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

December 9, 2003

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Dec-09 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 9 December 2003 Mardi 9 décembre 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ALGONQUIN AUTOMOTIVE

FAIRBANK COMMUNITY

POWER INTERRUPTION

RIDING OF OTTAWA-ORLÉANS

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

VOLUNTEERS

GOVERNMENT POLICY

FLU IMMUNIZATION

CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA

VISITORS

RACIAL PROFILING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE CONSEIL EXÉCUTIF

AUDIT STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA VÉRIFICATION DES COMPTES PUBLICS

CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BRANCH ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LA DIRECTION DE LA SANTÉ

DES ENFANTS ET DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

VISITORS

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTABILITY

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTABILITY

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTORAL REFORM

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

ONTARIO ECONOMY

MID-PENINSULA HIGHWAY

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

CARDIAC SURGERY

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

UPTOWN THEATRE

HAMILTON DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

COMMUNAUTÉ CULTURELLE

DE L'ONTARIO

ITER FUSION PROJECT

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

SCHOOL FACILITIES

PETITIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

TUITION

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

HISTORIC VEHICLES

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

HYDRO LINES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

TUITION

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE

STABILIZATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA STABILISATION

DES TAUX D'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ALGONQUIN AUTOMOTIVE

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I rise in the House today to recognize Algonquin Automotive. This Huntsville company has been noted as a

national role model for innovation in Canada. Algonquin Automotive was acknowledged by the National Research Council as one of Canada's innovation leaders by demonstrating an entrepreneurial spirit

and commitment to innovation.

Major automobile manufacturers take credit for producing vehicles, but it is smaller companies like Algonquin Automotive that define the details. Items such as

running boards, spoilers, cladding and grille guards are both functional and attractive, and these products must be well designed and well built. Algonquin Automotive has turned 35 years of

experience into highly prized products, regularly filing patents on their work.

The company currently employs about 300 people in plants situated in Huntsville, Bracebridge and Gravenhurst in the beautiful riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Algonquin's business has expanded dramatically in the past 10 years, from $7 million in annual sales to more than $60 million in 2002, and such growth is continuing.

This fall, Algonquin began work on a chrome tubular step for GM's Hummer H2, a version dedicated to rough off-road driving. The contract is one of four that are

expected to generate an additional 50 jobs at Algonquin, and perhaps even more, with the company's many suppliers across Ontario.

Algonquin Automotive is a valuable community partner, and I am very happy that they have been recognized for their commitment to innovation and quality. I would

like to personally congratulate Jim and Rob Alexander and the staff at Algonquin Automotive.

FAIRBANK COMMUNITY

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Mr Speaker, I would like to share with you and the House an incredible example of community spirit and caring

which took place last weekend in my riding of Eglinton-Lawrence in the heart of Toronto.

This past Saturday, December 6, the Fairbank community held its annual Christmas dinner for children and seniors, in partnership with the Eglinton Community

Initiative and the Eglinton BIA. Over 500 people attended the event at the British Methodist Episcopal Church, in the heart of my riding. I have to tell you that it was an incredible sight to

behold. There was music mixed with good food, good cheer and even a visit by Santa. Young and old were included in the celebration. It brought out the best in all of us, with a holiday spirit that

was truly amazing.

I'm proud to stand here today and represent the thoughtful people of the Eglinton-Lawrence community. I would like to extend special thanks to Staff Inspector

Glenn Decaire and PC Ojo Tewogbade of 13 Division for organizing the event; the Right Reverend Maurice Hicks, pastor of the British Methodist Episcopal Church; the president of the York-Eglinton

Business Improvement Area, Arnold Rowe; the chair of the Eglinton Community Initiative, Andrea De Vaille; Dempster's Bread; and Tony and Teresa's No Frills. These are people who really put the

Christmas back where it belongs: in the community. It's a community of sharing and generosity, and not a community of taking. We've got to put the giving and sharing back into Christmas.

POWER INTERRUPTION

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): On November 28, much of my riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke was hit with a major winter

storm, causing widespread power outages and leaving some residents without power in freezing temperatures for up to 72 hours. This was the second extensive power interruption in a two-week period.

This latest situation saw many trees downed because of snow load.

I want to take this opportunity to recognize the patience and resilience of my constituents in the face of this hardship. I also want to thank the volunteer

firefighters of the township of South Algonquin for their selfless efforts in seeing that residents, particularly seniors and shut-ins, were secure and had fresh water and heat. The township also

set up an emergency shelter if people needed to be moved. I also want to thank members of the Killaloe-Whitney detachment of the OPP for their assistance and the township council for their help as

well. This is an example of how people in rural Ontario pitch in during times of crisis to ensure the safety of their neighbours. Rural Ontarians work together.

I would like to see this new Liberal government recognize the importance of our rural communities. So far, they have not acknowledged their significance to the

province. More than one third of their cabinet ministers are from Toronto, and there was absolutely no mention of rural Ontario in the throne speech.

RIDING OF OTTAWA-ORLÉANS

Mr Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I welcome my first opportunity to speak in this historic chamber as the MPP for Ottawa-Orléans.

First of all, I would like to thank the good people of the riding for electing me and giving me the honour of representing the constituency, which, under new boundaries, will simply be known as

Orléans.

As a high school student, I knew Orléans as a small francophone village on the Ottawa River, some 12 kilometres from downtown Ottawa. Today, its population

approaches 80,000 people and encompasses all or part of the five wards of the new city of Ottawa -- 20% of the city of Ottawa, the eastern part. I am proud to represent this mainly urban riding,

comprised of one third francophones and 15% visible minorities. This great mix of our two founding nations with those of other cultures makes the riding very special.

I join a long list of members who have served this area, including Brian Coburn, Gilles Morin, Bob McQuarrie, Bert Lawrence, Evelyn Gigantes and, back to the

earliest member, William Craig, who represented the area from 1867 to 1875.

I intend to work hard on behalf of the residents of Ottawa-Orléans and the people of Ontario and am honoured to finally take my place in this, the 38th

Parliament.

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): We in Ontario, and indeed across many neighbouring states, were given a glimpse of an unplugged

province during the blackout of 2003. The impacts could have been greater had it not been for the tireless efforts of workers at our much-maligned Nanticoke coal-fired generating station. I paid a

visit to the plant a few days afterwards to say thank you on behalf of the people in Ontario.

