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

October 22, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Oct-22 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 22 October 2001 Lundi 22 octobre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

TRANSIT SERVICES

OPTOMETRISTS

FIREFIGHTERS' MEMORIAL

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF CHIEFS OF POLICE

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

CANADIAN FORCES

EVENTS IN DURHAM

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROPAGANDA

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ

EN MATIÈRE DE PROPAGANDE

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

BORDER SECURITY

TAXATION

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

WATER QUALITY

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

LABOUR DISPUTE

TAX CREDIT

MINING INDUSTRY

AIR QUALITY

FORT HENRY

EDUCATION FUNDING

PETITIONS

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

OHIP SERVICES

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

OHIP SERVICES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

OHIP SERVICES

HIGHWAY 407

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

OHIP SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Monday 22 October 2001 Lundi 22 octobre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Today I would like to address the issue of the Sherbourne Health Centre Corp. I start by saying

the government has a mantra, which is "Promises made, promises kept." But when it comes to health care, from the beginning, when Mike Harris said in debate, "It is not my intention to close

hospitals," my riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale has been the ground zero of failure on the part of this government to deliver on its health care commitments.

The decision was made to close the Wellesley hospital and force its merger with St Mike's. In response to that, the Health Services Restructuring Commission, on

June 23, 1997, made a commitment to the people of Toronto Centre-Rosedale that their primary health care needs would be met through the opening of an ambulatory care centre to be located on the

Wellesley Central Hospital site.

Here we stand, more than four years later, and the government has yet to deliver on this commitment. Communities have been forced to try to access health

services which are in too short supply. The government is being forced to spend dollars that it need not spend because people are seeking access in emergency wards.

In request after request after request to successive Ministers of Health on that side, all we see is stalling; some dollars here and there to support

administrative costs, but nothing to the bottom line responsibility of providing the necessary supports in health care to the people of Toronto Centre-Rosedale, many of whom are from immigrant

communities and who are poor. I say to this government and to that minister in particular that it is time to put your money where your promises were.

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I rise today to salute the entrepreneurs of my riding of Mississauga East. Today marks the first day of

Small Business Week in Ontario, and I'd like to share with the House the contributions made by small business in my community.

Small business creates more than half of all new jobs in Ontario. Fifty-three per cent of net new jobs are created by small businesses with less than 50

employees.

In Mississauga alone there are over 9,000 small businesses employing over 90,000 employees. Since first being elected in 1995, I have seen the business

development of my riding expand, thanks to the initiative of local entrepreneurs and the support programs available through our government.

I'm proud to be part of a government that has helped foster this growth and development. Through tax cuts, a balanced budget, the elimination of red tape and the

removal of barriers, we have laid a solid foundation for both existing and new small businesses.

We have done a lot of work in this area. We have established support resources such as the small business enterprise centres. For new Canadians, the business

immigration services helps immigrants involved in business with investment and business establishment decisions. We have also established the young entrepreneurs strategy, helping young people with

loans up to $15,000.

Today, I applaud Mississauga's business owners and employees for their contribution to the economic success and quality of life in Ontario. I salute their

success over the years and wish them continued prosperity.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): For quite a few years now, many of us in public life have been debating how to manage the urban problems that

arise from growth and the sprawl that comes with it. This dialogue has come to be called smart growth. Far too often, the solution proposed has only exacerbated the problems we were trying to

remedy, and we know what the ensuing results are: endless traffic gridlock, a drastic increase in air pollution and its negative effects on our health, and ongoing political battles over who should

get money to build bigger roads on which to put more cars.

It's in this context that I am pleased to tell the House today about the great progress that is being made in the Ottawa area. Last week, residents of that great

city were introduced to a light-rail transit option, courtesy of a pilot project being run by Ottawa's public transportation system. The project will run over the next year and links the south end

of the city with the east-west transitway at a junction less than a mile from Parliament Hill.

I had the opportunity to take one of the first trips aboard what has become known as the O-Train. This marks a significant new

chapter in public transportation

in the national capital area. Along with the recent announcements by the provincial government to fund further municipal transportation, I hope this marks the beginning of a new era.

Congratulations are in order to everyone in Ottawa, and particularly to the transit group and Mayor Bob Chiarelli, who worked tirelessly to bring about this

project from the drawing board to reality. To everyone else, I invite you to come and experience, free of charge, a new light rail transit system.

OPTOMETRISTS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This government should be moving promptly with amendments to Ontario's Optometry Act to give optometrists in

Ontario the legal power to prescribe and administer certain therapeutic pharmaceutical agents.

Optometrists are incredibly well trained and perfectly qualified to prescribe, as a result of their diagnosis, certain of these drugs for any number of very

common eye ailments, but the restrictive legislation here in Ontario doesn't give them that power. Indeed, down in Niagara, like in most of Ontario with its incredible shortage of ophthalmologists,

people suffering from any number of eye diseases -- including these diseases and disorders that optometrists are eager to treat as well as diagnose -- are increasingly being denied access because

of the shortage of ophthalmologists and this government's artificial cap on their billing capacity.

We know that these optometrists are trained and qualified to do it. Indeed, six jurisdictions in Canada already give them this power and capacity. Extending that

authority, that power, to optometrists will improve the access that people in all our communities have to effective and speedy eye care and will start to address, in a very cost-effective way, the

significant shortage of physicians and other health care services that this government has played no small

part in creating. This government can now be part of the solution.

FIREFIGHTERS' MEMORIAL

Mr Bob Wood (London West): Last week, I introduced a bill to establish a memorial at Queen's Park to honour the Ontario firefighters who have

lost their lives in the line of duty.

One important function of this building and its environs is to show people the possibilities of the future, and they have performed that function well over the

past century. Honouring those who have made contributions in the past is an essential way of inspiring people for the future. We do that here now for people who have served in elected office, the

military and the police.

We are, of course, all well aware of the skill, dedication and courage that firefighters bring to their work. There are now a number of firefighter memorials

across the province, and all are fitting and appropriate. It is, however, at Queen's Park that the elected representatives of the people meet to do the people's business, and Queen's Park is

necessarily at the centre of the public life of Ontario. Queen's Park is indeed a place for all the people of Ontario to do public business.

It is for that reason that I propose a firefighters' memorial now at Queen's Park, so that all Ontarians may pay homage to those who have sacrificed for us in

the past and so that we may be inspired by their example to build a better future.

I ask all members of the House to support this bill.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF CHIEFS OF POLICE

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): The 108th Annual Conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police will take place in Toronto October 27 to

31. Along with thousands of police chiefs, other law enforcement personnel and special guests from around the world will be in attendance.

Founded in 1893, the IACP is the world's largest and oldest non-profit organization of police executives and has over 18,000 members in 99 countries, including

Canada. The association's goals are to advance the science and art of police services; to develop and disseminate improved administrative, technical and operational practices and promote their use

in police work; to foster police co-operation and the exchange of information and experience among police administrators throughout the world; to bring about recruitment and training in the police

profession of qualified persons; and to encourage adherence of all police officers to high professional standards of performance and conduct.

At the conference the law enforcement executives will have the opportunity to attend workshops in over 90 topics, including: Every Chief has a Role in Winning

the War against Terrorism; Effective Recruiting for Smaller Police Departments; and also, Reducing Police Use of Deadly Force through Proactive Management.

I am absolutely sure I speak for all of us in this Legislature when I welcome the members of IACP to Canada, Ontario and Toronto and wish you great success in

the hard work you do to create a safer world in which we all can live.

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): I would like to take this opportunity during Small Business Week to highlight two very exciting business

ventures that have been launched by high school students in my beautiful riding of Thornhill.

Two local Westmount Collegiate students are getting the jump on their journalism careers and hanging out with some of the music industry's biggest pop stars.

Senior students Adam Gonshor and Mike Levine never dreamed of the success they would have when they first created their music Web site www.andpop.com. Some of

the bands they have met and interviewed include NSYNC, Dream, Sugar Jones, O'Town and soulDecision.

Adam and Mike started the site dedicated to pop music news, pictures and biographies for big stars and lesser-known artists from the US and Canada in August

2000. As a result of the success of their Web site, the two students, Adam and Mike, have enjoyed being guests of major record labels at events, including the Canadian Juno Awards, and have been

hosting contests sponsored by major labels and their artists.

Thornlea Secondary School students Laurie Rose, Josh Sookman and John Carbrey are on a mission to accommodate the 1.5 million Canadians who shop on-line. These

young computer whizzes taught themselves the basics of computer programming, and after seven months their www.shopstix.com site was up and running. Today the site contains a directory of products

from 725 Canadian stores, grouped into categories ranging from health and fitness to parenting.

Congratulations to the young Thornhill entrepreneurs and the best of luck to them all in their exciting adventures.

CANADIAN FORCES

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): With Remembrance Day fast approaching, which this year will be on Sunday, November 11, less than three weeks

away, let us all stop and reflect. Especially this year, after the catastrophe of September 11, let us reflect on the enormous sacrifices made by so many in days gone by to defend and protect the

rights and freedoms we enjoy as Canadians.

Let us remember the bravery and the courage of so many war veterans who gave so much, and now we see a new generation of men and women in the war against

terrorism. These brave Canadians are defending not only us, but also the civilized world against the unprecedented threat of worldwide terrorism.

Let us hope and pray that the evil and the destructive force known as terrorism will be eradicated from this earth. Let us hope that our brave young men and

women from all parts of Canada will return safely, and let us hope that they are not taken for granted and forgotten.

So on November 11, let us make sure we take time to stop and say thanks and pray for our brave sons and daughters who have again gone off to a distant shore to

defend this great country and our cherished Canadian values and freedoms.

EVENTS IN DURHAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House to tell the members about the success of the Bowmanville Legion Pipe Band and the celebration of

its latest milestone.

The band was founded in 1951 with the assistance of the members of the General Motors Pipe Band, who taught some of the original members. The band marked its

50th anniversary Saturday, September 15 with a dinner and dance at Branch 178 of the Bowmanville Royal Canadian Legion.

