers described the fact that the board has spent all its reserves and finished last year with a

deficit as a `shocking revelation.'

"If that was a shock, then they've been on another planet. Wake up guys, and buy a subscription to the newspaper."

The other Tory MPP, Mr Guzzo, Ottawa West-Nepean, is quoted as saying, "Yes, I think he should be replaced."

I agree with Mr Guzzo. Mr Beckstead should be replaced by giving the board back to the trustees, who were totally vindicated by this process, and funding the

board adequately, as Mr Beckstead himself has shown is much needed.

PRESS GALLERY CHARITY AUCTION

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It's snowing in northern Ontario and people are skiing. Searchmont ski resort, in the mountains of the

midwest, just north of Sault Ste Marie, opened up just in time for the American Thanksgiving weekend. Mike Brown and I presided over the official opening on Saturday.

Imagine fluffy snow everywhere and hundreds of people -- families, children -- shushing, skiing, snowboarding down the slopes. This phenomenon coincides with the

annual press gallery charity auction on Wednesday evening this week right here in the pink palace, and yet again three Sault Ste Marie boosters, businesses promoting our city and region, have put

together a package not to be missed. To be auctioned off: a two-night stay at Algoma's Water Tower Inn, two days of skiing at Searchmont Resort and, yes, airfare for two from Toronto via Air Canada

Jazz.

So jazz it up and bid on two nights at a resort for the price of a room and ski till your heart is content at Searchmont ski resort. Get into winter. Get out in

the snow. Come on up to the Soo and enjoy our unparalleled hospitality. Come on out to the press gallery charity auction on Wednesday night. Bring your friends, support the United Way and have a

really good time at the same time.

MEGHAN LOHSE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I am pleased and excited to rise in the House today to say that my wife, Peggy, and I are thrilled to announce the

arrival of our first grandchild. Meghan Elizabeth was born Monday, December 2, at 6:30 am Australian time at Calvary Hospital in North Adelaide. Meghan weighed in at seven pounds, 13 ounces. Proud

parents are our daughter Rebecca and our son-in-law David Lohse. I'm pleased to say that mom and daughter are both doing fine.

Meghan Elizabeth is the granddaughter of Jane and Roden Lohse of Lithgow, Australia. She is the great-granddaughter of Elizabeth Woods, Madge Hall and the late

Claire and Ruth O'Toole, George Woods and Ron Hall.

Our other children, Erin, Marnie, Andrew and Rochelle, are of course thrilled to welcome this newest member of our family. I think each of us would agree that

Christmas has come early for our family and our household.

It is at times like this, with the arrival of a new generation, that we understand more clearly the importance of the work we do here in this Legislature each

day. We must continue to realize that our decisions are not just for today or tomorrow, but for a future that now includes our children and grandchildren.

My wife, Peggy, is excitedly looking forward to travelling to Australia on December 26 to visit Rebecca and her daughter, Meghan.

MARJORIE HOUSE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Last week, I had the opportunity to visit Marjorie House, a women's emergency shelter in

Marathon which provides a safe haven for victims of domestic assault in the Marathon catchment area. Sad to say, but the cruel reality for agencies such as Marjorie House is that their occupancy

rates are continuing to increase as more women and children seek the safety of these desperately needed services.

But what's so startling about that reality is that despite this increased need, the Ministry of Community and Family Services has brought forward a plan which

not only recommends the closing of the community residence in Thunder Bay but would reduce the number of beds available at Marjorie House as well as the family resource centre in Geraldton from 10

beds to two by April 2004.

Not only that, but the plan also calls for one regional crisis line to be put in place, replacing the crisis lines presently run by the staff at Marjorie House

-- a truly stupid and bad idea.

Minister Elliott, I often feel that your government lacks the necessary awareness of regional realities and distances in the north, but this particularly

insensitive plan truly boggles the mind. Let me be very clear, Minister: this is a bad plan that must be stopped in its tracks. You can do that today by instructing your ministry staff to withdraw

this plan immediately.

At a time when needs are increasing and your own government wants to brag about its so-called increased commitment to address domestic violence, all of us in the

Thunder Bay district are at a loss as to how you can possibly justify these massive reductions in service. Women and children who are fleeing domestic assault in Marathon or Thunder Bay should not

be punished because they live far from downtown Toronto. We demand that you understand that as well by stopping this ill-thought-out and remarkably insensitive plan right now.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Roy Romanow has released his long-awaited report on health care reform in Canada. The report, released on

November 28, 2002, validated the Ernie Eves government's long-standing belief that more health funding is needed from the federal Liberal government. It's quite telling that while Ontario Liberal

leader Dalton McGuinty tries to create fear around Ernie Eves's innovations to provide universally accessible, publicly funded MRI services in independent health facilities, McGuinty's federal

providing advanced diagnostic services. My view has been that if clinics are providing medically necessary services they should be covered by the Canada Health Act."

After seven years of saying the feds spend enough on health care and refusing to stand up to his federal Liberal cousins, Dalton McGuinty now says he supports

Romanow's call for more health care funding from the federal government. Where was Dalton years ago when the Ontario PC Party began the national debate, brought premiers from coast to coast on

board, brought the issue to the top of the national agenda and forced the federal government's hand to create the Romanow commission in the first place?

Dalton McGuinty has not released a health care plan for Ontario. He's simply not even part of the dialogue. The entire Dalton McGuinty health care plan on the

Liberal Web site, all 147 words of it, is ideas cribbed from this side of the house. Leadership takes courage. Ernie Eves and the Ontario PC Party team have it and have led the way with innovative

solutions and unparalleled health care funding for the past seven and half years. Dalton McGuinty? He's still not up to the job.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, pursuant to

standing order 109(b).

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mrs Marland presents the committee report. Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Marland: No, it's a very straightforward report. I won't make a statement.

The Speaker: I thank the member. Pursuant to standing order 109(b), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REDEEMER UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE ACT, 2002

Mr Wood moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr14,

An Act respecting Redeemer University College.

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

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs

be authorized to meet to hold pre-budget consultations on January 27, 28, 29 and 30, 2003, and February 3, 4, 5, 6 and 20, 2003.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member, I believe, needs to ask for --

Hon Mr Stockwell: I apologize. I ask for unanimous consent.

The Speaker: Consent to move the motion? I can't keep track. Is it the pleasure of the House? Consent.

Mr Stockwell has moved the motion. Agreed? Carried.

WORLD AIDS DAY

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): On a point of order, Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to allow statements by the

parties for up to five minutes on the occasion of World AIDS Day.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed. The minister, to start us off.

Hon Mr Clement: I rise in the Legislature today in light of the World AIDS Day 15th anniversary, which has been entitled Live and Let

Live.

By the end of 2001, an estimated 40 million people were living with HIV. That number is expected to escalate by another five million cases per year.

Furthermore, in 2001 alone an estimated three million people lost their lives to AIDS. That's over 8,000 deaths per day. The disease knows no boundaries. There are a reported 22,000 people right

here in Ontario who are currently living with HIV.

That's why World AIDS Day is so important. It's a day to affirm our support for people living with HIV and an important opportunity for us to demonstrate our

high regard for the doctors, nurses and other health care providers throughout Ontario who have responded to HIV/AIDS with such skill, compassion and dedication.

Past government initiatives include the establishment of the Ontario HIV Treatment Network, the Community-Linked Evaluation AIDS Resource Unit and the

injection drug user outreach program. I want to assure the House at this time that HIV/AIDS prevention, care, treatment and support will continue to be priorities for the Ernie Eves government, and

we'll be spending almost $50 million in 2002-03 for HIV- and AIDS-related programs.

The government's 37 boards of health collaborate with school boards to provide education to students about HIV and AIDS, in addition to providing needle and

syringe exchange programs as part of our harm reduction program. As well, our government provides funding for supportive housing for people living with HIV and AIDS, and programs that provide

volunteer-based in-home hospice care.

Ontario HIV diagnostic testing ensures that a very high standard of testing is maintained, and approximately 300,000 tests per year are conducted. Through our

We're all proud of Casey House, a 12-bed residence and hospice program for people at the end stages of AIDS, which offers medical and nursing services,

counselling and nutrition services.

All these initiatives demonstrate that health promotion and disease prevention have to be at the top of this government's health care plan.

We have come so far, but there is still so much more that has to be done. That is why I have directed that our AIDS strategy be renewed and reviewed in the

months ahead. I learned a lot by attending the International AIDS Conference this past July, where it was absolutely clear that Ontario is at the forefront in both research and treatment. But we

simply cannot rest on our laurels.

I'm proud of the outstanding achievements of the Ontario HIV community: people living with HIV/AIDS, the health providers, the researchers, the clinicians and

the community workers throughout this province. I'd like to take this opportunity in the House to thank the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS and its co-chairs, Dr Don Kilby and Mr John

Plater, for their absolutely outstanding and uniformly excellent work in providing me with expert advice on all aspects of HIV/AIDS. I'm eager to learn more about the issues from this advisory

committee when we sit down next in January to review our proposals for change.

On behalf of the Ernie Eves government, I would also like to thank those individuals as well as the many volunteers whose tireless efforts have lightened the

burden of people living with HIV/AIDS and their loved ones.

I think it's accurate to say that a society is judged in large part by how it takes care of its sick and its infirm, simply those who cannot take care of

themselves. That is why I am so proud that we in this government are working with the people of this province to help make an Ontario that is a better place for all people living with HIV/AIDS.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): As a gay man, it is with a heavy heart that I stand on behalf of the Liberal caucus and my

leader, Dalton McGuinty, to offer some words on this the 15th annual World AIDS Day.

I want to start by paying tribute to three individuals -- Louise Binder, Jim Wakeford and Ron Rosenes -- who all have AIDS and who continue to be incredibly

passionate spokespeople and do such an effective job of making sure I'm aware of the issues that are affecting that community.