I am proud of this important facility. From the moment power switched off on that hot Thursday afternoon, workers toiled round the clock in heated conditions to

help get this province back up and running.

We in Ontario rely on OPG Nanticoke and its coal-fired generated power for about 20% -- at times 30% -- of our energy needs. In times of crisis, as we saw last

spring, Nanticoke's input becomes even more vital to the province of Ontario.

Given recent reports of limited natural gas and of aging nuclear units, we in Ontario are lucky to have OPG Nanticoke. We're lucky to have its 600 employees.

We're fortunate to have coal reserves that are estimated somewhere in the order of 1,000 years worth of coal.

Any attempt to snuff out our coal-fired plants without plans for adequate supply replacement ignores the facts, eliminates those reserves and leaves us where we

would have been without the work of our Nanticoke employees: in the dark.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): Each year, the province of Ontario holds some 24 events to thank and reward community volunteers. Each year,

7,000 to 10,000 awards are given across Ontario. Just a few weeks ago, more than 300 volunteers from Mississauga were honoured for their volunteer contributions to our community.

Who among us, when we reflect upon our lives and upon the men and women whose influence has shaped us and our character today, will not have among our most

influential figures a coach, a Scout master, a counsellor, or some other person whom we've encountered as a volunteer? These volunteers gave us their time generously and freely so that our time

with them could be so important and so priceless.

Thank you to Mississauga's and to Ontario's volunteers, on behalf of all the lives you have touched, shaped and adorned with your talents, with your dedication

and with your love. Thank you for passing along, through your example, this timeless gift of volunteerism to so many others to give and to give again.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Last the night the Ontario Energy Board Amendment Act, 2003, passed second reading. This bill continues the

assault on farmers and small business by this government.

During the recent campaign, the Liberals pledged to retain the 4.3 cent price cap for families and small business. They broke that promise with this bill. But

they also have attacked job creation in this province by raising the corporate tax rate and by eliminating personal tax cuts in January 2004.

The rate freeze on auto insurance covers only private vehicles -- another attack on small business and farmers.

Moving nutrient management from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of the Environment portrays our farmers as environmental criminals, not land

stewards.

Hydro rates, auto insurance, tax rates and the new regulatory burdens have been ushered in as the first offensive of the McGuinty war on farmers and small

business. These are the producers and job creators in our province. Why is the McGuinty government attacking them?

This government has decided it wants to be known as the promise-breakers. Now they can add to their title the name of job killers.

FLU IMMUNIZATION

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): Yesterday I, along with the Minister of Health, the Honourable George Smitherman, had the great pleasure of

attending an influenza immunization clinic that was conducted in my riding of Mississauga East.

The clinic, which was hosted by the good people at Shoppers Drug Mart, was well attended and shows that the effort by the various levels of government, along

with their respective agencies, including that of this government, have been doing a superb job at getting the message out that we can beat the flu.

Recently, Ontario's chief medical officer of health, Dr Colin D'Cunha, stated, "Getting a flu shot continues to be the best way of reducing the chance of

becoming ill with the flu."

Many of you here today have already had the flu shot; I thank you. For those of you who have not, I urge you to do so. All of you can appreciate how busy our

schedules are at this time of year and how easy it is to put off something like this. So if not for your own sake, then for sake of your friends, your families and your co-workers, please make the

time.

I would also urge all of you here today to take this message back with you to your constituents.

So let's roll up our sleeves and beat the flu.

CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): This past weekend was a historic occasion in the history of our country. After many years of dedication, the

Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and the Alliance Party of Canada came together to form one strong, united and dynamic party. The Conservative Party of Canada is the result of hard work on

the part of many thousands of Canadians across this country to form a strong and real alternative to the federal Liberals in the next election. Congratulations go to Peter MacKay and also to

Stephen Harper, who worked tirelessly to ensure that this in fact would be a reality.

We've seen a 10-year drought of leadership in this country, and what the people of this country now will have, for the first time in many years, is a true

alternative to the kind of Liberal-style government that we've had in Ottawa and quite frankly that is developing here in the province of Ontario. The voters will say no to that. Today, we stand

proud of the work that has been done by people from across this country to give Canada a true alternative in the next federal election.

I would also say that, no matter how much I would hate to lose my colleague Bob Runciman, I think he'd make a great federal leader.

VISITORS

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge some students who are in

the gallery today from Don Valley West. Students from Crescent School and also from Denlow Public School are in the gallery, and I know there's another school, Blythwood Public School, that is

coming. There are three schools from Don Valley West visiting today. I want to thank the teachers and the parent volunteers, and acknowledge the students.

RACIAL PROFILING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): The Ontario Human Rights Commission delivered an important report today. It's called Paying the Price:

The Human Cost of Racial Profiling. It's a startling report on the social and economic costs of racial profiling. The stories it tells are troubling.

Aboriginal people and Ontarians of African-Canadian, Arab, Chinese and Southeast Asian, Latin American, South Asian and Muslim descent are feeling as if they are

being singled out because of the colour of their skin. Said one Ontarian, "You think you are like anyone else and you find actually you are not, because you are treated in a special way. It's

humiliating."

New Democrats say that racial profiling has no place in our society. It's time to stop debating the issue and start acting on it. We say to the Liberal

government, show courage and accept the report's call to action. We say, here are some immediate things you could do: set up a racial diversity secretariat, strike an independent police complaints

commission and make anti-discrimination training mandatory for elementary and high school students. With some political will, we can tackle racial profiling and relegate it to the history books

once and for all.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE CONSEIL EXÉCUTIF

Mr Bryant moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 17,

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act / Projet de loi 17, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le Conseil exécutif.

AUDIT STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA VÉRIFICATION DES COMPTES PUBLICS

Mr Sorbara moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 18,

An Act respecting the Provincial Auditor / Projet de loi 18, Loi concernant le vérificateur provincial.

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

Minister?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I'll speak to it during ministers' statements.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BRANCH ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LA DIRECTION DE LA SANTÉ

DES ENFANTS ET DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 19,

An Act to establish the Children's Health and the Environment Branch of the Ministry of the Environment / Projet de loi 19, Loi créant la

Direction de la santé des enfants et de l'environnement au sein du ministère de l'Environnement.