The Bowmanville Legion Pipe Band captured the Canadian championship for grade 4 pipe bands in Fort Erie this summer, and placed first three times in competitions

this year alone. Currently it has approximately 20 pipers and drummers of all ages. Students as young as seven are learning to play the pipes under the direction of Don Brooks, the band's

instructor and most senior member. Mr Brooks has been named lifetime honorary pipe major.

I'd like to extend congratulations to Pipe Major Jim Scott, the leader of the Bowmanville Legion Pipe Band, as well as pipers Don Brooks, Gord Adams, Kevin

Wilson, Bill Colville, Ruth Ann Doiron, Joe Doiron, Mark Foster, George Findlay Sr, Rick Patterson, Jerry Taylor; and drummers Ted Berlinghoff, Doug Delaney, Greg Findlay, John Findlay, George

Findlay Jr -- there are three Findlays in the band -- John Westover, Mike Laverty, Tom Hughes, Erica Watson and Ursula Loch.

I'd like to extend my congratulations to them for their dedication and hard work for providing entertainment and music and tradition for all the people of

Ontario.

VISITORS

Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to acknowledge the presence of the proud parents of

Benoît Poirier, page from Ottawa-Vanier. So, Monsieur et Madame Poirier, et félicitations, Benoît.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROPAGANDA

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ

EN MATIÈRE DE PROPAGANDE

Mr Kormos moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 115,

An Act to amend the Audit Act to require the Provincial Auditor to evaluate and report on the extent to which government advertising complies with

guidelines / Projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la vérification des comptes publics de façon à exiger du Vérificateur provincial qu'il évalue la mesure selon

laquelle la publicité gouvernementale est conforme aux lignes directrices et qu'il en fasse rapport.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This bill is in response to a number of concerns raised over several years. It amends the Audit Act to assign

to the Provincial Auditor the function of evaluating the extent to which government advertising complies with stated guidelines, those guidelines expressed in this bill. If the auditor is of the

opinion that government advertising is designed to promote or has the effect of promoting the interests of the party forming the government, he or she may recommend that the consolidated revenue

fund be reimbursed for the cost. The evaluations and any recommendations are dealt with in the auditor's annual report.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from

6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, October 22, Tuesday, October 23, Wednesday, October 24, Monday, October 29, Tuesday, October 30, and Wednesday, October 31, 2001, for the purpose of considering

government business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mrs Ecker moves that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday,

October 22, Tuesday, October 23, Wednesday, October -- dispense? No? OK -- Wednesday, October 24, Monday, October 29, Tuesday, October 30, Wednesday, October 31, 2001, for the purpose of

considering government business.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 73; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health. Last week -- Thursday, in fact -- I visited with

parents, doctors and nurses in connection with your decision to make cuts to the pediatric programs at the London Health Sciences Centre, and I can tell you that those people are feeling angry and

betrayed. Just before calling the 1999 provincial election, at a time when your government was fully aware that parents in southwestern Ontario had special concerns about cuts that might be made to

specialized pediatric programs, your government made a very specific promise. Not only did you promise that there would be no cuts to those specialized pediatric programs, but your predecessor

actually said she would consider additional resources to support those existing programs.

The question I have for you on behalf of those people in southwestern Ontario, but especially the families, is, why have you betrayed the people of

southwestern Ontario?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Mr Speaker, let me make a series of assurances through you to the members of this

House. First of all, the base funding for this particular hospital has increased 26% from the last fiscal year alone. Indeed, from 1997-98 to the present, their funding has increased by 36.7%. That

is our commitment to that particular hospital.

The scoping exercise that was undertaken by the hospital board is estimated to impact approximately 1% of all patient activity at the hospital. I can tell this

House that when it comes to clinical outcomes, that is what we are focused on. If the experts and the trustees made the decision that they cannot do these types of procedures in a way that

accentuates and ensures the best clinical outcomes, then changes have to be made, and I would support them on that.

Mr McGuinty: I can understand why the minister doesn't want to deal with the question directly; it's very embarrassing.

Here's a copy of the newspaper

article which recounted the promise. The headline reads, "Children's Hospital Won't Lose Cardiac Transplant Services." Your

predecessor is specifically quoted as saying there was a review and that there has been a recognition of the fact that these programs have been delivered with a long history of innovation and

excellence in London.

That was what you said prior to the election. I've got to hand it to you, Minister: you and your government were very effective at fooling the people. You even

had the pediatric cardiac surgeon, Dr Lee, fooled. Dr Lee was so relieved that you were keeping those programs in his community and at his hospital that he appeared in one of your campaign ads.

This is what he says now, and I quote: "I feel that I was lied to and used, and I can tell you that those sentiments are shared by other parents and doctors in

the community."

I ask you again, why did you promise to keep those programs open? Wasn't it the fact that you were really playing politics with people's lives?

Hon Mr Clement: I can assure this House that that is absolutely not the case. Our main concern has been, is and will be that patients receive

the best possible clinical care, the best quality of care imaginable in the province of Ontario. That is what we are focused in on, and in this case the recommendations came back that that simply

was not possible in the programs to which he refers. The president and CEO of the hospital has said the hospital cannot be all things to all people and sustain itself as a centre of excellence.

That point of view has been backed up by an editorial in the London Free Press on October 4 that said it is a plan to boost core medical services locally and

pass off others that lacked a critical mass of patients and doctors. That is in fact what it is. The best clinical outcomes mean that sometimes others who have more experience and more clinical

practice do those procedures, and we support that.

Mr McGuinty: Your government made a specific promise. When London area seats were on the line, when parents said, "We're very concerned about

cuts to our programs," your government said, "Don't worry; it's going to go away. We're going to make sure that we don't make any cuts to those programs." Your predecessor specifically said there

had been a review and there has been a recognition of the fact that these programs have been delivered with a long history of innovation and excellence in London. People believed you then. They

counted on you keeping your promises made at that time, but, as they say, that was then and this is now. The question I put to you on behalf of the parents and children of southwestern Ontario is,

why have you betrayed them?

Hon Mr Clement: Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we are absolutely focused in on making sure patients receive the best

clinical care, the best quality care.

If the honourable member is skeptical about our commitment to that, I would refer the honourable member to what the deputy chief coroner for Ontario said about

London pediatric programs. He said that his recommendations that those programs be wound down are consistent with what extensive research around the world has shown: that the success of pediatric

cardiac surgeries increased significantly when the programs were consolidated, ensuring high case volumes.

The deputy chief coroner is saying that practice makes perfect. When you want quality of care, it occurs where you have the majority of those clinical

practices taking place. In this case, it is not at the London hospital. We support the best possible clinical care for our kids and our patients.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Every year, Ontario exports

$200 billion worth of goods and, as you know, 93% of those exports go south of the border to the US. Some 1.5 million Ontario jobs depend directly on trade with the US.

Minister, I think you also understand that despite the importance of trade to our economy, the Canadian-American border is stuck in the Dark Ages. It seems

ridiculous to me that in this, the information age, in this, the era of information technology, by and large what happens at the border, as you well know, is that somebody shows up in a rig. They

are then seen for the very first time, and people ask them questions like, "Who are you? What are you carrying in terms of cargo? Where are you coming from, and where are you going to?"

I think what we need is a new system of pre-inspections. We need greater use of transponders. We need to find some way to pre-register these people. We should

be looking at ID cards and other options that would help us better stream and facilitate the free flow of traffic across the border.

My question is, what are you doing to help relieve congestion at our border?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I think the leader of the official opposition is aware that this is a

concern for all of us, not just in Ontario but nationally, with respect to congestion and the importance of cross-border traffic, not just for the Ontario and Canadian economies but for many US

states as well.

That's one of the reasons we held a New York-Ontario summit in June, where we had participants from both sides of the border. Certainly cross-border traffic

was an important part of that two-day conference. We will be having recommendations coming out of that report, I would hope, by mid-November.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I was in Windsor on Thursday, and I held a fact-finding meeting with some local business leaders. I met with the past

president of the chamber of commerce and with some representatives of the NAFTA superhighway effort, I met with some of the staff from the consul general's office in Detroit and I met with

representatives of the bridge and tunnel organizations.

What they impressed upon me was the need for urgent action by all levels of government. While the federal government must assume some responsibility in this

regard, I would ask you to consider taking some responsibility to reverse the downloading of the Huron Church Road. When you consider the traffic that is moving through Windsor and along that road,

I would argue that this road is of economic significance to the entire province.

What I am asking you to do now is consider reversing the downloading of the Huron Church Road and then proceed with infrastructure improvements. You have

committed $1 billion; you have only allocated $14 million. Understanding that this road is of provincial economic interest, will you agree to upload that road and then begin infrastructure

improvements?

Hon Mr Runciman: We are indeed concerned about infrastructure. In terms of improving traffic flow, that's a critical component; there's no

question about it. But there are a number of other factors as well. We've talked about pre-clearance zones. We've had discussions with our friends in both Michigan and New York states with respect

to seeing if we can improve that situation.

The difficulty we've bumped into on a number of occasions has been the intransigence of the federal Liberal government to move in a number of these areas to

expedite traffic flow.

I stand to be corrected, but with respect to Windsor and looking at improvement of traffic flow, I do not believe Windsor has made an application in terms of

prioritization of traffic flow across the international border. In the programs they have applied for to the province, that has not been a priority in the city of Windsor.

Mr McGuinty: I can tell you on the basis of my visit and the information that I've received, it is at the top of the list in terms of ensuring

that we have improvements to the Huron Church Road at the earliest possible opportunity. You are quite right, Minister. I will agree with you on this: the federal government must assume some

responsibility to facilitate the free flow of goods, services and people along the border. But I think it's important that we here in Ontario at the provincial government level also assume our

responsibilities.

The Huron Church Road is not just a road in Windsor. It is the busiest border crossing in North America. It moves a tremendous amount of truck traffic through

each and every day. We need a trade corridor. It needs to be free-flowing. Somewhere between Montreal and Florida there are some 14 traffic lights. Do you know where all those traffic lights are? I

think you know the answer. They're on the Huron Church Road.

I think what we need to do is to begin to invest in improving that road so it better expedites the free flow of traffic. As you know, in a just-in-time world,

congestion is a job-killer. This is a matter of urgency; it's a matter of interest to the entire province. I ask you, Minister, will you commit to uploading the Huron Church Road, making it a

provincial responsibility, and then begin to improve it?