I want to pay tribute to the courage of those people in my community and in all of our communities living with HIV and AIDS, for the courage they show in

confronting health battles that I think many of us are so fortunate not to have to deal with, and especially to those caregivers, to those people who work in voluntary capacities and as our paid

medical staff, who do such an extraordinary job of extending the quality of life and helping to find new advances in treatments, services and pharmaceuticals that really have done so much to

improve the quality of life for people living with HIV and AIDS.

I note that the theme of this year's World AIDS Day is Live and Let Live, but the unfortunate reality for those living with AIDS is that too many of them find

early death. The stunning statistic that three million people last year succumbed to AIDS is a wake-up call, if one were ever needed on this issue.

The numbers in the world demonstrate that AIDS is a growing pandemic: some 42 million infected people worldwide, 75% of them in Africa. In Botswana, 39% of all

of the people living in that country have HIV or AIDS. It's a growing concern in Russia, India and China.

I was looking back on some of the past statements that have been made. Two years ago, Frances Lankin, speaking on behalf of her party, noted that 33.6 million

people then were affected worldwide by AIDS. The number is now 42 million and growing in a very serious way. Here in Canada, an estimated 50,000 people are living with HIV and AIDS, 4,200 new cases

annually.

In my own community, we're forced to confront the reality that while medications have extended the lives and the quality of life for people living with HIV and

AIDS, that they've turned that disease into a chronic and somewhat more manageable disease, this has created an artificial sense of security for many younger people. We need to continue to enforce

the message that this is something where personal responsibility needs to be the bottom line, that people have to take responsibility for their own lives, that we need to address that artificial

quality of life.

In 2002, AIDS has touched me in a very, very personal way. The AIDS Committee of Toronto lost one of the most inspirational people I've ever met, a man by the

name of Charles Roy, who was a world leader in the fight for better treatment, the fight against HIV and AIDS.

This Liberal caucus has a staff person by the name of Markus Wilson. Earlier this year we gathered around as a community, the family of a caucus, and raised

money, and a bunch of us have been very involved in helping Markus while he continues to fight a valiant struggle. He has pretty good health, as I spoke to him this morning. It reminds us all that

this is something that has touched so many of our families.

In my own political world there's a young man who moved to Toronto from not too far outside of Toronto, who is 20 years old, and earlier this year he tested

positive for HIV. This helps underline that we have a lot more work to do.

I think this is one of those issues where leadership from political parties who were the government of Ontario, all three of them, means that as Ontario

legislators we should be proud of the work we've done but should commit ourselves as well to make sure we continue to do all that is necessary: support for the kind of education that makes sure

people understand that while treatment has improved, this is still a huge, huge risk.

We need to make sure that things like ODSP and the Trillium drug plan are working properly for people. We need to get back to the point where the province of

Ontario supports nutritional supplements for people living with HIV and AIDS. We need to make sure that the work we've done on prenatal HIV testing, which works very hard to ensure that HIV is not

passed from mother to baby, reaches out into more rural and isolated parts of our province to make sure there's a high level of awareness and that OB/GYNs and midwives in more rural parts of our

province are aware of the best treatments and are making sure that those are effected.

By continuing to work together, I think we in Ontario can continue to be proud of the work we've done to preserve the lives of those living with HIV and

AIDS.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I find no pleasure today in rising to acknowledge World AIDS Day, but we do so out of a need that we have,

particularly on this day but frankly at all times, to ensure that we are addressing and providing a response to this disease. UNAIDS, the United Nations agency that is charged with combatting the

spread of HIV, reports that there now are 42 million HIV-positive people worldwide. There will be five million new infections this year around the world -- 800,000 of them children -- and 3.1

million people will die.

Here in Canada, six people under the age of 25 are infected every day. Indeed, despite growing public awareness, HIV/AIDS infection rates have remained steady.

Today there are nearly 50,000 Canadians living with HIV or AIDS. AIDS and HIV touch all of us in all our communities. For many of us, they have touched our families and our friends.

The HAVEN outpatient clinic at the Sudbury Regional Hospital estimates that about 300 people who live in the Sudbury area now have AIDS or HIV. Today, that

outpatient clinic is launching a campaign to raise awareness, challenge the HIV/AIDS stigma, end discrimination and promote HIV prevention methods.

Communities across this province have rallied large campaigns to increase public awareness and build government support for HIV and AIDS prevention and

treatment. We should not forget how many ways other people in those communities take action by providing support to people in those final days.

I want to talk for a moment about what barriers people living with HIV and AIDS still face here in Ontario, because frankly, the government record on removing

those barriers is truly inadequate. While each year this government talks a good line, the reality is that they have not acted to remove the barriers to people living with HIV and AIDS. For

example, drugs: over the years we have mentioned in this House on numerous occasions that in our conversations with doctors treating patients with HIV and AIDS, they are overwhelmed by the mountain

of additional paperwork and bureaucracy the government creates. At a time when people living with HIV and AIDS need timely treatment, the government has created a double standard. It is just

obsessed with red tape for these individuals.

The NDP government introduced the Trillium drug plan, but we know right now that there are some very significant issues with respect to the drug plan. There

was a CTAC alert that was released on November 21. It said: "Ontario Formulary Coverage at Risk....

"There are increasingly unacceptable delays and a refusal to add important new medications, formulations and vaccines for children to the provincial formulary.

Also,

section 8 requests for exceptions to the formulary rules are either being denied or languishing in the system without reply."

I ask the government, why is it denying people with HIV and AIDS reimbursement for life-saving medications? Why is the

government refusing to pay the cost of meningitis, chicken pox or pneumonia vaccines for HIV-positive children? We have about 110 perinatal HIV-infected children in the province. At a cost of about

$600 for these three vaccines, surely the government could make an exception and pay for vaccines for these families.

Nutritional supplements: Frances Lankin stood in this House in 1999 and demanded that the government reverse the policy to refuse funding for nutritional

supplements unless they are a person's sole source of nutrition. We have to rise and demand that the government do the same again today. The government made a choice to enforce a policy that was

not intended to apply to people who have a medical need for nutritional supplements, but that's just ridiculous. Supplements are just that: supplements. It's no answer to say that people can buy

them off the shelf. They're far too expensive, and many of these people are on disability benefits and don't have the income necessary to do that. We also know that when this government made that

decision, they must have known this would directly affect HIV and AIDS patients, but they have still refused to change this policy.

We're also very concerned that this government, in downloading public health costs, has also downloaded concerns from many consumers, many people who deal with

HIV and AIDS, that some municipalities don't recognize the need for ongoing AIDS prevention programs. Some municipalities, overwhelmed with the costs that this government has downloaded in so many

other areas, aren't addressing those concerns, aren't paying for those programs, and they should.

On this day, World AIDS Day, we call on the government to do a number of things: get the necessary drugs covered under the Ontario drug formulary in a timely

fashion; fund vaccines for HIV positive children; get rid of the red tape that doctors are facing; bring back the nutritional supplements; and get back in the business of funding public health.

Today we need more than words. We need some action from this government in reducing these barriers.

VISITORS

Hon Brian Coburn (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am very proud of the fact that I

have one of my residents, Nicholas Butte, as a page in this place. I'd like to welcome his mom and his brother, Alistair, here today in the gallery.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We're advised, and if this is incorrect I'll be corrected, I'm sure, that

the Premier has to leave at 2:55 this afternoon. That puts us in some difficulty. By way of resolving that problem, might I --

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Yes. Might I suggest that the government consider agreeing to standing down the government backbench questions so that the

opposition has availability to the Premier?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I believe the member is asking for unanimous consent for that. Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard

some noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is to the Minister of Energy. To the minister who during estimates committee could not read a

typical energy bill, who referred to energy bills as gobbledygook, to the minister who referred to energy bills as "confusing" today in an announcement that the government was retaining a

$1,000-a-day consultant to try and make energy bills comprehensible, my first question is this: why weren't the bills made comprehensible before you opened up the marketplace on May 1?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): First, let me correct the member opposite. His facts are

wrong, and this is not the first time that has happened. The individual in question has agreed to provide services over the course of not just the first 30 days where they'll make progress, but for

the two or three months that they'll spend conducting a review at a capped rate of up to $25,000; so it could be less. I hate to take the bluster out of the question of the member opposite, but in

fact he is wrong; it's not the case.

I think it is appropriate that we look at not just the presentation of the bill to consumers but why there's such a huge differentiation on the customer

charge. In the city of Thunder Bay it's a rather modest charge. In the city of Toronto it's rather high. In Hydro One, which is owned by the government of Ontario and the people of Ontario, it's

considerably higher. We want to ask ourselves why this is the case, and also to look at the IMO uplift charge. I think that's the responsible thing to do.

Mr Bryant: I thank the minister. I hadn't realized what a bargain you have struck: $25,000 -- wow, 25,000 taxpayers' dollars to clean up

incomprehensible bills that should have been comprehensible before you opened up the marketplace on May 1. Oh, I'm sorry; I hadn't realized what a bargain this was.

I want to ask you this, Minister: last time I checked, you had a lot of people working over there at the Ministry of Energy, and I understand you struck a real

bargain at $25,000. But I'm wondering why the people who are already on the public payroll aren't out to fix this. Second, you didn't answer my first question: why wasn't this done before the

marketplace was opened?

Hon Mr Baird: I was pleased that the member opposite remembered that he had to put a question into that. We did undertake some comprehensive

reform with respect to electricity, recognizing that the former Ontario Hydro was the Titanic of utilities and an iceberg was in sight, that we couldn't sit back and watch debt continue to

accumulate to the tune of $38 billion.