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The environmental protection office in the US has had such a department in its

section for a number of

years. This bill deals with environmental policies, programs and standards, which need to be based on the most up-to-date research and provide the highest possible level of protection and support

for the health of Ontario's children.

We now know that as children grow and develop, they're particularly vulnerable to environmental hazard. It directly affects their health, as we know, for

instance, with pesticides. This bill would simply set up such a department within the Ministry of the Environment so we can track, research and make sure there are remedies there to deal with

children's environmental health.

VISITORS

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to introduce the family of one of our pages, Olivia.

They're here in the members' gallery today to watch their daughter from Beaches-East York.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to raise this point reluctantly, but just now I watched Ms

Churley, the member for Toronto-Danforth, stand at least three times to be recognized to introduce a bill. I don't understand why someone would have to stand three times to be recognized in an

attempt to introduce a bill.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): On the member's point of order, I recognized the member when I saw her. If I did not recognize her the first

time, I apologize. I will usually recognize the ministers first, and then go to the other members.

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

respecting sitting on Wednesday night without debate or amendment.

The Speaker: Did I hear unanimous consent? I think I heard a no.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just for the record, there are still some discussions going on with

regard to that point of order. I'm a little bit surprised that the House leader raised it now, after he assured me he would not until we had a chance to further speak about this.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

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

has embarked upon a bold, positive, ambitious agenda to renew our democracy in the province of Ontario. We've made an historic commitment to democratic renewal because of a growing sense in this

province that our democratic institutions and traditions are not keeping pace with changing times.

Voter participation in the last few general elections has slipped, and we all know that. Voter apathy and public cynicism is steadily rising, and I think we in

this House all understand that. More and more people are becoming estranged from the very democratic process that makes some of the most important decisions in their day-to-day lives.

Clearly, now is the time to address these trends before it is too late, before people, especially young people, Ontario's future leaders, are turned off by

democratic institutions that are unaccountable and unresponsive. That's why this week we are introducing a number of initiatives that are aimed at bringing our own House in order before we tackle

further reform.

Yesterday we introduced legislation that would, if passed, extend the provisions of the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act to Hydro One and Ontario Power

Generation. Next, we announced that a regulation under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will be amended to extend the act's provisions to the province's hydro companies.

Today we are taking another step toward democratic renewal in this province by delivering real accountability to the people of Ontario so that they can have

more confidence in their democratic institutions. That's why earlier I introduced the Executive Council Amendment Act.

Being accountable in this Legislature through its members to the people of Ontario is the principle at the heart of our parliamentary system. It is a system

that is not shared by all nations of the world. In the United States, the head of the government, the President, does not come forth before Congress for question period. In our system, that

happens. The government is held to account in this House, among other things, through question period. In this Legislature, the government is answerable to the people during question period. So the

Executive Council Amendment Act would, if passed, require cabinet ministers to attend at least two thirds of all question periods over a government's term in office.

We're introducing this legislation to demonstrate our commitment to the people of Ontario to the principle of accountability in our legislative system. We

believe it will send an important message to Ontarians: The government belongs to the people and is accountable to the people. This Legislative Assembly is an important place where that business

takes place and that accountability happens.

We are introducing this bill now, because we believe the standard that people expect from their ministers must be made early in the life of a government's

session. In the days and months to come, we will continue to work toward a more open government and encourage greater citizen participation. We will take government in a new direction. We will

ensure that the people of Ontario get value for their public services. As we undertake democratic renewal, we will treat our institutions with the respect they deserve -- no Magna budgets in this

House.

I hope that is what this Legislature would want of the government of the day, and I encourage all members to support the efforts to strengthen our democracy. I

urge you all to support this bill.

PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTABILITY

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): On October 2, the people of Ontario chose change. They chose a government that is committed to

bringing an open and transparent approach to managing both public finances and legislative institutions.

Yesterday, my colleague the Attorney General and minister responsible for democratic renewal spoke of our plan to bring to this House the most ambitious

democratic renewal initiatives ever seen in the province of Ontario. He spoke then, and reiterated just before me, initiatives that would open up government and its agencies, bring the voices of

Ontarians to Queen's Park, give members of this House an opportunity to do more on behalf of their constituents, ensure that ministers of the crown consistently attend question period and provide a

fixed date for elections in the province.

As well, yesterday my colleague the Minister of Energy introduced amendments to the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act to make Hydro One and Ontario Power

Generation and their subsidiaries subject to the same salary disclosure rules as apply to public servants.

But democratic renewal does not stop there. We need to make the entire public sector more transparent and responsible to Ontarians, because transparency and

accountability are the best safeguards of our public services.

To achieve that objective, I am pleased to have introduced earlier today legislation that would, if passed, give the Provincial Auditor new powers to examine

the broader public sector. The expansion of powers for the Provincial Auditor would have a direct effect on accountability, since the major institutions in the broader public sector represent the

single most significant demand on the province's financial resources. About 80% of total government expenditures, excluding interest on debt, is in the form of transfers to broader public sector

organizations and individuals.

The amendments I am introducing today would give the Provincial Auditor the expanded power to conduct full-scope value-for-money audits of the so-called SUCH

sector -- that is, school boards, universities, colleges and hospitals -- and also all crown-controlled corporations and their related subsidiaries. These value-for-money audits will report whether

money was expended with due regard to economy and efficiency and whether procedures were established to measure and report on the effectiveness of those programs. They will go a long way to ensure

that the people of Ontario get the value they deserve from the money they invest in these public services. Organizations subject to this expanded mandate will be required to provide the Provincial

Auditor with information and access to their books and records.

It is not enough just to say that we have put more money into something; we also have to have a clear understanding of how that money is being spent. With this

bill today, we'll go a long way toward that objective.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): We have yet another amazing piece of legislation put forward, ostensibly to call the executive

council into some kind of accountability. But guess what, folks? This act does nothing of the sort.

First of all, it sets the bar very low: Ministers must be in here only 66% of the time. Ministers should be in here every day, save and except for some

ministers who have greater need out in the community. My view is that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade should be here less than 50% of the time, because he should be off trying to

make business for Ontario. Other ministers should be here all the time.

The greatest sham of this whole act is, who keeps score? Is it the Speaker who keeps score? No, it's the Premier who keeps score. And on the scorecard there

are several loopholes with regard to whether or not you're here. First of all, it's not counted if the absence is justified because of illness, bereavement -- everybody understands that -- or

religious holiday "or some similar reason."