Hon Mr Runciman: I've said this before and I'll say it again: the irony of this question is that it's coming from the Liberal Party of

Ontario, which very vigorously opposed free trade between Canada and the United States. Now we've seen what a positive impact it's had on the economy of this province, let alone this country.

Our government is very much committed to ensuring that these borders not only improve but in fact that we do not jeopardize the free flow of traffic across

these borders. We need the co-operation of the federal Liberal government. We are, as a government, sponsoring a round table on border crossings on November 2, where we're bringing 50 to 60 of the

top CEOs in this province to talk about solutions in terms of improving and looking 15, 20 years down the road.

I'm advised that MTO, the Michigan Department of Transportation, Transport Canada and the US Federal Highway Administration are working together to develop a

single integrated planning process to provide additional capacity at the Windsor-Detroit gateway. All alternatives, including the Huron Church Road, will be considered as part of that planning

process.

TAXATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Finance and it concerns how many jobs will have to be lost in

Ontario before the Minister of Finance shows some leadership and announces a sales tax holiday for the province.

Every day more working people lose their jobs and every lost job is more evidence that your tired agenda of cutting corporate taxes is a failure. Stelco has

just announced 435 layoffs in Hamilton and Welland. The restaurant industry has warned you of thousands of layoffs to come in that industry. I was just at the Jacuzzi Canada factory, where 116

workers are facing the loss of their jobs from a shutdown of that plant.

Leadership is needed now, before Ontario loses more jobs. Will you give the economy a boost, will you give consumer confidence a boost and announce a sales tax

holiday now?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I appreciate the leader of the third party's suggestions with respect to tax cuts. I'm

pleased, of course, as finance minister, that he now supports tax cuts in the province of Ontario, having voted against our proposals with respect to tax cuts for years now, since 1995, in this

Legislature. So the conversion is welcomed.

Now we have to look at what tax cuts work most effectively in our economy. Our view on this side of the House, based on the experience we've had, led by

Premier Harris since 1995, is that reductions in personal income tax in particular have the most beneficial effect for sustainable, long-term job creation in the province. It is for that reason

that the Premier announced that the reductions in personal income tax that were scheduled to come into effect on January 1, 2002, have been accelerated to October 1, 2001.

Mr Hampton: The question was about extending a sales tax holiday for the 11 million consumers across the province.

Since you've become finance minister, Ontario has lost 26,000 jobs, and your only response is to come out with your tired old one-trick story of another

corporate tax cut.

Minister, it's consumer confidence that's in question. Consumer confidence in the United States is already suffering. Consumer confidence here is also on the

wane. When are you going to do the right thing to address consumer confidence? Forget about giving another tax cut to your corporate buddies. Declare a sales tax holiday for the hard-pressed

consumers of the province.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I appreciate the member opposite's views, and if he has other suggestions, I welcome them as well. Certainly all policy

options are considered.

We are in the midst of a building boom in Ontario that's funded, to a significant extent, by in excess of $8 billion in SuperBuild spending. This is the third

fiscal year of that spending. All the spending that people see around their communities in Ontario -- hospitals being built, additions going on hospitals, brand new schools throughout the province,

expansion of highways -- all of that is that more than $8 billion of spending which, due to preplanning, is now having its stimulant effect in the economy of Ontario.

In context, yes, we are in an economic slowdown; yes, we have the effects of September 11. But a total of 836,000 net new jobs have been created in Ontario

since the throne speech in 1995. That's the record of the Mike Harris government in Ontario.

Mr Hampton: Minister, we're talking about now. We're talking about the thousands of people who have lost their jobs in the last three or four

months and the hundreds who face announcements this week. The only response we've heard from you was a phony, bogus announcement last week that you were going to reduce the PST for performers at

benefit concerts.

You know as well as I that in fact that's already covered in the regulations. Your announcement was completely phony. That's always been the case where

performers perform for free.

Minister, instead of issuing phony announcements, instead of talking about your corporate tax cuts, which only go to those corporations that have a profit, how

about doing something to benefit the consumers across this province? Announce a sales tax holiday now, and announce it on the things that people need: winter clothing, school supplies, things that

people need, and if they purchase them, they'll help restore consumer confidence. How about it, Minister?

Hon Mr Flaherty: Speaker, we are in favour of benefit concerts like the ones performed recently in Ontario. They show dedication by those

performers who do that. The memorandum that was issued from my ministry dealt with confirmation that there is no PST charged on those matters, which is appropriate.

I welcome the suggestions from the member opposite. If he has more, I look forward to hearing them.

Today we announced that the fall economic statement will be made in the Legislature on November 6, following the tradition established in Ontario by my

predecessor Ernie Eves. I look forward at that time to dealing with economic matters in this place. If the member opposite has suggestions, or any members opposite have suggestions that they think

ought to be considered in the fall economic statement, I welcome them.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Health. Thousands of people across Ontario are asking you to

reverse your decision to delist the work of audiologists. You've received thousands of names on petitions, and recently you will have received correspondence from the chiefs of ear, nose and throat

specialty for the largest teaching hospitals in Ontario, telling you to reverse your decision, to not delist from OHIP the services of audiologists, because if you continue to do that, you are

going to chase thousands of audiologists from their practices in Ontario.

What is your response to all of those citizens who've sent you petitions and letters, and what is your response to the chiefs of ear, nose and throat specialty

from the largest teaching hospitals in Ontario?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I assume the honourable member is not reading verbatim what the letter would say,

because in fact there aren't thousands of audiologists affected. There are 300 audiologists affected, and we did not delist services. Those services are still listed via OHIP. They are available by

either ear, nose and throat specialists or audiologists working with ENT doctors. They are available through hospitals; they are available through clinics; they are available through doctors'

offices. I want to assure the people of Ontario that those particular functions and the clinical work are still available via OHIP to the public at large. I'm not sure how the honourable member is

reading the letter, but I would make those corrections to the record.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you will know that the chiefs of ear, nose and throat specialty at Sunnybrook and Women's College hospital, the chief at

St Mike's, the chief at Sick Kids, the chief at Toronto General Hospital and the chief at Mount Sinai have all said to you that if you continue with this ill-advised policy, audiologists will leave

this province.

They have also said to you that this will put especially children and families who have modest and low incomes at risk.

Your government was very successful at chasing thousands of nurses out of the province. Is it now your intention to do the same thing with audiologists? Please

listen to these specialists from the largest teaching hospitals in the province who are trying to tell you that you're going to do the same thing to audiologists that you did to nurses: that you

will chase them out of the hospital, and it will be poorest people in Ontario, and especially children, who will suffer the most from your ill-advised policy.

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member is making reference to medical specialists and their points of view. I wish to share with the House that

the recommendations involving this particular issue were made by the diagnostic hearing test subcommittee of what is called the Physician Services Committee. By its very title it obviously has

arrangement with respect to fees. This does come from physicians; it does come from experts. It in no way diminishes the ability to acquire these kinds of hearing tests and other procedures through

OHIP and it certainly is our intention to ensure that this is available through OHIP in the future as well.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. It seems that you and your federal leader, Stockwell Day,

think alike when it comes to the future of health care. Maybe it's appropriate that your new communications assistant comes straight from Mr Day's office, because your speeches are starting to

sound pretty similar.

Mr Day was talking this weekend about the value of bringing competition into health care and opening up the system to more private clinics. He was also talking

about the role of user fees: charging people for the care they receive when they're sick.

Minister, we know that you like private clinics. You set up the private cancer clinic. You talk about setting up private clinics for MRIs. We know that you

would rather fund private clinics than properly fund hospitals. So my question today is, how far are you going to go down Mr Day's road? You clearly support the establishment of private clinics. Do

you also agree with Mr Day that patients are costing the health care system too much and we should start charging people for care when they're sick?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Let me just state for the record that we've always had a mixture of public-private

delivery of publicly funded physicians' services and other health services in Ontario. The honourable member's doctor would be a private sector provider of health care. Diagnostics are sometimes

provided by the private sector, as well as nursing home services. It's not unusual to have a mix of that, and we continue to support an appropriate mix.

The honourable member brings into focus some of the federal issues involving this issue, and I agree with Prime Minister Jean Chrétien when he says that

the current system is unsustainable and we need to have new and innovative ways to look at our health care system. He has gone further than that and talked about user fees. That certainly would be

contrary to the Canada Health Act. His Minister of Health, the Honourable Allan Rock, has said that the current system is unsustainable, and certainly it is, given the level of federal funding. He

has asked for new and creative ideas, and that is what we're looking for. We certainly haven't heard it from the other side of the House.

Mrs McLeod: I was hoping that we would get from you today a categorical denial that you would consider expanding user fees for health care in

the province of Ontario, despite the fact that you're after the federal government to give you more flexibility to keep the doors open, despite the fact that we know that one of the doors that you

want to keep open is the idea of a medical savings account.

Minister, I say to you today what everybody should understand: a medical savings account is a private health care voucher, nothing less. Medical savings

accounts are a camouflage for charging huge user fees to the people who can least afford them. The sicker you are, the more you pay out of your own pocket for health care, and sick seniors get hit

the hardest.

Minister, I ask you today to give us an absolute assurance, to give an absolute assurance to the people of this province, that you will never consider bringing

this voucher for private health care into the province of Ontario.

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member is referring to some things that are not permissible under the current Canada Health Act. She knows that

her Prime Minister, my Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, has launched a royal commission which has as its head the former NDP Premier of Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow, who incidentally has said that

the current system is unsustainable and needs some creative thinking. They are charged with the responsibility of looking at all possible ways to reform our health care system to ensure that it

provides excellent, quality care, not only for us but for our children and our grandchildren. I support that process. If the honourable member has a problem with the Prime Minister of Canada or her

health minister in Ottawa, that's her problem. It certainly isn't my problem.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I'd like to ask all to join me in welcoming the students and the hard-working faculty of Monsignor John

Pereyma, who have joined --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Stop the clock. I appreciate the members and I don't get mad when it's done outside of question period. I

would appreciate it if we don't do it during question period. It does take away time if somebody is going to miss some questions for it. We're sorry to see them leave, but please don't do it during

question period. It is also very confusing. I see somebody stand up; I don't even know who's supposed to be asking the question.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. My riding of Waterloo-Wellington

includes a very large rural component but also a significant urban component in the city of Kitchener. My residents are concerned about a safe and secure supply of drinking water.