With respect to the efficiencies at the Ministry of Energy, it is a group of people made up of extraordinary public servants who do an outstanding job for the

people of Ontario. We have one deputy, one assistant deputy minister and just two directors. It's a small, lean machine, but I think it does a phenomenal job for the people of Ontario. That's why

we wanted someone who could bring a fresh perspective to the table to look at these charges.

I was pleased that the member opposite attended the press conference and said he was supportive of the process.

Mr Bryant: Nice try. We have been calling for the cleanup of these bills for some time.

Not only did you announce this $25,000 consultant to clean up bills that you should have cleaned up before May, you also announced that you were going to spend

$1 million on an ad blitz -- $1 million. So not only have you shipwrecked the electricity system, not only are there enormous incompetence costs for what the government has done, but you are now

going to spend $1 million of Ontarians' money to spin you out of political perdition.

My question for you is, why on earth are you spending Ontarians' money to clean up the mess that you created in the first place?

Hon Mr Baird: This was a figure that we had released more than two weeks ago, so it won't come as a surprise to many. We feel we have a

responsibility. There were a whole lot of working families throughout Ontario, struggling small business people and farm operators who were concerned about the bill on the kitchen table and who

were also tremendously concerned with respect to what the future held. I think we have an important responsibility in government to report back to the people we serve and to let them know of the

initiatives that the government is presenting for consideration. In doing that, we want to ensure that the people of Ontario are fully aware that their government is taking action to deal with a

significant public policy concern in the province.

CONFERENCE FACILITIES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a question for the Chair of Management Board. Minister, across the street in the Macdonald Block

there are more than 20 conference rooms available for use by your ministries. Oftentimes, those rooms sit empty. It turns out that they're empty because your government is spending millions of tax

dollars on expensive hotel meeting rooms instead. Public accounts documents show that last year you spent $4.2 million on expensive hotel conference rooms. In fact, while publicly owned conference

rooms sat empty, you spent $80,000 at the Sutton Place Hotel, just across the street. You also spent $800,000 at the Delta Chelsea, just a few short blocks away.

Can you explain today how it is that your government, a government that has preached restraint on so many others, has been able to find $4.2 million in the

last year for conference rooms while our own conference rooms have sat empty many days?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): First of all, I think the individual questions should

be addressed to individual ministers. But let's take a look at past records as well. I don't question the fact that things need to be tightened up in many areas, but let's set the record straight

here. For example, this is from the public accounts, 1989 --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, I want to just compare things, if I can. In fact, in 1989, the public accounts set the bar, so to speak. Let's just take

a look at the Minister of Labour. Let's look at 1987-88 for another year. In 1987-88, the Ministry of Labour spent $35,059 at the Witness Box Restaurant and Tavern, which sets up a kind of pattern

because in 1988-89, the Ministry of Labour spent $38,367 at the Witness Box Restaurant and Tavern. Of course, in the year 1986-87 -- once again, a Liberal government -- they spent $107,192 at the

Inn on the Park.

There must have been --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the minister's time is up. Supplementary?

Mr Duncan: In fact, Minister, your government spent four times more than any previous government in the history of this province. Your

government spent four times more. In fact, it was your ex-Premier who criticized former governments, and within a few short years he quadrupled those expenditures.

Last year the Ministry of Education, while it was telling Toronto schoolchildren they had less money for their classes, spent $150,000 at the Delta Chelsea.

Last year, while seniors were expected to go with one bath a week in nursing homes, the Ministry of Health spent $500,000 on expensive conference rooms. Double-cohort kids are being packed three to

one into dorms, but the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities spent $350,000 on luxury hotel conference rooms like the White Oaks conference room. In fact, your government, which preaches

restraint, spent four times more than any previous government on outside hotel conference rooms.

How can you justify those types of increases -- four times what any previous government spent on the same thing? How can you justify that in the context of

your rhetoric about restraint that you've imposed on so many others?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Unless the member across is totally blind, he would understand that these conference rooms are being used not simply by the

government but by many organizations, as they were under your government and the NDP government. These are offered to many non-profit organizations and many good organizations that come and utilize

these meeting rooms. You can't fail to walk by and see them being utilized all the time. Let's be fair about this. This practice is no different than under your government -- I'm not saying it's

good.

Now let's talk again about apples to apples. Here's another ministry -- I guess this was the consumer ministry. They used the Sutton Place Hotel in 1988-89,

for a total of $54,000, 1987-88; $47,000, 1989-90; $44,000; and the Four Seasons Hotel, $86,517. Let's deal with the consumer ministry.

I've got a huge list of these things -- public accounts, clearly available.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Don't tell me how to do things. You guys have no idea yourselves

The Speaker: I'm afraid the minister's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr Duncan: Your government spent $4 million to $1 million by the next closest government in the history of this province, four to one --

your government, under your watch. Today, for instance, you have 22 conference rooms over there. Fourteen of them, 63%, were sitting empty this morning. When shelters for the homeless were

overcrowded, the minister responsible said, "This isn't the Holiday Inn," and then she turned around and spent $104,000 on the Holiday Inn for various officials.

We also learn now that the Rozanski report on your flawed funding formula will be released next week. Where are they doing it? Are they doing it across the

street? No. Are they doing it in the building? No. They're doing the lock-up at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. How can you justify these kinds of expenses when your government has spent four

times more -- $4 million to $1 million -- than any other government in the history of this province, all the while practising restraint?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's a curious thing that the member across is talking about. It's my understanding that this particular member worked for

the Liberal Ministry of Labour under David Peterson. Let's talk about the Ministry of Labour while you were there, sir: 1986-87, $107,192, Inn on the Park; 1987-88, $35,059, Witness Box Restaurant

and Tavern; 1988-89, $38,367, Witness Box Restaurant and Tavern; 1988-89, $119,489, Holiday Inn; 1989-90, $79,588, Holiday Inn.

Sir, you were at the Ministry of Labour. Come on; give me a break.

PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. I see from reading this weekend's newspapers that you have jumped on

the private health care bandwagon. You've indicated you're going to continue with your plans for private MRIs, private CT scans, more private home care and privately built hospitals.

On Thursday, I asked your Minister of Health if he could produce one study, one shred of evidence that shows that bringing profit-takers into the health care

system saves lives or saves money. He couldn't produce a study -- not one study. So I ask, do you have an answer? Can you show the people of Ontario one shred of evidence that proves that adding

profit-takers to the health care system will save lives or money in the health care system?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Surely the leader of the third party knows there are literally hundreds, if

not thousands, of procedures that are administered by the private sector under the auspices of the public health care system in this province every day. Kidney dialysis, blood tests and all kinds

of things are done by the private sector through the publicly administered, universally accessible health care system in the province of Ontario.

Anne McLellan, the federal Minister of Health, acknowledged that over the weekend. She is not suggesting, and she believes that Mr Romanow is not suggesting

for one moment, that the 35% to 40% of the dollars that are private sector dollars in the health care system today be removed. If we did, the health care system not only in the province of Ontario

but virtually in every province across this country would come to a grinding halt.

We on this side of the House happen to agree with the five basic principles of the Romanow report, because we are already practising them here in the province

of Ontario, unlike some other jurisdictions in this country.

Mr Hampton: We're well aware that your government is trying to move more and more of the health care services into private or profit-driven

clinics. That's not the issue. We can see that evidence. I'm asking you, can you produce a study for the people of Ontario, one shred of evidence, that says this saves money in the health care

system or that it saves lives?

The Romanow report is very clear on cost. They say their studies show that public-private partnerships cost more. On patient care: "a comprehensive analysis of

the various studies ... concluded that for-profit hospitals had a significant increase in the risk of death."

Premier, that's the evidence that the Romanow commission uncovered. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to show the people of Ontario that dragging in more

profit-takers, more private clinics, is going to save any money or save lives? The Romanow commission says there isn't any. Do you have some?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the third party wants to talk about studies. We want to talk about actual results and what's going on in the real

world out there every day, not just in the province of Ontario but across this country.

I have personally talked to Mr Romanow four times during the course of his deliberations, many times at length. He has indicated to me personally that nothing

in the province of Ontario is offside with respect to the Canada Health Act or delivery of services under a universally accessible, publicly administered health care system in the province.

Indeed, in the province of Saskatchewan, where Mr Romanow was of course the NDP Premier of that province and where it is said that health care as we know it in

Canada today was born, there are many private clinics operating in the same way they do here under the publicly administered, universally accessible health care system. Surely you're not suggesting

that all those be closed.

Mr Hampton: What I'm suggesting is what Mr Romanow says. For example, on page 64 of his report, he says very clearly that, for example,

private MRIs are totally out of whack when you look at the Canada Health Act and what's happening to patients. He's saying in his report that MRIs, CAT scans, should be brought within the public

health care system and that if governments like your government want to promote private MRIs, then you should lose some of the federal funding.

Premier, you're the one who said you wanted to bring discipline to hydro by moving to the private sector. Well, you did that with Hydro One, and what did we

see? Hydro ratepayers paying for yachts and Eleanor Clitheroe's expensive lifestyle. Can you tell the people of Ontario how moving to more and more private, for-profit health care is going to

provide discipline, is going to save money and lives? Romanow doesn't think so.

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the very facilities that the leader of the third party is talking about are administered under the auspices of the

Canada Health Act. They are administered by OHIP, the publicly administered health care system in the province of Ontario. There are literally tens, dozens, maybe hundreds and thousands of private

clinics, private diagnostic and treatment procedures such as kidney dialysis provided by the private sector under the auspices of the public health care system.

When David Peterson's government was in vogue, they introduced six MRIs into the province of Ontario. When your government, Bob Rae's government, was in vogue,

you introduced six in five years as well. We have now introduced over 40, soon to be 47, MRIs in the health care system in the province of Ontario. That means more access for more people, who get

quicker treatment and reduced waiting lists. There is no queue-jumping allowed. It is going to administered under the publicly administered health care system in the province of Ontario, as it is

in virtually every province across this country. Nothing is offside, according to Mr Romanow himself.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier again: I take it the Premier still can't find the study showing that it saves money or

lives.