Secondly, it's not counted as an absentee day if the minister is in the chamber "during part but not all of the period set aside for oral questions if the

Premier is of the opinion that his absence is permissible" -- not your opinion, Mr Speaker, not the opposition's opinion but the opinion of the Premier.

Again, this act leads not to less cynicism; it leads to more cynicism. Mark my words, there will be not one minister over there charged $500 a day during this

or any other session. Do you know why? Because the Premier will protect their hides to the end of the day.

PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): It appears that with the Premier being the arbiter, the quarterback is going to be the referee in this

game as well, which is more than an understatement when they said they would do things differently.

I am pleased to rise to speak to the Audit Statute Law Amendment Act. It reminds me of a bill that Niagara Falls MPP Bart Maves brought in in the last session.

If Mr Maves were here, I'm sure he would thank you for adopting his legislation.

I think it is a good idea that we bring more transparency to our transfer payment agencies. I'm certainly strongly in support of that. I think transparency is

a good thing. I looked at the act. We'll want to have a more thorough review of the act to ensure that it gives the auditor the tools he needs to do his or her job.

It will be important as well, when the minister brings forward pieces of legislation like this -- the auditor will undoubtedly require additional resources to

complete his mandate. His office is one of the most underfunded offices in the country, and there hasn't been a will to address that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The member from Nepean-Carleton.

Mr Baird: They're very testy today. We must be getting under their skin. Normie got them all riled up.

On first glance, I think this is a good bill. To my friend the Minister of Finance, I am disappointed that his House leader doesn't want to call this piece of

legislation before we break for Christmas. Perhaps we could discuss passing this important piece of legislation expeditiously this fall.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent for the member for Nickel Belt to respond.

The Speaker: The member for Kenora-Rainy River asks for unanimous consent to respond. Is it agreed?

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I will deal with the announcement with respect to the Provincial Auditor's office first. I'm pleased to

respond on behalf of the NDP, and I do so in the context of being the New Democratic Party critic --

The Speaker: Order. I heard a no coming from this section.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to allow the third

party to have five minutes to respond to the government statements.

The Speaker: The government House leader has asked for unanimous consent for a five-minute response from the third party. I heard a no.

Mr Baird: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just remind the New Democratic Party that motion 5 sits on the order paper that would allow

them an automatic right of reply to this. We'd certainly be prepared, if the New Democrats and the government would agree, to pass order number 5 to give the NDP an opportunity to respond.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one thing at a time. I heard a no when they asked for unanimous consent for this. Now your point of

order.

Mr Baird: I ask for unanimous consent to call government notice of motion number 5 and that it be passed without debate, right now, so that Ms

Martel can respond to this statement.

Interjections.

Mr Baird: They don't want to respond.

Hon Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Was it the third party, the New Democrats, who said no to that?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm not here to identify who said no. All I heard was a no, and therefore there is not unanimous consent.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, yesterday and today your Attorney General, the minister responsible for democratic renewal,

made a couple of statements in the House about how committed your government is to democratic renewal in the province of Ontario. Can you tell us why, in these last two statements, he has not

announced the date of the next provincial election in Ontario?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the member for his interest in the subject matter. We're

very proud of the announcements we are making this week. We're very proud of the work that's been done by the minister responsible for democratic renewal. I can also assure him that in due course

we will be bringing in legislation, something that we intend to send out to committee to consult the public, but we intend to move ahead with election dates that are predetermined.

Mr Eves: Well, there's no need to consult. The Liberal Party has already made up its mind. I quote from their campaign document. They're going

to Americanize the Ontario political system. "We will have fixed dates for elections. It is time to put the silly guessing game behind us once and for all." OK, put the silly game behind us once

and for all and select the date of the next provincial election. You know when the last one was, so I assume the next one will be the first Thursday in October 2007.

Hon Mr McGuinty: The Leader of the Opposition may be afraid of transparency and accountability, but on this side of the House, I can assure

you, we are not. The Leader of the Opposition may have enjoyed using his discretionary power to set the election date as some kind of plaything, but we intend to consult the people of Ontario and

move ahead with a predetermined election date. We think that's an advancement. We think that's progress. We think that's in the interest of the Ontario public.

Mr Eves: This is not a difficult subject. Even Gordon Campbell in BC could figure it out. It's a very simple bill. It has two sections in it.

I'd like to send this across to the Premier, and perhaps he can figure it out and tomorrow his Attorney General can actually bring in a bill. He can copy the one that BC did. It's two paragraphs

long.

Will you not follow Premier Campbell's example and pass a very simple piece of legislation immediately?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I am absolutely delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has found religion and now embraces the concept of predetermined

election dates. Now, if the Leader of the Opposition could only find religion when it comes to supporting our bill to grant still further powers to the Provincial Auditor, and if he would also

support our bill to bring sunshine into the boardrooms of OPG and Hydro One --

I understand that the former Premier is now fully supportive of our movement toward democratic renewal in the province of Ontario. On behalf of the people of

Ontario, I thank him for that support, although I must say it would have been great to have it when you were on this side, sir.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Premier, since you formed the government, we've heard tales of, "Whoa, the sky is falling," with

respect to the financial situation in this province. You've indicated a significant deficit; we have disagreed with the conclusions that you've reached, and we have some differences with respect to

Mr Peters's conclusions as well.

I have a press release in my hand which was issued by someone who spent some quality time with the Premier in the recent months, Mr John Williamson from the

Canadian Taxpayers Federation. They have done a financial analysis which indicates that there will be $3.09-billion improvement in the revenues for the provincial government in this fiscal year.

They're indicating that any deficit above $600 million is a Liberal deficit.

I ask the Premier, would he respond to this new assessment, and if indeed anything above $600 million is a fabrication and an excuse for you to continue to

break your promises?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate the member's question, but if he wants to get into any

discussion of fabrication, then I want to bring to his attention the $5.6-billion deficit which he maintained simply did not exist.

I appreciate the advice that I'm getting from the member opposite; I appreciate the advice from Mr Williamson. But I can assure both gentlemen and I can assure

the people of Ontario that we will be moving forward in a responsible way when it comes to cleaning up the mess that your government left us.

Mr Runciman: The Premier and his colleagues, during the provincial election campaign, indicated they were prepared to deal with a projected

deficit of $2 billion.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Plus a billion-dollar surplus.