Can the minister inform the House what his ministry is doing to help protect our water supplies?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I thank the member from Waterloo-Wellington for the question. Certainly a

clean, secure supply of water is extremely important to all of us. That is one of the key objectives in the Ontario healthy futures program. That particular program also encompasses our municipal

and rural partners, that we work toward improving service in groundwater in a number of rural areas across the province.

As we all know, this member's riding is one of the richest agricultural communities in Ontario and it's one of the fastest-growing urban centres. That's why

our government has recently announced $740,000 in a $1-million initiative which is a joint partnership with municipalities, the conservation authority. the county, and local residents in the city

of Guelph, who are pitching in to protect their water supply.

Another example in that particular area is a commitment to rural water quality that involves the county of Huron, where through the healthy futures program

we've provided half the funding in a $5-million project aimed at helping landowners in implementing best --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr Arnott: I want to thank the minister for his answer and for his work in this area.

I know that he is also aware that the issues of water quality and supply in Waterloo-Wellington also encompass the need to repair the gates in the Conestoga

dam. The Conestoga dam is responsible for low-flow augmentation to enhance water quality in the Grand River. This means that when water levels are low at certain times of the year, the gates of the

dam are opened wider to allow more water into the river. This is vitally important because, at times, the Conestoga dam is responsible for up to 60% of the drinking water in the city of

Kitchener.

As I've stated a number of times in this House, three out of four of the gates in the Conestoga dam are broken and need to be fixed. The Grand River

Conservation Authority has approached the government, requesting financial assistance to help defray the $1.2- to $1.5-million cost of these necessary repairs. I have supported the position taken

by the GRCA, that being that the provincial government should be a major funding partner in the costs of these repairs. If the minister agrees with me that the government should be a major partner,

can he tell this House how and when this will happen?

Hon Brian Coburn: Certainly, as the member knows, we have a number of programs available to address these various situations that we're

confronted with. From my understanding, our staff are meeting with members of the Grand River Conservation Authority in the hope of partnering with them to resolve this particular issue and repair

the dam. At present, we're considering all of the programs that are available to us and all of the avenues.

I can assure members of this House that our government is committed to helping Ontario's rural communities. The Ontario small town and rural development

initiative, better known as OSTAR, is an example of this government's commitment to ensuring that rural Ontario has the resources to meet the infrastructure needs of today and tomorrow. We are

examining the options available to us under that particular program and others.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Five biohazard scientists have been fired; London, Ontario,

has lost a specialized pediatric

section at the London Health Sciences Centre; and in Sarnia-Lambton, the St Clair Child and Youth Services was denied $150,000 by your government for an

intervention program for families and children -- all of these cuts in the name of keeping costs down.

Here is the contradiction that I would like you to explain. Your figures show that in 1995, your Cabinet Offices were $7,858,000. At year end 2000, they were

$15,816,000. I checked the year 2001, and they have yet increased to $18,250,000. I'd like you to explain how come you approve of such a double standard.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I gather the figures that the member opposite was using relate to Cabinet Office. I

wasn't sure --

Ms Di Cocco: Cabinet Office.

Hon Mr Flaherty: Cabinet Office is part of the public service, as you know. It's the deputy minister's office to the Premier, and substantial

responsibilities are carried on by that office in service to the people of Ontario. If the concern is to have more detail with respect to the line-by-line budgeting of Cabinet Office, that can be

obtained.

Ms Di Cocco: Minister, this is a matter of finances. It's a matter of keeping operational costs down, which you have done across the board in

this province except in the Cabinet Office. You've increased your cabinet operational costs and they've skyrocketed by 116% since 1995.

You explain this increase to those scientists who were just fired, to the pediatric specialists in London, Ontario, and to the families affected in

Sarnia-Lambton by the closure of the Family Solutions program. Could you please explain that?

Hon Mr Flaherty: As the member will know, in the Common Sense Revolution and under the leadership of Premier Harris, the size of the Ontario

public service has been reduced dramatically since 1995. Not only that, but since 1995 the Ontario public service has been called upon to perform quite a significant restructuring. All of that is

supervised in the Ontario public service through Cabinet Office, which I'm sure accounts for a great deal of the growth in the work of that office over the course of the past six years.

The point -- and I'm sure the honourable member is concerned about saving money in government -- is that there has been substantial downsizing of the Ontario

public service, but the level of performance -- the standards as performed by the Ontario public service -- has gone up. You should be proud of the public service in Ontario.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. You well know that my Durham riding includes the

Oak Ridges moraine, plus extensive forests and farmlands. We also have important wetlands and lakes and streams -- just a great place to live and work and raise a family. You can well appreciate

the commitment Durham riding residents have toward the stewardship of our environment. I can hardly stop and think for a moment of John Thomson, who is chair of the Orono Crown Lands Trust, a newly

formed committee; Reverend Frank Lockhart from Valleys 2000; and Protect the Ridges group, as well as the Scugog Shores Millennium Project. All of these people demand the highest regard to

sustainable environmental attitude.

Minister, can you advise us today what's occurring in Ontario to promote leaner, more sustainable energy forms such as wind forms?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): A sustainable and clean environment is a very important part of our electricity

restructuring plans in the province of Ontario.

The member will know that we plan to open a competitive market by May of next year in the electricity sector, and that's opening up for the first time

opportunities for green energy suppliers.

In August, Ontario Power Generation erected, for example, North America's largest new wind turbine at the Pickering nuclear power station. At full power, this

turbine could supply enough electricity for some 1,800 homes. The Pickering wind turbine project is part of OPG's $50-million commitment to expand its green power holdings by May 2005.

In the past, these wind power projects or sustainable energy electricity projects were not permitted by previous governments. The opening up of the electricity

market to competition allows us to move forward on these projects for the first time.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for that detailed response, Minister. I know you know that Durham is the home to two nuclear facilities as

well as the future concept of sustainable energy, the ITER project. I know you've talked about it. You visited my riding. It's good to see that alternative forms of energy sources are being

considered seriously, and I thank you for your strong leadership in that category.

Will there be any other wind project or energy developments in Ontario besides the OPG-British Energy project in the future?

Hon Mr Wilson: Well, the OPG-British Energy project is the second wind power project that is designed to be installed near Kincardine,

Ontario. There will be a series of new windmills there, and it will supply power for quite a few hundred homes also.

The Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative: other governments have talked about this but it never really got off the ground. It's a community-based wind energy

developer. It's partnering with Toronto Hydro Energy Services to construct two to three large wind turbines on Toronto's waterfront in the next year.

There are several other private sector projects expected to be built around the province. We know, having done a study across the province recently, sort of an

overview of the potential for wind energy in particular, there are some very good sites. You will find, if you look at those sites, that there are private sector bidders right now trying to acquire

the land in many sites across the province.

Again, none of this was possible without the restructuring of the electricity sector, and I'm very proud that something will be --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister's time is up. New question.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Under your labour laws in the province of Ontario, does an

employer's dissatisfaction with a union bargaining proposal constitute sufficient grounds to dismiss an entire workforce?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Having spent some time in this place, I think I'm prepared to wait for the supplementary. So let me

just hedge that with: I don't know. What are you talking about?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, supplementary to the minister, he knows very well what I'm talking about because I've spoken to him on this issue a

number of times last week.

You'll know that there are some 20 workers in Timmins at the St Mary's Manor who now have been served termination notices by their employer because the

employer refuses to go to the bargaining table. For three years, that employer has stalled bargaining, has not shown up at the table, and now, because the employees have been successful in forcing

that employer to the table November 7, the employer showed up with termination notices, saying, "You're all fired as of November 4. See you later."

My question to you is fairly simple. You're sending a message, first of all, to the seniors. They're scared about what's going to happen to their service. But

what's even more troubling is, you're saying to employers across Ontario, "If you don't like what the union puts on the bargaining table, just fire them."

So my question to you is simply this: Minister, the workers have filed a complaint with the labour board. Will you ask the board to hear their case before

these men and women who take care of our seniors get fired by their employer on November 4?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I think it's fair to suggest that any time a Minister of Labour gets involved in an issue, you want to make sure it's not

before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The fact of the matter is, if there was something before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and you found out subsequently that I'd got involved, you'd be

standing in your place suggesting, "We should fire this guy because he got involved in a quasi-judicial process and tried to influence a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board," and you'd

be right.

That's why Ministers of Labour don't get involved in situations that are before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. So my answer would be as you expect: if

there's a dispute between a union and management and that dispute can't be settled and they believe they're bargaining in bad faith, the place to go is the Ontario Labour Relations Board. When you

were in office, when the Liberals were in office, when we're in office, that's where you settle disputes. I can't get involved. It's a quasi-judicial process. I shouldn't get involved. If I were to

get involved, you'd be off the map complaining about the fact that I was involved. So I think the Ontario Labour Relations Board, stocked with a bunch of good, hard-working, intelligent people, is

capable of sorting this one out, and I suggest you wait to hear their decision.

TAX CREDIT

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a question to the Minister of Finance. Earlier this year the leader of our party outlined an

education policy that would improve the teacher-classroom ratio, would take a number of steps to improve education in this province at the elementary, the secondary and the post-secondary levels --

a leader with a clear idea on the education file. You will understand how members on this side of the House were just astounded on Friday when we heard you say, referencing the education tax

credit, "It was brought forward by others this year, not by me." You appeared to be disowning what was at the very heart of your own budget. Minister, who did bring this idea forward, then, and why

won't you defend it more strongly publicly now that the debate is over?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The education tax credit issue was raised during the pre-budget consultations by

various groups of parents, educators and students, who felt that the government of the day, our government, ought to give consideration to an issue which quite frankly has been raised for many

years in the province of Ontario. The situation in Canada on the issue is that in excess of 50% of students in Canada had access to this type of assistance for private education -- all of the

provinces west of Ontario, and Quebec. With the Ontario law having been changed now in the June budget bill, we're at a point where the vast majority of people in Canada have access to some

assistance, after paying their taxes, for education in private schools. That's the situation in Canada today.