We've been reading the details of your latest hydro legislation and we've discovered that it provides for increases to people's hydro bills through something

called rate riders. We found that one rate rider will be to add to people's hydro bills the $500-million cost of implementing hydro deregulation. Why didn't you tell the hydro consumers of Ontario

that just implementing hydro deregulation would add another $500 million to their hydro bills?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Energy will be able to respond.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I listened with great interest to the leader of the

third party's comments on Friday. With respect to the issue he raises, there's nothing new in the legislation. In fact, all local distribution companies and market participants had to make

expenditures for new technology with respect to the market opening. That's still information technology that they require to operate in the future. They have to, in the future, before we presented

Bill 10 to this Legislature, make application to the Ontario Energy Board to have those costs first assessed and then how they would be applied in the future. The legislation does nothing to

intervene or change that process, beyond saying that this government has responded to the real concerns of working families and small business people to cap hydro rates until the spring of

Mr Hampton: I think I know why the Premier didn't want to answer the question. The Premier was the Minister of Finance in 1998, and nowhere in

1998 or 1999 did the Premier, as then Minister of Finance, tell the people of Ontario that just to implement hydro deregulation was going to add $500 million in costs to the hydro bill. Premier,

why didn't you tell people that? Why didn't you tell them that just to implement hydro deregulation was going to add another $500 million to the hydro bill? Were you worried that they might then

say, "Obviously, this is a bad thing. Don't do it"? Why didn't you tell them then, when you knew it was going to cost at least $500 million?

Hon Mr Baird: It's self-evident that when you moved from an old system that was racking up $38 billion in debt to the people of the province

of Ontario, it would require some effort to try to turn things around.

I don't know why the leader of the third party didn't campaign, when he ran in 1990, saying, "My name is Howard Hampton and I want to raise hydro debt by $3

billion." When they presented successive budgets in this province of more than $10-billion deficits, why didn't they look at every child in this province and say, "You're going to be paying tens of

billions of dollars in interest on these budgets"? The member opposite is not one to lecture anyone in the province of Ontario on fiscal accountability and responsibility.

We recognize that the old system that had racked up debts of $10,000 per household in this province was unsustainable. We recognize that it's immoral to ask a

new child born this morning in the province to pay $3,000 in debt and interest with respect to hydro debt. That's why we had to change things. Our government has the courage to do that.

MINISTERS' EXPENSES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a question for the Premier. Last week, the Chair of Management Board, in referring to Bill 216

with respect to ministerial and leaders of the opposition expenses, said you had crafted expense legislation very carefully. That means it was either incompetence or intention that left Mike

Harris's and Cam Jackson's expenses exempted from the bill.

Can you tell the House today why, under the ministers' and former ministers' expenses, Mike Harris's and Cam Jackson's expenses will not be subject to

mandatory review by the Integrity Commissioner? And can you tell me why their expenses will not be released to the public under this proposed legislation?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, the honourable member surely knows, if anybody knows, being a

member of the Liberal Party, that Mike Harris's expenses have been FOIed 12 times, and he certainly was an active participant, or his party was, with respect to some of those FOI requests.

Similarly, Minister Jackson's expenses have been FOI'd and they have been there for everybody to see, as indeed have former Premier Harris's. So there is no contradiction. Those things are open and

they are still FOI-able, as we go forward, under the freedom of information act. All the FOIs that are outstanding will be tabled tomorrow.

Mr Duncan: Premier, you're no doubt aware that the FOI process is expensive, slow and subject to manipulation. For instance, in the answer to

my earlier question, the Chair of Management Board said that I worked for the Ministry of Labour in 1988 and 1989, which was wrong. I wasn't at Queen's Park.

Presumably you brought in the legislation to deal with that. So you have a mammoth review that's going on, not subject to review. You're making other people's

expenses and staffs retroactive. Why weren't Mike Harris's and Cam Jackson's? You should amend the bill and demand that all former cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants since 1995 release

their expenses to the Integrity Commissioner. You should amend it so they'll be made public and reviewable, and if in fact they weren't allowable, they should be repaid. Why would you do that to

Bob Rae, Lynn McLeod and others and not make your own ministers and parliamentary assistants subject to those provisions?

Hon Mr Eves: Who are the others he's talking about, other than Bob Rae and Lynn McLeod and of course his own leader and the current leader of

the third party? I presume, silly me, that when the opposition members stand up every day in this House and ask about expenses of current and former cabinet ministers -- all of which are FOI-able,

all of which are obtainable under freedom of information -- surely they want to hold themselves to the same standard that they expect of cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants on this side

of the House. I look forward to reviewing the expenses, not only of the leader of the opposition and the leader of the third party, but every single one of his 47 staff for the last seven

years.

NORTHERN ROADS IMPROVEMENT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. You announced on Saturday night that the

government was increasing the budget for northern highways. I know your ongoing commitment to the north, I understand and respect that dedication and commitment, but I only hope the member from

Sudbury hears this response today from home.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Our government is committed to ensuring safe and efficient highways in northern

Ontario. As a catalyst for growth and development and the creation of jobs, earlier this year we announced a budget of $255 million, which was a record at that time for northern Ontario highways

for this fiscal year. On Saturday night, in conjunction with the Minister of Transportation, I announced an additional allocation of $11 million to cover highway improvements in the northeastern

part of the province. This additional funding is allowing for repairs to Highway 11 near Gravenhurst, Highways 652 and 668 near Cochrane, Highway 101 near Timmins, Highways 17, 535 and 144 near

Sudbury and Highways 518 and 520 near Parry Sound, among others.

This past September, I also announced an additional $5 million for highway improvements in northwestern Ontario, including $3 million to cover emergency

repairs in the Rainy River and Kenora districts following flooding.

This brings our highway allocation this year in northern Ontario to a record $271 million, or $1.6 billion over that since 1995.

Mr O'Toole: That's absolutely amazing -- $1.6 billion. That commitment should not go unnoticed. I understand and appreciate, Minister, the

ongoing commitment of you and your ministry to put the interests of the north first in your mind and in your heart. I understand also that there is funding for repairs to local roads, Carling

township and the archipelago. Is this funding also part of the highway budget you just discussed with the House today?

Hon Mr Wilson: Also on Saturday night in Parry Sound we were able to announce additional funding for local roads in Archipelago and Carling

townships. This money comes through the northern Ontario heritage fund and is in addition to the money provided by the Ministry of Transportation.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Wilson: I can hear that.

One hundred thousand dollars will go to help upgrade four roads at the south end of Archipelago township. The work involves repairs and resurfacing of nine

kilometres on Kapikog Lake Road, Crane Lake Road and Agaming Road.

Carling township will receive $200,000 to upgrade Snug Harbour Road and Dillon Road, two heavily travelled township roads. Normally the province wouldn't be

involved in the rehabilitation of these roads, except through the heritage fund, but these are high-volume tourist roads. They help create a lot of jobs in these townships and in this northeastern

part of northern Ontario. We're very proud that the northern Ontario heritage fund and our northern members, Mr Miller and Mr McDonald, we were able to participate in this decision in helping out

the townships and helping the flow of tourist traffic in that area.

ANAESTHETISTS

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday we learned that yet again your government is forcing

the closure of four more operating rooms in downtown Toronto through the university network of hospitals. They're being forced to close their operating room doors because they don't have enough

anaesthetists. You've known about this for over a year, and you've done nothing about it. Can you tell us today what your plan is to solve yet one more crisis in the health system?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Let me first congratulate the honourable member for injecting herself into

discussions and bargaining over pay, because that's exactly what she's done. There's a pay issue. There's a set of negotiations. We're in the midst of negotiations. Congratulations. You've fallen

for it. You're now a party to the negotiations.

Mrs Pupatello: Minister, I don't think the people who are waiting even longer for cancer surgery care one bit about your smart-alecky

responses in this House. What we demand to know right now is why one year ago you were made aware of the problem and didn't address it. What we think is a serious problem is that cancer surgeries

are going to wait yet again. Are you telling me that after one year you still haven't managed to insert yourself into a situation and find a solution?

Hon Mr Clement: The fact of the matter is, if she paid attention to Premier Eves's IMG announcement a couple of weeks ago, she would

understand that we have in fact extended the availability of physician extenders to take the pressure off anaesthesiology. We are concerned about this, and we are acting.

But the fact of the matter is that in this particular case, there is an issue about negotiations for pay. If the honourable member wants to discuss

negotiations for pay on the floor of the Legislature, be my guest, but I'm not going to be a party to it.

How would you pay for it? That's what I'd like to ask you. Maybe you'll pay for it out of the $2-billion tax hike that Dalton McGuinty has promised and that

he's spent six times over since this House came back into session. Maybe that's how she's going to pay for it. I for one am not going to be a party to this. I'm going to negotiate responsibly on

behalf of the people of Ontario. That's what we on this side of the House were elected to do, and we're going to do it.

SITE OF EARLY PARLIAMENT

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Culture. We know that protecting provincial heritage is a

priority of this government. In fact, I understand you recently held a round-table discussion with a broad range of your heritage stakeholders to address their priority issues and how your ministry

can help to address them. At that meeting, I understand you also announced your intention to hold public consultations, commencing this month, to explore potential revisions to the Heritage

Act.

Speaking of heritage issues, I understand that the city of Toronto and the province have been working in partnership to discuss possible options to acquire the

site of the first Parliament for the people of Ontario. I'm wondering if you could tell this House about the historical and cultural importance of the first Parliament site.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): I'll use my hat as the Minister of Culture to answer

that.