Mr Runciman: Yes, plus $1 billion in reserves. So we're talking about $3 billion.

Mr Baird: Another $3 billion.

Mr Runciman: Another $3 billion. Now we have an indication that the revenues have increased dramatically beyond what Mr Peters projected, and

we're still getting excuses from the government to justify breaking promises which put them in those seats over there, solemn promises made to the voters of this province that they were going to

keep. Within weeks, they have suggested they will not be keeping those promises, and they're using false, bogus justification to do it. The taxpayers' federation has confirmed that today.

Stand up and defend the positions you continue to take to justify breaking your many, many promises.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'll tell you, Speaker, the last thing that I'm going to do is stand up and defend the fiscal record of this government. It

seems that every single day we discover another mess, whether we're talking about $800 million in deficits in previous years for our hospitals or $25 million for children's aid societies. It

doesn't seem to matter what kind of a rock we look under, we find another mess left to us by this government. We assure the people of Ontario we will proceed in a responsible and intelligent manner

when it comes to cleaning up their mess.

Mr Baird: Premier, we discovered not two weeks ago that $3 billion is missing from your economic plan. That's $3 billion that you said --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Within 10 minutes, the opposition House leader has demonstrated these placards in the House, and you

know that's not allowed. I expect better behaviour from you.

Mr Baird: The bottom line is, Premier, you budgeted $3 billion in your economic plan to deal with the contingency of the financial pressures

facing this province. You're accepting the Peters report. Surely to goodness, you should stand in your place and should commit that every single dollar above the scheduled economic growth in the

Peters report will go to deal with this year's deficit, or is it going to fund an orgy of new spending to pay off the special interests that you bought off during the election campaign? Will you

stand in your place and tell us you will put that money toward the deficit?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The former Minister of Energy might want to take a look, in addition to the Peters report, which uncovered $5.6 billion by

way of deficit, at the Epp report, which is a comprehensive indictment of his government's failure to exercise its responsibility as a diligent shareholder, which has left yet another mess for the

people of Ontario. We will, without fail, move ahead in a progressive way and in a responsible way every single day to clean up the mess his former government left the people of Ontario.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday you were in New York trumpeting the benefits of doing business in

Ontario. In your press release from yesterday you state that Ontario's economy is strong.

Today's Toronto Star has you quoted as saying, "It's hardly a case of trying to decide whether the glass is half full or half empty. On the contrary; those

numbers represent one long tall drink of good economic news."

We thank you for finally recognizing that our economic policies have worked. Our tax cuts helped create over 1.1 million new jobs since 1995. Over 600,000

people left the welfare rolls since 1995. We balanced the budgets for four years in a row since 1995, and we were on track to do it a fifth time until you came along and messed it up. Why are you

threatening the very economy that only yesterday you were saying is in such good shape?

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Before answering the question -- I'm having difficulty hearing, especially from this side of the House.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the member for his question. But we draw a very

important distinction on this side of the House. The distinction is between the state of the economy, which is strong because of the good work and entrepreneurialism of the people of Ontario, and

the state of the government finances, which are a mess because of what you've done to them. What I assured the economic community based in New York City is that we are here, we're on the job, we've

rolled up our sleeves, we're taking a responsible course of action and we're going to turn this government around so that it too is in a healthy economic state.

Mr Chudleigh: Dr Jack Mintz of the C.D. Howe Institute released a study only two weeks ago on Ontario's tax competitiveness. He says, "We

suggest that the biggest bang for the buck comes from corporate income tax rate cuts, which would help return Ontario to economic competitiveness with its major competitors."

Premier, you are raising corporate taxes, and taxes are jobs. You have indicated that you're raising hydro rates, small business taxes and minimum wage all at

one time, and you've broken so many promises that people have serious concerns about the reliability of your word. Business can already react. According to Statscan, Ontario lost 6,600 jobs last

month alone.

What are you going to do to actually help businesses stay in Ontario and live up to the boasting that you did in New York City this week?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I want to draw to the member's attention something that Jack Mintz said today in committee. He specifically said that tax

cuts needed to be suspended, and that's what we have done. We are not going ahead with those tax cuts.

The message that we're getting from the business community, whether here in Ontario or in New York City, is that we have got to get our fiscal house in order.

We're not going to proceed with tax cuts at a time that would compromise our public services or result in increased deficit sizes. What we're going to do is proceed in a responsible way. We will

not lose sight of the fundamental interests of the people of Ontario: good-quality public services and, for the first time in a long time, real fiscal discipline inside the government.

MID-PENINSULA HIGHWAY

Ms Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The people of my riding of Stoney Creek need some

clarification on the issue of the mid-peninsula highway. There's been some confusion created by the opposition with regard to this. We need to know on two issues, with regard to our commitment to

the highway and also to an environmental assessment. First of all, unlike the former Tory government, is the McGuinty government committed to a full environmental assessment on the mid-peninsula

corridor project?

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): As I indicated in the House last week, our government is completely committed to a full

environmental assessment for the mid-peninsula transportation corridor. This commitment was made as a part of the Liberal election platform, and we are keeping our promise.

Ms Mossop: My constituents are also concerned about the commitment to the overall project itself. There has been some confusion created,

saying that we are slamming the brakes on the project. It is my understanding that our government is committed to the project because of the ever-increasing cross-border truck traffic, and also

that that is putting pressure on the QEW to expand into our Niagara tender fruit lands. Minister, will you reassure the people of Stoney Creek that the government remains committed to the

mid-peninsula transportation corridor project?

Hon Mr Takhar: Our government understands the importance of this project for trade, commerce and even the gridlock issues in that area, so we

are absolutely committed to proceeding with this project. But we want to make sure we do the full environmental assessment so we can assess the social, economic and environmental aspects of the

issue.

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): My question is to the Premier. He'll know that I asked a question in this House regarding the refusal of his

Minister of Finance to pay back a $35,000 severance package that he received from the taxpayers of Ontario. I asked that question after some kerfuffle in this House yesterday, so I'm going to give

the Premier an opportunity today to clarify his government's position.

A year ago, when they were in opposition on this side of the House, it was very clear that they demanded that Mr Eves pay back the severance he received as a

retiring MPP, and that when he came back to serve as Premier of the province and take his seat in this place, he did the right and honourable thing and paid back the $78,000 in severance that he

received. The Liberals at that time demanded that that was the right and honourable thing to do.