Mr Duncan: My question related more to the situation in cabinet, because your Minister of Education, your colleague from Durham, in a letter

dated January 13, 2000, in responding to the federal government, said:

"The government of Ontario is not prepared to adopt the alternative suggested by the United Nations for complying with the decision, namely (1) to provide

direct funding to private religious schools, (2) to eliminate funding separate schools or (3) to provide religious instruction. We believe that our commitment and resources must continue to focus

on preserving and improving the quality of our publicly funded system."

What did the Premier say in 2000? "As our provincial Minister of Education has made clear, our government is committed to preserving and improving public

education, and we don't support the extension of tax credits to private schools."

Since you're denying ownership of it, since the Minister of Education denied it less than two years ago, since your own Premier denied it less than two years

ago, who in cabinet is putting this forward, and why does it appear that all of a sudden you're backing off from your very own budget centrepiece of only four months ago?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I can assure the member opposite that no one is backing off anything. When I was asked the question the other day, "Who was

this brought forward by?" I said it was brought forward by others. It was, in the pre-budget consultations. If the member doesn't understand that, then he ought to have a look at what we do in

pre-budget consultations. Many suggestions are brought forward from all sectors of our economy. It became a matter of government policy in the budget and in the budget bill. That bill was passed by

this House toward the end of June.

But I emphasize to the member that he is in a minority position, that the majority of students in Canada who attend private schools have access to some degree

of government assistance. The province of Ontario has now joined the majority in this country. You would deny to our students who attend private schools any assistance from government. That's your

choice; you'll have to live with that.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question today is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Mining is a very important

industry in Ontario and in particular across northern Ontario. Minister, can you tell this House about some initiatives this government has taken since 1995, and can you tell us in particular about

the recent initiatives you've been up to?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I thank the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for his question. When it comes to the

mining sector, our government has worked hard to make Ontario an attractive place to mine. That's why Ontario was recently ranked the top mining jurisdiction in Canada and the third in the world by

the Fraser Institute.

Some of the actions our government has taken to support the minerals industry include freezing taxes and fees on mining, reducing the mining tax and

implementing a 10-year tax holiday for new remote mines. We've actively promoted Ontario's mineral industry internationally through Market Ontario. We've also made significant investments to

stimulate this industry. For example, we've allocated $29 million for airborne and regional surveys for Operation Treasure Hunt, to stimulate mineral exploration. Right now, we're implementing a

$27-million provincial program to restore former mining lands to productive use as crown land.

We recognize there is still more to do, and we will not rest on our accomplishments. We will not rest until we are ranked not only number one in Canada but

also number one in the world.

Mr Miller: Minister, I know the people of northern Ontario will be pleased to hear about some of these recent actions of yours. I had the

opportunity to be at the opening of the North American palladium mine up in Thunder Bay. That's certainly showing that your work is benefiting the people of Ontario.

I'm especially interested in what you've been doing recently and what recent actions you've taken to support the minerals industry in Ontario.

Hon Mr Newman: On October 18, I was pleased to announce that the Mike Harris government is supporting the efforts of the mining equipment

industry on their trade mission to Mexico.

Expo Mineria 2001 was held in Mexico from October 17 to 20. Ontario Exports Inc and my ministry took

part in supporting the eight northern companies by

assisting in securing local agents and distributors with Mexican buyers. This trade effort will contribute to future economic growth and job creation in the province by helping Ontario's mining

machinery manufacturers seize the opportunity and increase their export sales.

It is opportunities like Expo Mineria 2001 that allow Ontario's mineral sector to demonstrate the importance of mining, not only to the northern Ontario

communities but also to the global community, as we aggressively market our products to the world.

AIR QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Energy. We have a major problem in this province with air

pollution, with coal-fired plants belching out all kinds of contaminants that are causing great problems for the people of the whole province in terms of air quality. There is an opportunity for

you, as the chief shareholder of Ontario Power Generation, to make a positive move, and that would be to ensure that Ontario Power Generation proceeds immediately with the Sir Adam Beck 3

generating station, which would produce air-pollution-free electricity in this province and would be a major boost to the economy of Ontario through the investment in that particular project. As

well, you would gain energy for the grid in the province of Ontario.

Minister, will you now agree, as the chief shareholder in Ontario Power Generation, to proceed immediately with that project, which is a winner for both the

economy and the environment?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): The honourable member makes some good points. Certainly we've looked at the

business case for Beck 3 on many, many occasion. I myself have toured down there on several occasions. If the business case can be found that it can be justified, that we find the environmental

offsets to be a part of that business case and help justify the case, then we'll move forward with Beck 3; it's certainly not off the map. But his government and the NDP left us with a $38-billion

debt, and guess what? No bank will lend us a penny to develop Beck 3. You should be ashamed of the record you guys left on electricity in this province.

Mr Bradley: I can tell the minister that they're borrowing a lot of money to expand their retail projects right now in Ontario, they're buying

up all the local utilities, but you're telling me they don't have money for Sir Adam Beck 3.

It's not as though this project has to be dreamed up. The plans are in place to proceed with it. There's a will in the construction industry in Ontario to move

forward, with an investment on your part of some $500 million. It will generate a lot of jobs and generate tax revenue for you. It will improve the environment immensely. You have to take into

account in the business case what the Ontario Medical Association said, that it's a $10-billion-a-year cost to the province of Ontario in terms of air pollution, particularly from the largest

polluter in the province which, as you know, Mr Speaker, is the Nanticoke generating station, which produces all kinds of contaminants.

Minister, will you today, as the chief shareholder of Ontario Power Generation, order the immediate development and construction of the Sir Adam Beck

generating station? I will be the first to praise you, I assure you, for benefiting both the economy and the environment of this province.

Hon Mr Wilson: I wish things were as the honourable member thinks they are, but they just don't get it across the way.

The fact of the matter is, we have no choice. We don't want to become a California or an Alberta and not have enough supply in this province in the next few

years. We have to deal with the $38-billion debt. We can't just build government projects willy-nilly all over the place with no business case like they did in the past. The fact of the matter is,

nobody will lend us the money to do Beck 3. You left us bankrupt. You did nothing during your time in office to deal with the debt of the old Ontario Hydro monopoly.

We're more responsible. We're moving forward, paying down that debt and building projects that make sense, not only for the environment -- and that's why we

spent $2 billion on the environment during my time as Minister of Energy -- but also moving forward in a sensible manner so that the people of Ontario, our children and our grandchildren aren't

saddled with the irresponsible debts and the approach you took to Ontario Hydro. No more bad management, no more mismanagement. We will do projects that make sense, and we'll do projects that are

paid for.

FORT HENRY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. For many years, my family and I and

many of my constituents have enjoyed trips to Old Fort Henry in Kingston. As a matter of fact, this fort is of particular interest to me since I grew up just west of Kingston and have taken

significant interest in that particular fort. Lately, however, we've noticed the fort is undergoing some renovation work and that some areas are closed off by scaffolding.

This weekend, I was concerned to hear that the Kingston-Whig Standard reported that as the owner of the fort the federal government has yet to commit any new

funding to help preserve this important national treasure. What is our government doing to support the repair of Old Fort Henry, which is owned by the federal government?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation): I thank the member for the question. Obviously it's a very important issue in the

Kingston area and along the St Lawrence Seaway. The member makes a great point: the federal government is the owner, the landlord of Fort Henry; we're simply the tenant. For a dollar a year we rent

the fort from the federal government, and yet, despite that dollar, we cross-subsidize the fort by about $1.2 million a year.

The fort is in a condition of disrepair in many areas. It's an old fort, and it needs a significant injection to help maintain jobs in that area -- the

economic spinoffs from tourism in the Kingston area -- and to help support the award-winning provincial programming at the fort. I have come to the table, through the Mike Harris government, with a

$5-million contribution for that fort, to help restore its grandeur. The member asked what the federal government is doing. Sadly, nothing but fiddling while the fort crumbles.

Mr Galt: Let me clarify this. The Ontario government is paying to repair federal property. The federal government has a surplus in excess of

$10 billion. The federal surplus is there due to the province of Ontario's economic policies, and yet they expect us to repair it. It seems as though the federal Liberals in Ottawa are confusing

things once again. I'm pleased to see that our government has once again demonstrated to the federal government what leadership is indeed all about. In the article, Minister Copps states that she

is waiting for the province to make a SuperBuild commitment to the fort. Once this is done, she says she will release matching federal funds to repair federal property.

Minister, could you clarify the SuperBuild process as it relates to funding repairs such as to Old Fort Henry?

Hon Mr Hudak: The member again makes a very good point. In fact, there is no SuperBuild application from Kingston; they have another project

they put forward. So either Minister Copps is trying to confuse the issue or is simply confused about the issue.

The facts are clear. The province has come forward with $5 million to support what is federal property, because we believe in the jobs, we believe in the

tourism component and we believe in the economic spinoffs for eastern Ontario. Certainly local member Bob Runciman has been a strong supporter of the tourism benefits from the fort. I don't

understand why the federal government continues to fiddle while the fort crumbles. They have not come to the table. It's extremely unfortunate.

Even the federal MP for the area, in fact, the very Speaker of the House, the Honourable Peter Milliken, has said that the federal government should be

involved in getting the fort fixed and is urging them to do that. Unfortunately, there is no response to his actions.

I'll call on Minister Copps again today. Perhaps if the fort were in Shawinigan it would get some funding, but the federal government has completely abandoned

its responsibilities to Fort Henry.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Finance. It is about the 84 swimming pools located in Toronto schools

that are earmarked to be shut down at the end of this year. There are 62,000 people who use those pools every year: men, women, children; adults who belong to swim teams.

The city of Toronto has indicated it will give up to $3 million to the school board to help keep them open. However, the school board still requires an

additional $7 million in order to make sure that the people of Toronto have somewhere to swim next year.

When will you provide the additional $7 million in funding to the Toronto District School Board, or when will you change the funding formula which will allow

those pools to stay open?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the Minister of Education.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): If I could beg the member's indulgence, I didn't hear all of the question.