Yes, we did have a round-table discussion with many representatives from the heritage community. I was pleased to be joined by Julia Munro, my parliamentary

assistant; Allan Gotlieb, the chair of the Ontario Heritage Foundation; and Jill Taylor, the chair of the Conservation Review Board. We had a wonderful discussion, but the question really dealt

more with the site of the first Parliament.

The first Toronto Parliament site is one of those sites that is not only locally important and significant but certainly provincially significant and probably

nationally significant as well. I give credit to the city of Toronto for taking the lead on this. We are working diligently with the city of Toronto currently. It's one of those sites that you have

one opportunity in a lifetime to save. It's important to us. We are working very closely with the city of Toronto. We have a number of options on the table right now, and I'm very confident that

we're going to be able to come to a good resolution as a result of this.

Ms Mushinski: Minister, I understand that there has been some concern with the December 1 deadline that the OMB imposed surrounding the

issuance of a building permit for a proposed car dealership on the site that covers the first Parliament site. Artifacts and structural remains dating to the late 18th and early 19th centuries were

discovered back in November 2002, and cumulative evidence from the archaeological excavations and archival research supports the conclusion that these remains are indeed from the first Parliament

building of Upper Canada -- Ontario.

We know that a find like this doesn't come along very often, and I can certainly understand that the Ontario Municipal Board's decision allowing the property

owner to apply for a building permit from the city of Toronto planning department would bring about a great deal of concern to the heritage community.

Minister, I understand that, effective December 1, the property owner may apply for a building permit. Today being December 2, I'm wondering if you could tell

this House exactly what this means for the preservation of this most important piece of our history.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First I'd like to acknowledge some of the folks who have been working with us very closely: the director of culture, Rita

Davies, from the city of Toronto; the deputy mayor, Case Ootes, has met with me on this; and I credit Councillor Kyle Rae for some leadership in the area as well.

We're less concerned right now in terms of the drop-dead day, which is no longer such a thing, because we've been having some very positive progress in terms

of negotiations with the owners. The owners have voluntarily extended the date. They know we're at the table, and they know that we have had some very fruitful discussions. I've all the confidence

in the world, with the co-operation of the city of Toronto -- because this is a very complex situation. There are several owners here. There's the city of Toronto at the table; there is ourselves.

I've heard support from both my side of the House and the opposite side of the House for this particular initiative. Once again, I'm very confident that with a little work, and I think we're doing

that right now, we'll come to a good conclusion for not only the people of the city of Toronto but the people of this province as well.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Premier. Your government's welfare policies are the prime focus of the inquest into

Kimberley Rogers's death. Your Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services should have standing at the inquest so that you can ask questions and learn from the mistakes.

Premier, why has the Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services not chosen to seek standing, when it's this ministry that needs to be there the

most?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I'm sure the minister can respond.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): My colleague across the way will know that in any matter before

the courts, it's inappropriate that we speak about any particular case.

We in our ministry have made it very clear that we are willing to co-operate in any situation where information is required by the courts or by the police in

any case. We have said that in the past and will continue to honour that commitment.

With regard to welfare, we have made a number of changes in the welfare system. It has been entirely transformed under our government as an employment and

supports opportunity that has been referenced to me personally by at least one person as being transformed into opportunities galore.

Mr Martin: Premier, a pregnant woman died living under the stifling effects of your welfare policies. You locked her up and took away her

money and her food. Since then, instead of cutting people off for three months, you now cut them off for life. You not only lock the door, you throw away the key. You shouldn't be an absentee

landlord at your own hearings, Premier, just as you shouldn't have policies that lead to the loss of life.

Will you raise social assistance rates to cover the minimum costs of living? At the very least, will you end your government's inhumane lifetime ban?

Hon Mrs Elliott: My colleague must understand -- surely he understands, having been in this House for some time, that's it's completely

inappropriate that we speak about any individual case. More to the point, there is a very serious court case underway. There are people who are going to make decisions, and it's entirely

inappropriate that we would, here in this place, prejudge decisions that would be made. I think he understands that, and certainly if he doesn't, he should, having been in this place for some

time.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. After many requests, and when questioned about lax

regulations on the Safety-Kleen CleanHarbors site, you have responded that the site has a full-time on-site inspector. The site manager last week in fact said there is no on-site, full-time

inspector for the largest hazardous landfill in the country. What he said was that someone shows up from time to time.

You also claim that hazardous waste imports have gone down by 31% since 1999, but what you selectively forget is that the hazardous waste imports from 1995 to

1999 have gone up by 500%. So we're still a lot higher.

My question to you is, why do you treat this site with less monitoring than non-hazardous sites, and how do you justify to the people of Ontario making Ontario

the toxic waste haven for the continent of North America?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): "They show up from time to time." I appreciate that's one way of

phrasing the term of inspections, but showing up from time to time we call random inspections. Why they're called "random" is because they show up without notice, by surprise, and they show up

there and ensure that the inspection takes place.

I understand you want to call it a --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: They just show up from time to time.

It was an idea that I think everyone buys into, the fact that you have random inspections by surprise, and that they will go about inspecting the site on a

regular basis.

I can only say to the member opposite, a 31% reduction over two years is a very significant reduction in importing of the hazardous waste. We're harmonizing

with the American border communities. We've reduced it by 31%. We have random inspections that weren't there before. I think that's a fairly good record.

Ms Di Cocco: We still have 469% higher importation since 1995. Second, you and the former minister said that we had a full-time inspector on

that site -- "full-time, on-site inspector" is what you told me.

While other jurisdictions, such as Massachusetts, have taken steps to reduce and prevent the generation of waste, Ontario is not there. While other

jurisdictions have strict treatment measures and leachate catchment -- not here in Ontario. While other jurisdictions have rules for liabilities -- not here in Ontario. While other jurisdictions

are moving forward to treatment and disposing on-site, therefore making landfills extinct -- no, not here in Ontario; we want to bring more and more toxic waste into our landfills. Since 1995

Ontario has regressed 10 to 20 years from other jurisdictions in the developed world.

My question to the minister is, why do you continue to turn a blind eye to this degradation caused by this province's hazardous waste disposal practice?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I don't think that's a fair analogy of the situation at all. I honestly believe the member opposite has paraphrased this in

certain ways that obviously, being in opposition, is designed to cast light on the government that we are not concerned.

The fact of the matter is that we have reduced it by 31%. We have harmonized our process with neighbouring jurisdictions. We've worked very hard to ensure

there's going to be a pre-treatment process before it's dealt with.

You suggest that we import more than we export. We import 74,000 tonnes of hazardous waste; we export 76,000 tonnes of hazardous waste.

This place has been open since the 1960s. So of the last three administrations to deal with this particular problem that you've come to find in the last couple

of years, the Liberals did nothing, the NDP did nothing and we're doing everything to protect the environment. You shouldn't be criticizing us. You should be having a parade in Sarnia for this

government.

MEDICAL AND RELATED SCIENCES DISCOVERY DISTRICT

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a question for the Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing responsible for rural

affairs. Minister, as you know, I proudly represent the people of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. Many of my constituents make their living either from farming or from an agriculture-related business.

Agriculture is second only to the automotive industry in Ontario, creating more than $25 billion in sales annually and employing hundreds of thousands of good people across our rich province.

Minister, given the importance of agriculture to rural Ontario, and of course all of the outstanding work that our Ministry of Agriculture and Food is doing

for our farmers, can you tell this House what you're doing as minister responsible for rural affairs to help create a healthy economic climate for Ontario's agribusiness?

Hon Brian Coburn (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for his

question. His constituents are well served by this hard-working, competent MPP.

I'm proud to announce that recently Guelph became linked with Toronto in a project that will have major economic benefits for rural Ontario. This link was made

possible by provincial funding of about $2.9 million through our government's OSTAR RED program to make sure that rural and small-town Ontario have the tools and resources needed to develop

research into commercial products.

The Medical and Related Sciences Discovery District in Toronto, or MARS as it's known, is establishing links between business, academia, government and the

agri-food business cluster in Guelph. With MARS in Toronto, this will offer its knowledge and expertise of the medical and related science fields to enable Guelph to maximize and capitalize on that

to promote new technologies and commercialization of made-in-Ontario academic research.

Mr Barrett: This MARS Landing project in Guelph sounds like it's got great potential for rural Ontario. I would like the minister to expand a

bit on the project and, secondly, on how it will turn some of that potential into results.

Hon Mr Coburn: This project is a powerful example of how our government is bringing the public and private sectors together to forge new

working relationships, to take advantage and capitalize on new and innovative opportunities and technologies to promote strong economic growth and leadership in our communities.

Rural Ontario biotechnology sector businesses and researchers will have vastly greater access to information and commercialization opportunities under this

project in a variety of communities -- certainly in Toronto, Guelph, Hamilton, Ottawa. This helps develop a database that will also be able to link Ontario's scientific expertise and equipment

capabilities to maximize those scientific discoveries.

The private sector certainly has put their nickel in the drum and provided about $3 million in funding for this project as well.

All of the project partners are exceptionally excited, as we are, about the future and because of the opportunities that will be made available from this

research in rural and small-town Ontario and that will benefit all of us here in Ontario in the future.

AIDS TREATMENT

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): My question is to the Minister of Health. On Saturday night at an event for Black CAP, the

Black Coalition for AIDS Prevention, I had the opportunity to have a conversation with Dr Stanley Read, who is a noted pediatrician at Sick Children's Hospital who works in immunodeficiency,

specifically with children who are born with HIV. There are 120 patients at the Sick Children's Hospital who require three vaccines that ward off opportunistic infections that can kill them. Your

ministry refuses to fund those, Mr Minister, and Sick Children's Hospital has been forced to seek out donations of these vaccines, unsuccessfully in many cases, from pharmaceutical companies. I'm

wondering if you could investigate this and make a commitment to the House that if these conditions are as I presented them, if you can confirm that these facts are as I presented them, you will

begin to fund them.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Let me thank the honourable member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale for the question.