So I ask the Premier, do you still believe that the right and honourable thing to do is that a member, upon returning to this place, should pay back the huge

severance package he received from the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can understand why the member doesn't want to talk about the Epp

report or the auditor's report or the discovery of a $5.6-billion deficit. I can understand why he doesn't want to talk about those things. But, no, I do not agree that the Minister of Finance

should be repaying his severance, given the time frame involved. We think that we should abide by the rule that applies to the broader public service, which says that if you return to work within

two years, then different rules should apply. We're talking about a six-year period here, and as a result, I do not believe that the severance should be returned.

Mr Wilson: You don't agree the Minister of Finance should pay back the $35,000 that he received from the taxpayers, but you have another

member, the former mayor of Pickering, the current member for Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, who received $135,000 in a severance package from the taxpayers of Ontario. We have a law in this province

called double-dipping; it's against the law to double-dip.

Our former staff, for example, who received 16 weeks' severance must give up their severance package if at any time during that period they get another job

with the provincial government, whether that be a board or agency, or on your side of the House or our side of the House. If you had a government job and you get another government job, you've got

to give up your severance.

Will you ask your member for Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge to give up his $135,000 severance from the taxpayers of Ontario and abide by the double-dipping law in

this province?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again, I can understand why the members opposite don't want to talk about the independent assessments that we've had of the

quality, or lack thereof, of the government they delivered, and I speak specifically about the Epp report and the Peters report.

Having said that, I say with confidence that the members of my government are abiding by the law.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mr Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. On an annual basis, anywhere from 600 to 1,000 people from my

riding are forced to travel outside of Thunder Bay and leave northwestern Ontario for angioplasty and cardiac surgery services. These people are required to travel great distances to southern

Ontario, Manitoba and other destinations to receive these services. As you can imagine, this creates a very stressful situation for these patients and their families.

Given the strong commitment made to the north by our party, given the specific commitment from both the Premier and the then-health critic, Sandra Pupatello,

to a cardiac surgery unit in Thunder Bay, and given that such an endeavour would be an efficient, cost-effective use of resources, when will we have a cardiac surgery unit at Thunder Bay Regional

Health Sciences Centre?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Thank you very much for the question. I'd like to acknowledge the interest in

this issue by this member and the other member from Thunder Bay as well.

We're committed to a health care system that is responsive to our patient needs by better managing wait times and access to care. We acknowledge that in

northwestern Ontario access to cardiac care has been a particular challenge. The ministry is currently reviewing a multi-department review around the proposal for cardiac surgery expansion at the

hospital in Thunder Bay, and I commit to the member to work with him and the Thunder Bay hospital and community to address this and make sure that the people of northern Ontario have ready access

to cardiac care.

Mr Mauro: Thank you for that, Minister. There are currently large costs to our health care system associated with the provision of cardiac and

angioplasty surgeries in the north. Will you meet with me in the near future to discuss this issue?

Hon Mr Smitherman: In response to the excellent question from the member, not only would I be happy to commit in the House to meeting with him

and the other member from Thunder Bay to talk more about this issue, but I'd be happy to come to the community of Thunder Bay and meet with the community to see how we might be able to make

progress and move this initiative forward expeditiously.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): My question is to the Premier. You have made much of your new-found relationship with the federal Liberal

government and in particular with your counterpart for the riding of Ottawa South, the Deputy Prime Minister and the finance minister of Canada. That same finance minister visited us for your

throne speech, and I would have felt a whole lot better -- I was pleased he was here -- if his intransigence on tax-specific issues affecting Ontarians had been a little more progressive and not

downright punitive. In particular, I reference the almost $140 million that Ontario taxpayers are paying in GST payments to retire the Hydro debt. Have you ever privately or officially, formally or

informally, asked the federal government, through the finance minister if he would drop these punitive goods and services taxes for electricity on Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the Minister of Energy has something to say on this, but I can

assure the member opposite that I in fact did raise the issue when I sat on that side of the House when you and your government refused to look into that matter.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Maybe he can take the supplementary, because the Premier attempted to answer it in the first

question.

Mr Jackson: Premier, you failed to answer a simple question about your ability to speak up for Ontario taxpayers. You failed to get Ontario's

fair share of the federal SARS money. It was the same John Manley who shortchanged Ontario taxpayers by over $350 million. You failed to speak up for Ontario taxpayers when two years ago the

federal government discovered that they had made a billion-dollar mistake, and it was the same John Manley who forced Ontario to pay back a billion dollars that could have gone to pay down our

debt.

You failed to speak up for Ontario taxpayers when Ontario employers paid the lion's share of $20 billion of the unemployment insurance slush fund that the

federal government has been using to balance their books on the backs of Ontario businesses -- the same John Manley strategy.

Premier, my question is this: Why is it that all your personal relationship with John Manley seems to have produced in this province for Ontario taxpayers is

that you've been able to convince him to open up his federal seat for your brother, and in exchange you're probably going to appoint him --

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Jackson: -- to the board of Ontario Hydro or OPG.

Hon Mr McGuinty: With this line of questioning, I'm wondering whether the member is getting ready to launch his bid for the leadership of the

new federal party.

I want to tell the member opposite something that he may have missed. When it comes to the issue of SARS funding, you and your government received nothing. You

brought home nothing to the people of Ontario. You engaged in some kind of a skirmish which resulted in nothing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm not quite sure that you want the answer. The Premier has attempted about three times to answer the question. If you want to

hear it, could you give him the opportunity?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The point I'm making is that at the end of the day, money talks. His government got us zero. They brought home zero dollars

with respect to SARS funding. We brought home, in short order, $330 million. We're proud of our ability to work with the federal government.

UPTOWN THEATRE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent to ask a question on behalf of New

Democrats.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The member for Kenora-Rainy River has asked for unanimous consent for a question. I heard a no.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I agree to seek unanimous consent to allow

the leader of the third party to place a question.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that he get unanimous consent? I'm hearing a no.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent to ask a question concerning the collapse of the Uptown Theatre and the

death and the injuries that resulted therefrom.

The Speaker: The member from Kenora-Rainy River has asked unanimous consent to ask a specific question on the collapse of the Uptown Theatre.