My apologies for that, but if he'd repeat it I'd be quite pleased to try to answer it.

Mr Prue: I'll ask the last part again. Madam Minister, when will you provide the additional funding of $7 million to the Toronto District

School Board to keep the pools open, or when will you change the funding formula, which will allow them to spend sufficient monies to keep those schools open so the people have somewhere to swim

next year?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you to the member for repeating the part of the question. As he knows, the province has never funded swimming pools in

schools. That is not something that has been provided through education funding. Some boards have chosen to provide the service in various ways. Some have paid for it out of their own resources and

some have made arrangements with the community so that the pool might well be located in a school, but the costs are defrayed with community support. Others use community services to provide this

to their children. Some schools do not provide swimming at all.

It's not part of core curriculum and it's never been funded by the Ministry of Education. It is certainly something that I know the parents see very much as a

benefit for their children. I know the Toronto board is trying to work out an arrangement with the municipality, as other boards have always provided this service; that's they way they've always

provided it. I hope that the municipality and the board are able to work that out for the kids.

Mr Prue: Madam Minister, I want to remind you that in January of this year your ministry stated in a news release: "Sports are an important

part of students' educational experience. The government is seeking to ensure that all students in the province have continued access to a full range of activities necessary for a balanced

educational experience."

I also quote from another document. The advisory group concluded in April this year, "Our goal in this report is to serve students first. Students deserve

opportunities to expand their minds and develop new skills by playing sports."

When will you live up to the statements in your own government reports and ensure that funding is provided for swimming programs in all of our schools?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, we have never funded swimming pools. That has never been part of the core

education funding. I think it would be highly inappropriate for us to now start funding swimming pools in one school board and not be prepared to offer that to all other school boards. Or what

about all the children who don't want to do swimming, who do skating, for example, or field hockey or any of the other ranges of sports and activities that are available to our kids in our schools

across the province?

Of course, recreational activities are exceedingly important for our kids and many, many schools offer a range of activities for our children. I encourage the

Toronto school board to continue to work with the municipality to find a solution, as other school boards have, to make sure that swimming is also part of the services that would be available to

the kids.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask the member for London-Fanshawe to withdraw some remarks

and heckles that he made while the Leader of the Opposition, Dalton McGuinty, was advancing his question to the Minister of Health, specifically regarding Dr John Lee. The member for

London-Fanshawe at that time suggested that my leader ought to listen to someone other than a doctor who makes more than $500,000 a year.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member can at any time withdraw anything and I'm sure the member will if he's interested in doing

it.

PETITIONS

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition that was originally given to the member from Don Valley West, who refused to bring it on

behalf of his constituents, so it is here today. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the provincial government has seen fit to award a contract to Canadian Radiation Oncology Services Ltd, a private, for-profit company, to perform

after-hours services at Sunnybrook Hospital,

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

"To rescind and/or do whatever is necessary to bring these services under the jurisdiction of the public health system; and

"Furthermore, we believe that no profit should be made on the seriously ill, particularly since there is a public system already in place that can, with proper

management, handle it effectively."

I concur with this petition wholeheartedly and I am honoured to add my signature to it.

OHIP SERVICES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have petitions here which read:

"It's time to listen: petition to the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the Harris government's decision to delist hearing aid evaluation and re-evaluation from OHIP coverage will lead to untreated hearing loss; and

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

"Whereas OHIP will no longer cover the cost of miscellaneous therapeutic procedures, including physical therapy and therapeutic exercise; and

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magnetotherapy,

transcutaneous nerve therapy stimulation and biofeedback; and

"Whereas one of the few publicly covered alternatives includes hospital outpatient clinics where waiting lists for such services are up to six months long;

and

"Whereas delisting these services will have a detrimental effect on the health of all Ontarians, especially seniors, children, hearing-impaired people and

industrial workers; and

"Whereas the government has already delisted $100 million worth of OHIP services,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately restore OHIP coverage for these delisted services."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Don Valley East, I believe, has just made the

allegation that I refused to present a petition. He and his mother before him have been members of this House for some length of time and would know perfectly well that a minister of the crown

cannot present any petition. I would ask him to withdraw his remarks.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister is correct. Ministers are not allowed to do petitions. The member for Durham may, though.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I won't be part of this. I'm above that.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): "Whereas the provincial Durham region, including Clarington, Scugog township and portions of north and east Oshawa"

-- it's my riding -- "comprise one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada; and,

"Whereas the residents of Durham riding are experiencing difficulty locating family physicians who are willing to accept new patients; and

"Whereas the good health of Durham residents depends on a long-term relationship with a family physician who can provide ongoing care; and

"Whereas the lack of family physicians puts unnecessary demands and strains on walk-in clinics and emergency departments;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: that the government of Ontario will:

"Do everything within its power to immediately assess the needs of Durham riding and the Durham region and work with the Ontario Medical Association, the

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, local health care providers and elected officials to ensure that there are enough family physicians available to serve this community;

"Make every effort to recruit doctors to set up practice in underserviced areas and provide suitable incentives that will encourage them to stay in these

communities;"

"Continue its efforts to increase the number of physicians being trained in Ontario medical schools and also continue its programs to enable foreign-trained

doctors to qualify in Ontario."

I'm pleased to support this petition and my constituents who brought it to my attention.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is entitled "Listen: Our hearing is important," and it's presented to the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario. It says:

"Whereas services delisted by the Harris government now exceed $100 million in total; and

"Whereas Ontarians depend on audiologists for the provision of qualified hearing assessments and hearing aid prescriptions; and

"Whereas the new Harris government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded audiology assessments across vast regions of Ontario; and

"Whereas this new Harris government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced areas like northern Ontario; and

"Whereas this policy will lengthen waiting lists for patients and therefore have a detrimental effect on the health of these Ontarians;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to permanently fund

audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

I agree with this petition. I affix my signature, and I ask Cherie to bring it to the table.

OHIP SERVICES

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

"Whereas the Harris government's decision to delist hearing aid evaluation and re-evaluation from OHIP coverage will lead to untreated hearing loss; and

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

"Whereas OHIP will no longer cover the cost of miscellaneous therapeutic procedures, including physical therapy and therapeutic exercise; and

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magneto-therapy,

nerve stimulation therapy and biofeedback; and

"Whereas one of the few publicly covered alternatives includes hospital outpatient clinics where waiting lists for such services are up to six months long;

and

"Whereas delisting these services will have a detrimental effect on the health of all Ontarians, especially seniors, children, hearing-impaired people and

industrial workers; and

"Whereas the government has already delisted $100 million worth of OHIP services,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately restore OHIP coverage for these delisted services."

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

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario dealing with Saving for Our Children's Future

Act.

"Whereas post-secondary education is very important in the development of young adults, to the betterment of society and the economic future of our province;

and

"Whereas the continuing challenge and cost of education facing families in Ontario in the 21st century is ever increasing; and

"Whereas the cost of post-secondary education in Ontario requires a combination of government and individual financial support; and

"Whereas the tax credit proposed in Bill 4, Saving for Our Children's Future, 2001, will effectively and beneficially encourage families to save for their

children's education; and

"Whereas the large majority of children and families with a registered education savings plan do not apply for OSAP" -- Ontario student awards program --

"thereby freeing millions of dollars for other OSAP students;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, hereby respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act quickly to pass Bill 4, Saving for Our Children's

Future, 2001, and thereby extend the opportunity of post-secondary education to thousands of children."

I affix my signature to this petition.

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): Thousands of names are coming in to constituency offices, concerned over the health care issue in

southwestern Ontario.

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre is a world-class academic health sciences centre serving people throughout southwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has forced the London Health Sciences Centre to find $17 million in annual savings by 2005; and

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre has agreed to cut 18 programs in order to satisfy directions from the provincial Ministry of Health; and

"Whereas these cuts will put the health of the people of southwestern Ontario, and particularly the children of southwestern Ontario, at risk; and

"Whereas these cuts will diminish the London Health Sciences Centre's standing as a regional health care resource; and

"Whereas these cuts will worsen the continuing physician shortages in the region;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government take immediate action to ensure

that these important health services are maintained so that the health and safety of people throughout southwestern Ontario are not put at risk."

I will add my name to those of the 220 people who have signed this.

OHIP SERVICES

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

"Whereas the decision has been made by the Ministry of Health to delist audiology services from OHIP;

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

"We are petitioning the recent decision of the Ministry of Health to delist audiology services covered by OHIP. We who are deaf, deafened, hard of hearing and

concerned citizens express strong objection to the recent changes to the funding of OHIP for hearing aid evaluations. The delisting will lead to unmanaged hearing loss, as many people are on

limited incomes and cannot afford to pay for these services. The Ministry of Health should not be able to unilaterally decide to delist services without the input from consumers about what we

consider to be medically necessary.

"In addition, requiring supervision and delegation of some tasks by an on-site ear, nose and throat specialist is unnecessary and will seriously restrict

access to audiology services. Hearing loss has a significant impact on communication ability and quality of life, as well as the ability of people who have hearing loss to live safely and

independently. We urge you to reconsider these changes and ensure that the public has universal access to funded, medically necessary services, as is our right."

I have affixed my signature to it. I agree with the petitioners.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Respectfully, in the interest of saving time, I want to present a petition to the House on behalf of the Kedron

Dells golf course. The membership there are just outraged, and I'm going to read this petition to make it clear why they're outraged.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario has proposed the extension of Highway 407 into the Durham region and the proposed route, designated as the technically

preferred route, will dissect the property of Kedron Dells Golf Course Ltd Oshawa," which is part of my riding,

"Whereas such routing will destroy completely five holes, and severely impact two additional holes effectively destroying the golf course as a viable and

vibrant public golf course,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to change this routing to one of the other identified alternate routes, thus

preserving this highly regarded, public facility patronized annually by thousands of residents" not just in my riding of Durham but Durham region and the entire GTA.