Certainly I would undertake to this chamber and to him personally to review the situation.

If I can say, just by way of explanation to this chamber, sometimes the issue involved is that we do not make available certain medications if they don't have

a notice of compliance from Health Canada for clinical safety reasons. So I'll be checking that aspect of it as well, and perhaps the honourable member might have some contacts up in Ottawa that

might shed some light on that aspect of the issue, if in fact that is an issue. But you certainly have my undertaking that I will review the situation.

Mr Smitherman: Thank you, Mr Minister. I'm always happy to help. Let that be noted.

I want to make very clear, for the purposes of this House, that we've had very good success in this province at prenatal screening, which tries to make sure

that the disease is not passed on. While we should all share in the benefits associated with that, it's clear that some kids are slipping through. Diseases, things like the flu, that might be a

hardship to us for a week or two can steal and rob kids of their lives.

So to press upon you the importance of dealing with this in a timely fashion, I'm wondering if in your supplementary you might give me some sense, if those

issues in Ottawa are not at play, if there are not concerns around that, what kind of time frame it would be appropriate to expect you to confirm that you'll begin funding these vaccines.

Hon Mr Clement: I certainly undertake to work with the honourable member to review the situation. I think that's about as far as I can go in

all good conscience without knowing a few more of the facts.

But I would at this time like to invite the honourable member, and indeed all honourable members of this chamber, if they have any particular thoughts about

our AIDS strategy -- after returning from the international AIDS conference, I became aware that our AIDS strategy, while it was groundbreaking at the time, perhaps has to be in some way innovated

to make sure that it is dealing with the current issues as they now stand in this particular area of medicine and clinical practice. So I invite the honourable member directly, and I invite all

members of this chamber, to assist me in the innovation and the improvement of the Ontario AIDS strategy so we can continue to be a world leader in this area.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. In many of the urban sections of this province, if you drive

around or if you talk to those who are in the building and construction industry, they will tell you that in spite of the downturn in the economy of late the building and construction industry has

remained relatively stable and busy, which is good news because that's a large slug of the economic activity in this province.

But attached to that good news is a related issue that I believe your ministry needs to draw its attention to, and that is, if indeed there is increased

activity on construction sites throughout the province of Ontario, how are you as a minister and how is your ministry dealing with the fact that that necessarily means an influx in more newly

trained skilled trades to those sites? And how are you as a minister and how is your ministry dealing with making sure that those sites continue to remain safe and secure sites to work for these

newly trained individuals who are now getting an earned income but a new one at that?

Interjection.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): I thank the member for Hamilton East for cheering me on as I stood up there.

Our government is committed to enforcing occupational and health and safety legislation in all work places, including construction sites, and in Ontario our

construction sites are the busiest around the province. Since 1995, Ministry of Labour construction inspections have increased dramatically. Inspections are up 25%, field visits are up 27% and,

because of our inspections strategy, orders have been increased by 128%. As a result, the lost-time injury rate has decreased, from 2.06% in 1995 to 1.73% in 2001. Clearly, working with our

partners and having the enforcement in place, we are making the construction industry the safest in Canada.

Mr Sampson: I understand that there's something called the Construction Safety Association of Ontario and that your ministry works closely

with that association to achieve the target of making sure workplaces are safe and secure in the province of Ontario.

Perhaps when you stand on your feet next you can tell us a bit about how you do work with the Construction Safety Association of Ontario and how we, as a

province, now compare, as it relates to other provinces across the country, in the category of safe work sites. Is there a way to measure that? Is there a way to measure, frankly, all your efforts

in achieving a safe site? Are we above or below a standard? I think the people of the province of Ontario would like to know that you have some standard by which to measure your success.

Hon Mr Clark: Ontario accounts for 42% of Canada's construction workers. At the same time, the Construction Safety Association of Ontario's

own statistics show that Ontario leads the rest of Canada in construction health and safety. This province's lost-time injury rate is 1.73%. That's about half the national average of 3.7%. The

Construction Safety Association of Ontario's statistics also indicate that 90% of Ontario's construction firms had perfect health and safety records in the year 2000.

Because so many construction companies are doing so well, the Ministry of Labour is now able to focus on the bad performers, the ones that aren't up to snuff,

so to speak. These improvements in the construction sector have been achieved, in part, through targeted enforcement by Ministry of Labour inspectors. We will continue targeted inspections on those

that are not living up to what we would like to see in Ontario, and that's a safe work site.

SITE OF EARLY PARLIAMENT

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is for the Chairman of Management Board. Mr Minister, on October 17, I stood here in this

House and asked you a question about the first Parliament buildings. At the time you answered the question; you gave me a little bit of pause for hope. I listened today to the question from the

member for Scarborough Centre, and again, there's a little bit of a pause for hope.

But my question to you is not just to have some hope. Quite frankly, my question to you is, will you direct that this site be purchased to save this province's

greatest archaeological treasure? Will you act today to make sure it doesn't end up buried under a car dealership?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): If the member was listening, purchasing it is not the

only option here. They're very complex negotiations. He should know, as a former mayor, as a former municipal councillor, that land transactions are a little bit complex at times. He's nodding his

head in agreement here as well.

We're at the table. We have a lot of confidence that we can come to a resolution. Our team knows that I think it's very significant for us to come to a good

conclusion on this, and I've given them instructions to do as much as they can to make sure this occurs. I don't know how much more I can say to you right now. We're in the middle of negotiations.

The city of Toronto is co-operating 100%. We're working very closely with them.

You can see the deadline has passed. The owners have increased the deadline and let it pass because they know we're having very significant negotiations. I

think that at the end of the day, all of us are going to be very happy.

Mr Prue: I'm hoping that at the end of the day we'll all be very happy too. But the people within the city of Toronto and the heritage

community are getting very nervous because the deadline has come and passed. Granted, there has been an extension, and we're thankful for that.

There is a possibility here of a land swap -- we've read about that in the newspapers -- both the city and the province, but there have been no discussions to

date.

An outright purchase, I would put to you, is a better option. Will you commit today that you will preserve our history, either by a land swap or an outright

purchase, so that our culture, our history, our heritage, is preserved in this province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The member says that the heritage community is fairly nervous right now. I will tell him this: last week Julia Munro and

myself met with representatives of most of the parts of the heritage community. Many people were there, including people from the city of Toronto. In fact, the city of Toronto was at the table when

we were talking about this specific issue. Included as well were the Ontario Heritage Foundation and the Conservation Review Board, very significant players in the heritage community. Museums were

there as well. We had almost every representative of almost every significant organization in the province there when I discussed this issue. When they left the room, they were quite pleased with

the direction we're taking. They understand we're having very substantial negotiations. The city of Toronto was represented there as well. They're part of this discussion. So, with all due respect,

I think we need to let these discussions, these negotiations, occur without taking any precipitous actions. They have my instructions already. They know I'm very interested in this. I want to have

this resolved favourably for the people of Ontario. I don't know what more I can say today, but I'll tell you right now that this is important for all of us here.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): My question is addressed to the Chair of Management Board, and once again it relates to the OHIP

building in Kingston. Minister, as you know, over 100 employees walked off the job, walked out of the building on Friday because they regard the building as being totally unsafe. Today, another 25

workers have joined them. The problem with respect to this building has been ongoing almost from the beginning. You and I know that we require not only air-quality testing but also that the GeoCor

report, which was done for the union and was made public about two weeks ago, specifically recommends that there be soil testing done both inside and outside the building so we can find out whether

or not the toxins that are alleged to be in the building come up through the foundation.

Minister, would you please instruct whoever is negotiating on your behalf to get together with the union and, in an open and completely frank process,

determine which is the best engineering firm to do both of those tests, let those tests begin as quickly as possible and let the results of those tests be known to the people involved as quickly as

possible? The safety of our government workers and of the people who utilize the buildings is at risk. We're asking you to get directly involved in this so this issue can be resolved once and for

all, and the safety --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member's time is up.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): I agree with a lot of what the member is saying; I

think his presumptions are incorrect. The preliminary report by that particular company actually had a proviso on it to indicate that it was a preliminary piece of advice and not to make too much

of it; it was preliminary. Having said that, I think it's very important -- the instructions I've given are to make sure the union and the many government ministries involved get together and pick

a consultant that's acceptable to both. If we can't do that, I think the situation is urgent enough for us to press on to protect our employees. I've also told them that it matters not if it's air

quality or soil quality; the situation has to be corrected, whatever it's found to be. So I've given them a very clear instruction. We have to make sure the environment is safe for our employees.

If at the end of the day the report comes out and says, "Yes, we have to do soil testing; yes, we have to fix it," I think we have to do it. It's not that complex. We have to have a situation

that's safe for our employees; that's it.

VISITORS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's my privilege today to stand and recognize Sharon Crane and Billy McKinnon, who

are visiting us from Nova Scotia, where my son lives. By the way, for those who are interested, Sharon worked for Mr Yakabuski, a former MPP for Renfrew. They're in the members' gallery. I'd like

to recognize them. They're good friends of Barb Cowieson, from legislative services.

PETITIONS

GOVERNMENT OFFICES IN BRANT

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I have, again, a petition with over 250 signatures.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Brantford is a community of more than 89,000 people, and combined with the community of Brant county, the population exceeds 110,000; and

"Whereas the business community of Brantford and Brant county warrant and deserve the service they have come to expect from the Ministry of Finance Brantford

district tax office; and

"Whereas the Mississauga regional tax office continuing business plan strategic priority number one is building a customer-centred public service that provides

service when, how and where the customers want it;

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

"We would like to propose that not only should the location and services offered by the Ministry of Finance be kept in Brantford, but they should be expanded

to include a much-needed permanent location authorized to issue health cards" -- in a multi-jurisdictional setting by all ministries -- "by exploring the following alternatives: (1) maintain the

status quo at 213 King George Road in Brantford; (2) relocate to 10 Fairview Drive, the former OPP station; (3) build a new office in a central location; (4) investigate available vacant buildings

that would be suitable."