Do I have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Premier. I'm sure you heard that yesterday the Uptown Theatre collapsed. One person was killed; 14 were

very seriously injured. I'm sure our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims.

Earlier this month you gave a speech where you said it was a good thing to impose a hiring freeze on the civil service. What we've learned is that it looks as

if this construction site was not being adequately inspected. In fact, we know that we are short by some 70 construction work site inspectors across the province. In my part of the province, which

is larger than most European countries, there are only two construction work site inspectors.

Premier, in view of the fact that you think it's a good idea to impose this hiring freeze on the civil service, do you also think it's a good idea that we're

short some 70 work site inspectors in the Ministry of Labour?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to begin, in keeping with the sentiment first expressed by the

member opposite, by offering on behalf of the government our deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those affected in this terrible tragedy. I also want to assure the member opposite

that when we put in place our hiring freeze, we said, and we were very explicit about this, that there would be an exception for cases affecting public safety. It is my understanding that we are in

the process of completing the hiring of some 25 new inspectors, and we intend to continue with that.

Mr Hampton: We spoke with some of those inspectors today. The 25 that you refer to were already announced before your government took office.

In fact, what we know is that we need a further 42 inspectors. The 25 that were announced -- it takes a year of training before they can even get on the job.

Premier, one person died; 14 were seriously injured. Even the owner of the property said that he had concerns that it was not being adequately inspected. He

had concerns about what was happening there. Which is more important to you, Premier: that you continue with the hiring freeze, or that workers and citizens who happen to frequent construction

sites have their health and safety adequately inspected? Are you going to hire the full complement of workplace inspectors now, so that we can protect the safety of workers and the public of

Ontario?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I know the Minister of Labour has more details that he can share with the member.

Hon Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): First of all, it is of the utmost importance to this government that the health and safety of

workers and workplaces be protected, and we will do absolutely everything to ensure that happens. That's number one.

Secondly, the Premier was absolutely correct in his answer to the honourable member's first question when he said we are completing the hiring of 25, whom the

previous government had started hiring at the end of their mandate. That's point two; the answer was completely correct.

Third, the honourable member is correct when he speaks about a reduction in the number of inspectors. When the previous government took office in 1995, there

were 278 inspectors. By the time they completed, there were 205.

When we took office, the first thing we attempted to do, and we are doing, is determine how many inspectors we need as part of an overall health and safety

strategy to ensure -- to guarantee -- that we maximize health and safety in the workplace. We are going to do that. This was a terrible tragedy, and it should not be minimized. Our determination is

to make sure we have --

The Speaker: Thank you.

HAMILTON DEVELOPMENT

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. My riding of Hamilton West, of which I am fiercely proud,

offers the scenic beauty of the Niagara Escarpment complemented by the magnificent and busy harbour.

But we have many parcels of land, known as brownfields, currently laying waste. These brownfields demonstrate a city in transition, a city whose industry

formed the backbone of this province's economy at the turn of the last century. These parcels of land must be returned to vibrant residential use if Hamilton's vision of a sustainable and healthy

urban core is to be realized.

Minister, what will the government do to ensure the redevelopment of these lands for the future prosperity of this great city?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I want to assure the member that this government is committed to assisting cities across

Ontario, including the great city of Hamilton, to proceed with development in a meaningful way. We know that some of the challenges related to development more recently have been related to sprawl.

That of course, for all the people of Ontario and particularly the Minister of the Environment, gives cause for some concern.

You would recall that in the throne speech the Premier has committed to a brownfields redevelopment plan. We see this as a very responsible way to promote

development within city boundaries. These are sites that are now serviced, usually, by the city. It can be a very economical process. We are going to do all we can to ensure that these brownfields

can be redeveloped, having good regard for the environment, ensuring that the redevelopment is carried out in a very safe way to the health and well-being of the people in the community.

Ms Marsales: Minister, as you can see, there is a new vitality about Hamilton and a new spirit from our new mayor, Mr Di Ianni, to the

hard-working leadership of our chamber of commerce. We want to bring a change to the direction of Hamilton's downtown. It's going to take teamwork and coordination to tackle the redevelopment of

these brownfield sites in Hamilton.

I'd like to get your commitment today to meet with the representatives of the city of Hamilton and the chamber of commerce to discuss this redevelopment. Will

you agree to meet with those representatives?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: This government intends to be very open and transparent. We do want to meet with all the partners on issues that impact

our communities and that impact our environment. Certainly, I would be very happy to meet with officials from the great city of Hamilton or any other municipality that has an interest in developing

brownfield sites.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): My question is for the Premier. I want to ask you about integrity and about your failure to keep

promises. I want to ask you about your failed commitment to give MPPs a greater role in this Legislature.

In the short time you've been in power, your government has demonstrated an astonishing arrogance when it comes to democracy in this place. We have seen you as

Premier intervene in the election of the new Speaker. Your government has been petty and mean in its treatment of opposition members with regard to office accommodation and seating

arrangements.

Now, Mr Premier, we watch as you take the unprecedented step of insisting that the chair of the committee that vets your own political appointments must be a

member of the Liberal caucus. Why are you going to turn the government agencies committee into a clearinghouse for your own patronage appointments? Is this your idea of democratic renewal?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the minister for democratic renewal is anxious to speak to these

issues, Speaker.

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): We look forward

to getting the advice from the honourable member, who has served in this House before. My parliamentary assistant, the member for Sarnia-Lambton, is heading up an unprecedented process, one that

you might have done when you were the House leader, except you didn't serve in a government that had the guts to move forward with democratic renewal initiatives.

We aren't here just to talk about democratic renewal; we're proceeding with democratic renewal. That's why I know that Ms Di Cocco is looking forward to

meeting with the government House leader and his counterparts, so that we can in fact have real, meaningful participation of members of provincial Parliament in this House, unlike what happened

under Mr Sterling's government.

Mr Sterling: I understand the Attorney General hasn't been in this place that long, but the Premier has been here since about 1990 and he

knows that the whole appointments review process was in fact created in about 1986 or 1987 in the previous Liberal government. All parties of the Legislature supported this, because we saw there

was a critical need for an independent body to play an oversight role in reviewing political appointments made by the government of the day.

I'm sure you know that since 1986, the Chair of this committee has always been a member of the opposition. This tradition was established to ensure that this

committee didn't become a rubber-stamp clearinghouse for the government's own political appointments. Will your government show integrity and reverse your decision to control this committee from

the Premier's office?