I've got thousands of names here from constituents from all over, not just Durham riding, Durham region and the GTA. I'm pleased to sign and support this

petition and to draw it to the attention of the Minister of Transportation, Brad Clark.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "Whereas the November 2000 announcement of massive privatization of Ministry of Transportation services will

have a significant detrimental effect on citizen road safety, confidentiality of citizens' information and on the economy of Ontario; and

"Whereas the employees of the Ministry of Transportation are recognized in writing by the provincial government to have provided excellent service on the

government's behalf; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is taking away the livelihood and decreasing the standard of living of thousands of employees and families by its actions

both directly and indirectly through spinoff effects; and

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are entitled to safe roads, consistency in driver testing, and competent inspection of trucks, school buses and vehicles carrying

dangerous goods; and

"Whereas communities continue to need to retain decent-paying jobs if they are to maintain viability and vibrancy; and

"Whereas we taxpayers have entrusted the provincial government with the maintenance of public safety with an apolitical and efficient public service, a service

free of profiteering and protected from conflicts of interests; and

"Whereas privatization is an abdication of such public trust;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to place a moratorium on any further privatization and to restore and promote public service

as being of significant value in our society."

I have signed this petition.

OHIP SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have another petition regarding audiology. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government's decision to delist hearing aid evaluation and re-evaluation from OHIP coverage will lead to untreated hearing loss; and

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

"Whereas OHIP will no longer cover the cost of miscellaneous therapeutic procedures, including physical therapy and therapeutic exercise; and

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magnetotherapy,

nerve stimulation therapy and biofeedback; and

"Whereas one of the few publicly covered alternatives includes hospital outpatient clinics where waiting lists for such services are up to six months long;

and

"Whereas delisting these services will have a detrimental effect on the health of all Ontarians, especially seniors, children, hearing-impaired people and

industrial workers; and

"Whereas the government has already delisted $100 million worth of OHIP services,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately restore OHIP coverage for these delisted services."

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I move that the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil

servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing November 1, 2001, and ending April 30, 2002, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation

following the voting of supply.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Oxford.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I am pleased to support the motion for interim supply. The motion will authorize the government to make payments

after the authorization granted by a motion that expires on October 31, 2001. Without this authority, government payments for such things as civil servants, hospitals, municipalities and other

transfer payments cannot be made. As a responsible government, we have an obligation to meet that deadline, just as we have an obligation to the principles of fiscal responsibility, accountability

and growth, as announced in this year's budget.

The events of the last month have shocked us all. They have caused us to focus on our priorities. Regardless of our differences, I think we all share a few

basic desires. We all want a safe place to raise our children. We all want access to a dependable health care system where and when we need it. We all want the best education possible for our

children. A strong economy is the only way to ensure that the people of Ontario are protected and the services they need are available when they need them.

Our government is committed to ensuring a strong and prosperous Ontario. There are things a government must do to achieve those goals. The government must be

both responsive and responsible, and the government must also be efficient and effective. Now more than ever, the people of Ontario need us to think ahead and exercise discipline through strong

leadership and prudent management of their money.

Every day, families across Ontario make responsible choices in managing their own budgets. They expect government to do the same thing. Taxpayers expect and

demand that government deliver high-quality services at the lowest possible cost. They expect to receive value for their money, the money authorized by the interim supply motion before us here

today.

When this government was first elected in 1995, ministries did not produce business plans. I'm sure that many members in the House, like myself, have been

involved in business at one time or another and understand the importance of business planning to the success of that business. Imagine running an approximately $50-billion-a-year business or

corporation without a business plan. There's no reason that government shouldn't be held to the same high standards as well-managed businesses in our province. It is our government that created the

business planning process, and we are following it closely.

A well-managed business is also accountable to its shareholders. In this instance our shareholders are Ontario's taxpayers. We must be accountable in the same

way that organizations and their workers must take responsibility for their performance and answer to those who pay for and use their services.

Since being elected, this government has taken many important steps to improve both the services it delivers to the public directly and reporting on those it

is accountable for. Providing a plan is one part of the accountability process. At the end of the year, the government must report on what it accomplished with the resources entrusted to it. It

must state whether it has met the goals it set. The province's annual report and the audited financial statements meet this objective, but much more can be done to improve accountability to the

taxpayer.

The process of improving accountability started in 1995 and continues to this day. We are not about to give up now. We must continue to be responsive to the

needs of the people of Ontario. We must continue to make responsible choices on their behalf. That is why we need to account for every dime we spend. In order to do that, we also need to ensure

that all scheduled payments are met by passing the motion for interim supply. That's just common sense.

This year, we have introduced measures that will show Ontarians that their government is a responsible manager. The government has improved and will continue

to improve its own ability to deliver value-for-money services directly to the public. It is with this goal in mind that we'll be undertaking a value-for-money review of government spending. This

review will draw on private sector expertise to ensure that government services and activities are delivered in a cost-effective manner. The value-for-money review of government services and

activities will ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of its programs. This review also ensures that programs provide benefits and are consistent with the priorities of the government and the

people of Ontario.

The Ontario government must be responsible and accountable to its taxpayers. We need to ensure our partners in the broader public service, who deliver many

government programs, do the same.

Our transfer partners play a central role in providing public services. The provincial government sets policy directions, establishes legislation and provides

funding for services, such as health care, education and social programs. However, it is the transfer partner that delivers the service. These partners include our schools, hospitals, colleges and

universities, and municipalities, which deliver services that are essential to the people of this province.

These bodies often have deep roots in the communities in which they are located. They are in an excellent position to leverage knowledge and expertise, prompt

innovation and tailored solutions and access additional sources of funding beyond provincial transfer payments. However, the provincial government still cares about the financial and organizational

efficiencies of its transfer partners and how well they provide their services.

We owe it to the people of Ontario to care. In fact, more than 80% of the funds we're talking about in this interim supply motion are in the form of transfer

payments, payments which go to these organizations and individuals. That's more than $45 billion a year. Ontarians have a right to know that they are getting value for the money they entrust to

their government. They have a right to know that not a penny is being used unwisely.

This year we are proposing amendments to the Audit Act to allow the Provincial Auditor to conduct broader audits on publicly funded institutions. The proposed

amendments would empower the Provincial Auditor to ensure that institutions that receive taxpayers' money spend it prudently, effectively and as intended.

Our shareholders, the people of Ontario, are entitled to have a clear idea of how their money is being spent. This legislation will add a higher level of

transparency within publicly funded institutions. It will help the Provincial Auditor do his job in ensuring accountability and responsibility within these institutions. It will help establish a

good accountability framework for government ministries to manage their transfer payments to their transfer partners, and it will help government improve the mechanisms that are in place in order

to obtain value for money for taxpayer dollars.

But our responsibility to the people of Ontario does not end there. The Ontario Financial Review Commission was set up in 1995 and again in the year 2000. Each

time, the OFRC recommended better planning and accountability within the public sector. The Provincial Auditor has also provided the same advice to the government in his recent annual report. And

we listened to them. The proposed Public Sector Accountability Act would require all significant public sector institutions funded by the Ontario taxpayer to balance their budgets and report their

business plans to the public every year. This will allow the public to evaluate directly how their hard-earned tax dollars are being used.

They deserve to easily access publicly funded organizations' plans and results through one simple document -- an annual report. Taxpayers should be able to

assess the performance of their local organizations against similar ones elsewhere in the province.

It must be emphasized that accountability does not end when the books are balanced. True accountability goes beyond the numbers. This proposed legislation

guarantees a strong and consistent accountability framework for our publicly funded bodies, one that focuses on the value to the community. We challenge our transfer partners to show courage, to

focus on services that are the most valuable to the people of Ontario, to eliminate programs that are outdated and that no longer serve their original purpose, to budget and to live within their

means.

I want to make it clear that many efficient, well-run public sector organizations are already producing the materials the proposed act requires and I commend

them for their achievements. At the very least, we must provide minimum accountability requirements across the broader public sector.

We believe that organizations funded with taxpayers' money should also be held responsible to carry out their operations in a fiscally prudent manner, in the

same way that the government is held responsible. It is in this context that we are asking for all-members' support for the interim supply motion. We owe this to the future of this great province.

If we are not accountable now, then our children will have a heavy debt to manage.

We want to continue to grow and thrive in this great province, but in a responsible manner. We want our children to grow up in a province that's full of

promise and opportunity. We want to ensure that Ontario remains the best place to live, work and raise a family.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for allowing me this time to speak to the interim supply motion.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): It's my pleasure to rise today to speak to the interim supply motion that's before us. I want to pick up where my

friend from Oxford just left off. He spoke of accountability and responsibility, and he wants to assure the taxpayers of the province of Ontario that not a penny is being used unwisely.

I'd like to give an example of where I don't think they're following their own words. I want to bring to your attention an

article that was printed in the

Windsor Star on October 6 of this year. It's headed "Disabled Aides Cut by Schools." There's a third-grader, Candice Faerber, who attends Notre Dame elementary school with the help of a full-time

educational assistant.

"The eight-year-old girl has spina bifida, a congenital defect of the spine that leaves her unable to walk and a condition in which excess spinal fluid puts

pressure on her brain. An aide helps here get around in her wheelchair and writes out some of her homework so she can keep up with her class."

But in the week following this article, I want the folks in the province of Ontario to know, Candice will by now have lost the full-time support because of a

Catholic school board decision to transfer Notre Dame assistants to other schools where they're needed, and I'll tell you why.

Her mother says, "She's going to fall between the cracks."

"Why should my daughter's education be disrupted?" she asks.

The Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board, like the other district school boards in this province, has had to make some tough decisions. These decisions

are the result of having their provincial funding for children needing intensive support frozen.

The board gets $15.8 million from the province for special education -- not a small sum. It's the same amount that it got two years ago, when the board had 366

special-needs kids. Now there are 436 special-needs kids.

I want to tell you about Marisa Borrelli, a fourth-grader with cerebral palsy and a learning disability. A classmate will be assigned to help her do her work,

and the prospect scares her mom because she's afraid that parents will think their kids are being held back and they won't want to help these kids out.

The same stands true for the Greater Essex County District School Board. They're faced with about 800 special-needs pupils, but get provincial grants for only

580 of them. They have to overspend their budget in this area by $1.5 million and make up for it elsewhere.

When it comes to not spending a penny unwisely, I want to put this in some context. We were told today by my colleague the member for Lambton that the cost of

cabinet, the cost of running the political offices in this government, has increased from $7,858,000 in 1994-95 to $18,250,000 in the year 2000-01. That's an increase of almost $11 million.