I sign my name to this petition and encourage the Minister of Finance to look at these options.

NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I've got a petition signed by 10,000 people -- that's a whole lot of people -- from the Ontario

Association of Naturopathic Doctors that reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has requested two separate reports five years apart from the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council on the

regulation of naturopathic medicine; and

"Whereas the current regulation under the Drugless Practitioners Act is archaic and does not work effectively in the public interest; and

"Whereas the health and safety of the people of Ontario would be better served with improved regulation of naturopathic medicine; and

"Whereas the Premier's 21-step action plan outlines a commitment to make changes to the regulation of naturopathic medicine;

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

"Please include the practice of naturopathic medicine under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, by introducing a naturopathic medicine act which has

the scope-of-practice statement and authorized acts consistent with the current practice of naturopathic medicine here and in other jurisdictions.

"This means

an act that includes the attached scope-of-practice statement and authorized acts for naturopathic doctors in Ontario, and that includes allowing

the use of `doctor' title for NDs and ensures title protection for naturopathic doctor, naturopathic physician, naturopath and any other derivative thereof."

I sign this petition in support.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition signed by numerous individuals from the Glencoe area, and they are very

concerned with regard to maintaining the only high school they have in the community. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario government led by the Harris-Eves Tories has severely damaged public education and created turmoil in our schools since they took office

in 1995; and

"Whereas the current Toronto-based education funding formula is broken when it comes to rural schools; and

"Whereas our community secondary school in Glencoe is being threatened with closure; and

"Whereas rural schools are the heart and soul of their communities;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that Education Minister Elizabeth Witmer address the funding formula in relation to rural schools

and place a moratorium on rural school closures."

PROGRAMME D'ALPHABÉTISATION

ET D'INTÉGRATION COMMUNAUTAIRE

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): « Attendu que les 44 personnes qui assistaient au programme d'alphabétisation

et d'intégration communautaire de la Cité collégiale perdent en moyenne 2,5 jours par semaine de services directs et d'appui dans leur communauté dû à la fermeture de

ce programme;

« Attendu que les agences de services du secteur de la déficience intellectuelle ne peuvent offrir de services de remplacement à ces

personnes, compte tenu que leurs programmes sont déjà remplis à capacité;

« Attendu que les 44 personnes qui assistaient » à ce programme « seront maintenant insérées sur la liste

d'attente à coordination des services, qui comprend déjà plus d'une trentaine de personnes francophones et que certaines d'entre elles attendent déjà depuis plus de deux

ans;

« Attendu que nous considérons inacceptable de laisser les personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle et leur famille sans ou avec trop

peu de soutiens, de programmes ou de services;

« Nous, parents, familles, amis et intervenants, demandons au gouvernement Eves de collaborer afin d'assurer un financement adéquat pour la mise

en oeuvre d'un modèle de services aux personnes francophones ayant une déficience intellectuelle qui répondra aux besoins, favorisera la mouvance dans le système de

déficience intellectuelle, réduira la liste d'attente et reconnaîtra le droit à l'éducation pour les personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle. »

J'y appose ma signature.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I have a petition here that has been championed by my colleague John Gerretsen and it reads like

this:

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid for by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care-facilities by 15%, or $7.02 per diem

effective August 1, 2002; and

"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 a month; and

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the increase in the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day;

and

"Whereas, according to the government's own funded study, Ontario ranks last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a resident for

nursing and personal care; and

"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need;

and

"Whereas government needs to increase long-term-care operating funding by $750 million over the next three years to raise the level of service for Ontario's

long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan in 1999; and

"Whereas this province has been built by seniors, who should be able to live out their lives with dignity, respect and in comfort in this province;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Demand that Premier Eves reduce his 15% fee increase on seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities and increase provincial government

support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I will sign this petition and attach my name to it and give it to the wonderful Annelise to give to the desk.

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition signed by 25 people that asks the Ontario Legislature to bring fairness to the Ontario Disability

Support Program Act, 1997, by amending it to provide regulations requiring annual cost-of-living adjustments to income support payments.

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I have a petition from Save the York Adult Day School, signed by many hundreds of my constituents. I'd

like to read it.

"Whereas the Royal Commission on Learning reported in 1995, `That, in order to ensure that all Ontario residents, regardless of age, have access to a secondary

school diploma, publicly funded school boards be given the mandate and the funds to provide adult education programs';

"Whereas the current Conservative government drastically cut funding for adult students in 1996;

"Whereas in 1995 the Toronto District School Board had 16,662 adult education spaces;

"Whereas, due to the cuts, the Toronto District School Board has been forced to reduce adult education spaces to only 3,359 spaces available;

"Whereas the Conservative government's appointed supervisor plans to cut an additional 700 spaces with the closure of the York Adult Day School;

"Whereas adult day courses in the remaining five education centres have existing waiting lists and cannot accommodate additional adult students;

"Whereas the York Adult Day School provides members of our community the opportunity to complete their high school education, a basic requirement to succeed in

the current knowledge-based economy; and

"Whereas the decision to close the York Adult Day School is short-sighted, shutting out thousands of people from the opportunity to better themselves and their

families;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to instruct the Premier to restore the adult education grant,

enabling the Toronto District School Board to save the York Adult Day School from closure and give the people of this community the opportunity to succeed."

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition here, signed by between 400 and 500 individuals, to the Ontario Legislature. It goes like

this:

"Whereas the government has cut over $2 billion" -- that's with a "b" -- "from public education over the past seven years; and

"Whereas the provincial funding formula does not provide sufficient funds for local district school board trustees to meet the needs of students; and

"Whereas district school boards around the province have had to cut needed programs and services, including library, music, physical education and special

education;

"Whereas the district school boards in Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto refused to make further cuts and were summarily replaced with

government-appointed supervisors; and

"Whereas these supervisors are undermining classroom education for hundreds of thousands of children;

"We, the undersigned members of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, call on the government to restore local democracy by removing the supervisors

in the Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto district school boards."

I have signed my signature to this as well.

POLICE SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1956 the province of Ontario ordered the township of Atikokan to create a municipal police service because the township's population had exceeded

5,000; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario has since failed to make any provision for Atikokan to return to provincially subsidized policing when the township's

population fell below 5,000 in 1980 (2001 population: 3,632); and

"Whereas since 1980 Atikokan has had to spend over $14 million on policing while the province was providing free ... or heavily subsidized ... policing to all

580 of the other small towns in Ontario; and

"Whereas this injustice has resulted in a significant municipal infrastructure deficit and an onerous burden on Atikokan ratepayers;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to right this injustice by negotiating a fair and equitable settlement with the

representatives of the council and police services board of Atikokan."

This is signed by over 250 concerned residents of Atikokan. I affix my signature in full agreement with their concerns.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): One of the issues that has gotten lost in the shuffle as a result of the hydro debacle is

the Union Gas retroactive delivery charge, but the petitions continue to come in by the hundreds and thousands. I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system

operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totalling approximately $150 million;

"Whereas Union Gas will recover accrued costs over the peak heating season, causing undue hardship;

"Whereas this retroactive charge will affect all customers who receive Union Gas, including new homeowners and new customers to Union Gas;

"Therefore, we demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act disallowing the retroactive

rate hike granted to Union Gas; and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes that will protect consumers from

further retroactive increases."

This is very important to many people all across the province. I am very pleased to add my name to this petition.

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a bit of a cold today, so I'll just read:

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy

Board Act disallowing the retroactive rate hike granted to Union Gas; and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes

that will protect consumers from further retroactive increases."

This is signed by hundreds and hundreds of constituents from Chatham-Kent and Essex, and I too have signed my name to it.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have an important petition from the people of Marathon in my riding of Thunder

Bay-Superior North.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the town of Marathon does not have a justice of the peace to serve our community and Heron Bay; and

"Whereas Marathon used to have two justices living here, however, they retired in 1995, and were never replaced;

"Whereas Marathon and Heron Bay residents are now forced to travel to Manitouwadge or Thunder Bay to acquire the services of a justice of the peace; this is

unacceptable and unfair;

"Therefore, we want the Ontario government to appoint a justice or several justices of the peace in Marathon."

This was sent to me by Rose Marie Comeau in Marathon, who has started a great campaign. I am very grateful to her for doing that, and I'm very happy to add my

name to this petition. I'll be reading it many times.

PENSION PLANS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my duty to submit a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario are concerned over the implications of

part XXV of Bill 198 as it affects pensioners and employees contributing to a pension

plan; and

"Whereas we would like to bring this issue to the attention of John O'Toole, our member of provincial Parliament for Durham, and the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: that the Minister of Finance comprehensively review all

sections of Bill 198 dealing with amendments to the Pension Benefits Act to ensure all current and former pension plan members are in no way disadvantaged. And we request that our Durham MPP, Mr

John O'Toole, and all members of the Legislature not support any legislation that would reduce pension plan benefits."

It's my understanding that's the intention of our minister and our Premier. I will sign and support this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

JUSTICE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

DANS LE DOMAINE DE LA JUSTICE

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 28, 2002, on the motion for second reading of Bill 213,

An Act to improve access to justice by amending the

Solicitors Act to permit contingency fees in certain circumstances, to modernize and reform the law as it relates to limitation periods by enacting a new Limitations Act and making related

amendments to other statutes, and to make changes with respect to the governance of the public accounting profession by amending the Public Accountancy Act / Projet de loi 213, Loi visant à

améliorer l'accès à la justice en modifiant la

Loi sur les procureurs pour autoriser les honoraires conditionnels dans certaines circonstances, à moderniser et à

réviser le droit portant sur les délais de prescription en édictant la nouvelle

Loi sur la prescription des actions et en apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois,

et à modifier les règles qui régissent la profession de comptable public en modifiant la

Loi sur la comptabilité publique.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Further debate?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to continue the debate, but I must make it very clear at the beginning that I'm sharing my time with the

Attorney General of the province of Ontario.

I would like to just conclude, as I was speaking last week at the end of the sessional day, and I hadn't taken enough time to really make it clear on the

record that I have the greatest respect for the difficult but necessary decisions that our Attorney General, David Young, has made. For those just tuning in, the table has just read a very

comprehensive, rather succinct title for this bill, but for those viewing, I've encouraged our Attorney General to summarize the responses that he believes are being addressed in this

legislation.

For those viewing,

schedule A deals with changes to the contingency fee agreement,

schedule B deals with the Limitations Act, harmonizing it to some extent,

and

schedule C makes amendments to the Public Accountancy Act. I believe that, in all cases, our Attorney General has consulted. I believe in all three pieces. It's long overdue and I firmly look

forward to the comments that will be made by our Attorney General for the province of Ontario, the Honourable David Young. At this time, I will relinquish my time to the honourable minister.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member from Durham who, today as with every other day

in this Legislative Assembly, distinguishes himself. He does an exemplary job in representing the people of Durham. We are very pleased to have him here, and undoubtedly his constituents have good

reason to feel the same way. He clearly understands this bill. He indicated that through his remarks, which began the other day and continued this afternoon.

I certainly am pleased to rise today to join this debate on the Justice Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002. This is indeed a very important bill. It is a bill

that touches upon a number of issues that are important to the people of Ontario. It's a bill that is necessary to ensure that our justice system and various other aspects of this province continue

to operate in an efficient and fair manner. A justice system that treats all citizens equally and fairly is indeed the cornerstone of any free and democratic society. Every citizen, regardless of

social or economic status, is entitled to be treated with dignity, entitled to be treated with respect, and that is true at every step of the legal process. The Ontario government believes that

fair and equal treatment of all citizens requires a justice system that is open and accessible to all.

forward with the Justice Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002, and in it there are a number of initiatives that we believe will improve access to justice in this province. We have proposed important

reforms that will make the law more clear, that will make the law understandable and will also ensure that the right of all to have access to the court isn't decided based upon one's financial

standing in society.

I'll begin, if I may, by talking about addressing the affordability issue. Simply put, the cost of using the legal system should not act as a barrier to

justice. That's why we have introduced an amendment to the Solicitors Act that is contained within the bill that we're here to debate today. If that amendment is passed, it would modernize the way

legal fees are regulated, giving all Ontarians greater protection, greater flexibility and improved access to the courts across this province.

The proposed legislation would regulate the way individuals enter into contingency fees with their lawyer.

I will pause to note the member from St Paul's presence in the assembly at this point in time. I do want to say that that particular member has brought forward

not one but two bills to the Legislative Assembly. As I have said to the media and I have said publicly, I do thank him for bringing this issue forward. I do thank him for the thoughtful way that

he has introduced his initiatives, his proposals, to the Legislative Assembly, and for the level of dialogue that has taken place by reason on the introduction of those bills. I also look forward

to hearing his comments later today with reference to our proposal that we have placed in the front of the members of this assembly. I do think that we must take a moment to acknowledge the

excellent work that he has done in this regard. I thank you, sir, through the Speaker.

For those watching who may not be familiar with the terms "contingency fee" or "contingency arrangements," let me say that what they do is they tie legal fees

to the outcome of a particular case. Under such arrangements, if the client wins a case, there was likely a pre-arranged fee. If the client does not win, in most instances the client does not pay.

In this way, individuals would be given the option of negotiating a different financial arrangement with their lawyers at an early stage in the proceedings so that unpredictable legal fees and

upfront costs wouldn't serve as a barrier to one having access to justice.

Lower- and middle-income Ontarians should not have to mortgage their families' future in order to exercise their legal rights, and this legislation is designed

to ensure that they do not have to do so.

In September of this year, the Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of contingency fees in a case involving a plaintiff by the name of McIntyre. In a very

thoughtful and well-reasoned decision, Associate Chief Justice O'Connor made a number of comments that are very helpful in understanding where and how contingency fees should work in this province.

In his decision, toward the end, he included a paragraph. With your permission, I will quote from it.

He said, "Notwithstanding my conclusion that contingency fee agreements should no longer be absolutely prohibited at common law, I urge the government of

Ontario to accept the advice that it has been given for many years to enact legislation permitting and regulating contingency fee agreements in a comprehensive and in a coordinated manner. There

are obvious advantages to having a regulatory scheme that is clearly and specifically addressed in a single legislative enactment. There is no reason why Ontario, like other jurisdictions in

Canada, should not enact such a scheme."

He goes on to say that his comments aren't intended to apply to family law matters, in which different factors should apply.

That was in September of this year. We listened to Justice O'Connor, began our consultation with various stakeholders and brought forward to the assembly a

bill that we think addresses the very important issue that he spoke about in the McIntyre case.

We suggest that by modernizing the way legal fees are regulated and ensuring strong public protections, Ontarians would benefit from a new tool, contingency

agreements, that would help them deal with the escalating costs of hiring a lawyer. In particular, the very complex cases that often involve very lengthy and costly preparation would be ones that

in some instances, without contingency fees, might serve as a bar to a potential plaintiff, yet some of these cases are among the most important to bring forward to the courts of this province, not

only for the individuals or organizations who happen to be directly involved in those cases, but to others across the province. One must remember that the law is an evolutionary process by which

the common law adjusts to ever-changing realities of society. This further highlights the importance of affordability.

Decisions about whether to initiate a lawsuit must be made on the basis of justice and restitution, not on whether or not you can afford a lawyer. Allowing

contingency fee agreements will help to ensure that such decisions are less the product of pocketbook considerations and are based to a much greater extent on the principles of justice.

known as Coronation Insurance v. Florence, the following:

"The concept of contingency fees ... is to make court proceedings available to people who could not otherwise afford to have their legal rights determined.

This is indeed a commendable goal that should be encouraged.... Legal rights are illusory and no more than a source of frustration if they cannot be recognized and enforced."

Contingency fee agreements in which clients incur costs only in the event of a successful lawsuit ensure that all Ontarians can have their legal rights

recognized and enforced. As Justice Cory explained, recognition and enforcement help to ensure that rights are not illusions but are in fact real and effective protections and guarantees.

Ensuring that no one is left out of the justice system requires more than simply providing the public with new flexibility. We must also see to it that strong

public protections are in place so that clients who win settlements are not burdened with what some may describe as unreasonable legal fees. To allow large portions of settlements to go to lawyers

instead of to clients and victims would compromise the very principle of restitution. That's why we will consult widely before finalizing the regulatory framework that is contemplated by this

legislation, and we will ensure that a fair and reasonable balance exists between the interests of lawyers and of their clients.

Contingency agreements are not new to Canada. I think as one is looking at this bill they should consider what has gone on in other provinces across this

country. They should also consider what has gone on in this province. In fact, contingency fees are not new to Ontario either as they have historically been permitted in class-action lawsuits and

in other non-litigious matters in this province. However, as a result of the Court of Appeal decision that I just referenced and another decision of Justice Cronk from the Court of Appeal that was

rendered at roughly the same point in time, we in this province feel as though it is an appropriate time for us to come forward with a scheme that will help to regulate this area. Courts have said

that contingency fees are legal. It is now our obligation to come forward and ensure there are appropriate regulations in place. If this bill passes, there will be appropriate regulations in

place.

As I mentioned earlier, many of the provinces have had experiences with contingency fees. Some of them have permitted these arrangements as far back as the

early 1970s. A very important ruling occurred in the McIntyre decision -- we certainly are very cognizant of that -- and as well by Justice Cronk in a case involving the Raphael law firm. We think

that the bill we have brought forward will allow for this Legislature to appropriately respond to the public protection measures that are necessary and must be in place in order for contingency

fees to operate, and operate well, within this province.

In addition, the Law Society of Upper Canada's rules of professional conduct regulate lawyers' ethical behaviour, and

the law society's complaints and discipline process provides an accessible means by which those standards can be enforced. One must remember that there are a number of safeguards, checks and

balances in place, some of which have been in place in the past and will continue in place, and some of which will be added to and enhanced if this legislation passes.

I appreciate there may be some concern about stories that they hear from south of the border. Indeed, contingency fees do exist in the United States. I would

suggest to you that there are some very important differences between the law in this country and what we are proposing on the one side, and the experience in many states south of the border on the

other side.

I would like to take a moment to explain some of the important differences between our legal system and the American system, differences that I believe will

keep a lid on the settlements and will ensure the system operates well and to the benefit of the injured party and all the litigants in any particular matter.

In the United States, the concept that a losing party may expect to pay part of the legal costs of the winning party doesn't exist in most jurisdictions.

Instead, parties are generally responsible for their own costs. The fact that an American plaintiff doesn't face that downside risk similar to the sort of risk that exists in Canada we believe has

a significant impact upon the matter. In Canada, the general rule is that the losing party will pay the costs of the winning party. Now there are exceptions and there is discretion that can be and

often is exercised on the part of the court, but the general rule remains the same.

Further, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a trilogy of decisions in the 1970s, I believe, limited the amount of court awards for non-economic loss,

non-pecuniary general damages, losses such as pain and suffering and loss of amenities and reduced life expectancy. At that time, in three different cases, the Supreme Court of Canada indicated

that there should be a limit upon the maximum amount that can be awarded for those losses. With the passage of time, there has been some increase to the original cap to re