Wouldn't that go a long way to help with the $1.5 million that the Greater Essex County District School Board finds itself short and the $750,000 the Catholic school board finds itself short?

In this cabinet spending, the annual salaries paid to ministers and parliamentary assistants have gone from $751,000 in 1995 to $1,103,000 in 2001. The cost of

running the government's cabinet offices, its political offices, has more than doubled since 1995, and yet what we read in this

article is that the funding for our most vulnerable -- our disabled

children -- in this province has been frozen while the need goes up.

The operating costs for cabinet office, as I've said, totalled $18.3 million for the fiscal year ending in 2001. I think, when you compare the needs of

disabled children in our province, those particularly in the school boards in my riding, to this increase in spending in the cabinet office for the political arm of this government, it's

unconscionable. There are monetary perks for the Premier, cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants that have jumped to $1.1 million this year.

Since in 1995, of course, we know that Mike Harris and the Mike Harris government and the cabinet have ordered all ministries to streamline their budgets

because of a slowing economy. Yet in light of this, they've taken our special-needs kids and what they need in this province and said, "I'm sorry, even though the numbers have increased, even

though your need has increased, we don't have the money for it."

I don't think it's fair to the kids involved, I don't think it's fair to the families involved, and I certainly don't agree with the member for Oxford that

this is spending every penny wisely.

We can say the same for our community care access centres, which serve the most vulnerable elderly and frail in our province. There too, because of an aging

population, the need has grown. There too, because this government has closed hospital beds -- critical care and long-term-care hospital beds -- the need has increased, and yet while they can more

than double the spending in Cabinet Office, they say to these elderly, frail, vulnerable citizens, "I'm sorry. We don't have the money for you." We have waiting lines now, if we can believe it, for

care from our community care access centres. We have staff in community care access centres -- nurses, nurses' aides, housekeeping staff -- who probably aren't paid the wages that should be paid to

them so that they can give aid to our elderly and our frail, and yet this government, apparently without any shame -- because the Minister of Finance stood here this afternoon and attempted to

defend that position -- doubles the kind of spending they've done in the political arm of the government and says, "We can't afford to help you," in these other areas.

I know the need is great. In fact, what they spend on their political offices wouldn't come close to meeting the needs in the two areas that I've pointed out

this afternoon. But that's not the point. It's the attitude of this government. It's when they go to these frail elderly citizens, it's when they go to our children who need our support, and to

that increasing number who need our support say, "Well, we just can't afford to help you out." In fact, it would appear as though they can't afford to help any of them out.

Community care access centre staff do their best. Boards of education do their best. In fact, as we've seen, some boards of education find it necessary to cut

back in other areas just to try to meet the needs of those who need it most. They're not asking a lot. They're just asking for help so that they can have a fair shake in this world. It's a tough

world; we know that. But all they're asking for is their fair share, for what they need to support them.

The increase is there in the numbers that need assistance, the increase is there in the need for quality assistance, and yet what does this government say? "We

don't have enough money for you. I'm sorry. We have to increase spending in the political arm of our government." I think that's a shame.

The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Thank you. The Chair recognizes the member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. First of all, let me congratulate you on your recent appointment to the

chair of the House. I look forward, as all members do, to the work that you will do in that chair, because we know that you will be an impartial and very fair Speaker. I'm trying to ingratiate

myself with you before I even start.

I want to say upfront that I'll be splitting our time, as we are allowed to do under the rules, with some of my colleagues. So I would put that on the record

first of all.

I also want to say that interim supply is one of those very few times that you get a chance in the House to speak overall about a number of issues that the

government is responsible for, because by the rules of the House, interim supply allows you that latitude.

It is interesting now that the economy is going into a recession. The provincial government at this point, as we can see -- they have been arguing for the past

number of years now, since 1995 and the inception of their first income tax cuts, that the only reason the economy of Ontario has been able to accelerate, pick up and create the kinds of jobs that

it has over the last number of years, is because of the tax cuts that the provincial government has created when it comes to the income tax side. I have listened intently to the debate of the

members across the way and I have listened very carefully to what the Premier has said. He has been very clear. He has said from the beginning, along with members of the House, that if it had not

been for the Mike Harris income tax cuts and cuts in tax to the corporations in the province, the economy of Ontario would not have benefited to the degree that it has today.

I find it interesting that now when we find ourselves in a time of economic decline, the government still makes the same argument around tax cuts. The point I

want to make upfront is that they can't have it both ways. They can't come into this House, take credit for the rebound in the economy -- which actually started in 1993 -- say it's because of their

tax cuts and then, when the economy goes down, say it has nothing to do with their tax cuts. I want to say upfront that it's a really inconsistent argument on the issue of the income tax cuts and

the corporate income tax cuts, for them to be able to move forward, saying that is the only reason the economy picked up. I think the economic decline we have now goes to show that in fact the

income tax cuts were not what was greatly responsible for the rebound in the economy.

I would argue that one of the reasons, and not the only reason, the Ontario economy did pick up and has done well over the past number of years since 1993 --

and, by the way, it was an NDP government in power in 1993, 1994 and 1995 when the economy actually did start to turn around and the number of jobs increased in Ontario -- is because of the reality

that we trade with the United States. Over 90% of the goods that are produced in Ontario are exported to the United States market, and when there's a huge demand in the United States, such as there

has been since 1993, the Ontario economy tends to do well. We are directly related to the economic situation as it unfolds in the United States. I always found it interesting when the government

would make their tax cut argument. I used to joke and say, "You know, their tax cuts are so good that it managed to rebound the American economy as well. Imagine what would have happened if they

had accelerated it even more."

The point again is that as the American economy went up in 1993, so did the Ontario economy, and now, since their economy has started to slide last summer --

even before September 11 -- so has the Ontario economy. I want to talk about the kinds of things that we need to do as legislators in the province of Ontario -- as a New Democrat -- and what the

response should be in order to try to stimulate activity in the economy.

The first matter I want to deal with is the issue of the tax cuts. I want to say here, as I said before, that I'm not going to stand here and say, "Tax cuts in

themselves, even on the income tax side, have absolutely no effect." Of course they'll have some effect. But the argument I would have is that if we have a choice of which taxes we need to cut,

there are some that are more effective than others when it comes to giving that shot to the economy. If I go to income tax and I say, "I will reduce the rate of taxes paid on income for the

provincial share of income tax," and I give X percentage of reduction, the amount of money that you get in your pocket as a consumer is very little. In fact, the recent accelerated cuts in income

tax that the provincial government announced some three or four weeks ago, we now know are basically going to amount to about $16 of tax savings to the average consumer from September to December,

inclusive. What are you going to stimulate with $16 if that $16 is spread over a three-month period? The reality is that nobody's really going to notice. Is it going to have any kind of

psychological effect, and will it have any real effect on stimulating the economy? I argue, not. I say if you're going to have any kind of a tax cut, you've got to do it somewhere where people see

it.

What's the tax that we all see? It's the PST. So I would argue, as my leader Howard Hampton does -- that's why Howard Hampton has proposed this, along with our

finance critic, the now Speaker in the chair, Mr Christopherson -- that if we want to stimulate the economy by way of tax cuts we need to do it on the PST side. When consumers walk into the store

and want to buy an item, especially a big-ticket item, and they can get extra savings by way of PST cuts, there's a bigger and bigger enticement to purchase.

For example, I would have noticed, Mr Speaker, as I think you did, that on the weekend a federal Liberal in Ottawa was calling on the federal government to

remove GST on all car sales between now and the month of January. Of course, this member represents a riding in Oshawa that is heavily represented by the Canadian Auto Workers in that area. He

argues -- and I think a good argument -- that if you were to eliminate the PST on auto sales from the month of October until the beginning of January or mid-January, it would be a stimulus for

those people who want to buy a car to go out and do so.

Imagine if Ontario was to follow Howard Hampton's suggestion. He was the first to come up with the idea; I'm glad to see that at least the federal Liberals are

listening to the suggestions made by Howard Hampton, our leader. If we were to do that as well in Ontario, that would be a 15% saving for the consumer trying to buy an automobile. Imagine the

incentive that the dealers across Ontario would be able to promote when it comes to car sales. Anybody looking at buying a car would be running to the car lot, saying, "I can save 15%," and then

car dealers would jump in on top of that and say, "Hey, never mind that you save 15% between PST and GST cuts, but I'm prepared, as a dealer" -- and I imagine Ford, GM, Chrysler, Mazda and the rest

of them would be jumping out and saying, "Here, we've got savings as well." You'd really see a boon to the number of automobiles sold in the economy of Ontario. That would have a direct effect.

That's why our leader, Howard Hampton, and our finance critic, Mr Christopherson, along with all New Democrats, have been calling on the provincial government

to move on the issue of PST. If we were to do a PST holiday, either partial or full, we're open to where that line should be drawn -- it might be a 3% reduction on PST on all goods across the

economy or maybe we want to be specific and say on certain big-ticket items, children's clothes or whatever it might be; we're prepared to move when it comes to that -- it would be a direct

incentive for the retailers in Ontario to go out there and aggressively go after sales in the pre-Christmas run-up to the month of January. That would do a lot, in my view and in the view of other

New Democrats, to help stimulate the economy.

I say to the government, it's a question of choices where you do tax cuts. Your argument is, give tax cuts on the capital side to corporations. I say that's

wrong. Who's going to benefit? Who benefits out of the capital tax reduction in Ontario? Is it Mr and Mrs Worker who make $50,000, $60,000 a year? Capital taxes will hardly affect them. Is it the

small business person who is struggling to make ends meet? I would argue it's not them. Who's going to benefit? It will be those large corporations who move cash out of the province and out of the

country and banks across this province who will greatly benefit by way of capital taxes.

What Harris has decided to do, and the Conservative government generally, is to say, "We want to give corporations a huge tax incentive and not give that to

the people at the other end of the economy, those people making $60,000 a year and under." They're going to put all their eggs into corporate tax cuts. I argue that's not where you need to put it.

You need to put it on the consumer, where people can see it in order to help stimulate the economy.

It's c