Hon Mr Bryant: I'm surprised that the member would ask that question. When he was in government, they appointed 50% of their own defeated

candidates to public appointments.

I'm surprised that the member would want to raise the subject of attendance in this House when we have just brought forth legislation to require all cabinet

ministers to attend in this House two thirds of the time. We need to do that. We need to do that because we have to deal with the reality of former cabinet ministers who were recalcitrant about

attending. A certain former finance minister, Mr Ernie Eves, now the leader of the official opposition, attended less than half of question periods in this House in the year 2000. If our bill had

been the law, Ernie Eves would have owed $7,500 for the year 2000 alone. That won't be happening under the McGuinty government. It's time to get some accountability in this House.

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: The minister might want to rise in his place and

retract the statement he just made, because it is not appropriate, as I'm sure he's aware and you are aware, to refer to another member's attendance record in this House.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Minister?

Hon Mr Bryant: Withdrawn.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Scarborough Southwest.

I'm just waiting for the deputy House leader from the official side to quiet down a little bit for me. Thanks.

COMMUNAUTÉ CULTURELLE

DE L'ONTARIO

M. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough-Sud-Ouest): Ma question s'adresse à la ministre de la Culture. Comme vous le savez, la province de

l'Ontario est le lieu de présentation d'environ 40 % des activités artistiques du pays. Le secteur des arts et de la culture fait croître l'économie de 11 $ milliards

par année.

Madame la ministre, l'Ontario dispose des plus grands artistes et des plus grandes institutions artistiques au monde. L'Orchestre symphonique de Toronto, le

Musée royal de l'Ontario et les festivals de Stratford et Shaw attirent des visiteurs du monde entier, enrichissent notre qualité de vie et alimentent notre économie. Qu'allez-vous

faire pour assurer la vitalité de l'industrie des arts et de la culture en Ontario ?

L'hon Madeleine Meilleur (Ministre de la Culture, ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones): Premièrement, je voudrais

Je voudrais vous dire que depuis ma nomination au poste de ministre de la Culture, j'ai eu l'occasion de rencontrer plusieurs organismes de la communauté

culturelle. Comme vous le savez, monsieur le Président, la vie culturelle ontarienne nous touche tous et toutes. Peu importe notre âge, notre lieu de résidence ou nos origines, nous

sommes influencés par la culture de différentes façons. En protégeant et en montrant notre patrimoine culturel unique et irremplaçable, nous renforçons notre sentiment

d'appartenance et de fierté.

L'éducation à propos des arts est une nécessité. Les jeunes de l'Ontario ont besoin d'être plus exposés aux arts, parce que les

experts nous disent que l'éducation artistique aide à améliorer le rendement académique de nos jeunes.

Ce sont quelques-unes des raisons pour lesquelles nous allons créer un conseil ministériel des arts et de la culture, et c'est une priorité pour

notre gouvernement. Nous avons besoin d'un forum de discussion, et ce groupe consultatif composé de membres de la communauté des arts sera l'idéal pour remplir ces fonctions. Notre

objectif est de donner à nos organismes culturels un financement stable et prévisible. Ce financement va nous permettre de créer une relève artistique talentueuse et

d'administrateurs compétitifs dans le domaine des arts. Nous voulons --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Merci. Thank you. There is so much in that. Maybe in the supplementary --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Maybe you'll get that in the supplementary.

M. Berardinetti: Merci, madame la ministre. Dans un récent sondage, plus de 92 % des Ontariens et Ontariennes ont répondu

que les arts contribuent à une augmentation générale de leur qualité de vie. Qu'allez-vous faire pour promouvoir les arts et la culture, de même que pour veiller à ce

que les Ontariens soient au courant des activités culturelles qui leur sont présentées dans l'ensemble de la province ?

L'hon M me Meilleur: Je suis entièrement d'accord avec mon collègue le député de Scarborough-Sud-Ouest. Le

secteur de la culture contribue énormément au bien-être économique et à la vie sociale de l'Ontario. La culture enrichit la qualité de vie de tous les Ontariens et

Ontariennes.

Le gouvernement et mon ministère allons continuer à travailler avec les organismes, groupes et individus pour faire en sorte que le secteur culturel

continue de grandir. Nous avons prévu plusieurs initiatives pour atteindre ce but. Une des ces nouvelles initiatives c'est la création de la médaille du premier ministre, soulignant

l'excellence dans le domaine des arts. Cette médaille sera accordée à des individus ou organismes qui ont contribué d'une façon extraordinaire aux arts et à la culture

de l'Ontario. Nous sommes en train de concevoir des moyens innovateurs pour faire connaître les produits artistiques ontariens.

À ce sujet, j'encourage les citoyens et les citoyennes de tous les coins de la province à se détendre pendant la période des fêtes et

à visiter tous nos organismes culturels, soit le Musée des beaux-arts de l'Ontario, le Musée royal de l'Ontario ou le Centre des sciences.

Le Président: Merci, madame. Thank you.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent to give the minister another eight minutes.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I understand from the government they'll give her a minister's statement when she could do that in 20 minutes.

M. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Sur un point d'ordre, monsieur le Président : Félicitations à la ministre pour sa

nomination et son élection à cette Chambre. Elle a annoncé une nouvelle initiative du gouvernement. Est-ce que c'est propre de faire ça dans une question ? Comme

porte-parole pour les affaires culturelles, est-ce que je peux avoir cinq minutes pour répondre ?

The Speaker: It's not a point of order, but I also welcome you as a minister.

ITER FUSION PROJECT

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Premier. It is about a massive, superb research project that is just what Ontario needs

in the future, and that is the ITER project. I know that you are aware this is the long-term international project to establish fusion as a viable option for power generation. It is a

once-in-a-generation opportunity. It is a big idea. It's an opportunity for Ontario and Canada to excel in the world at scientific research. It would mean at least 250 of the best and the brightest

people in the world moving to Ontario, specifically to eastern Ontario: Clarington and Durham region and the counties east of there.

Our competitors are Japan and France, and they have entered bids. There has been a great deal of work done in Ontario on our bid. It was supported by the Eves

government. I want to know what steps you have taken since your election in October on behalf of the people of Ontario with the federal Liberal government to get federal Liberal support for this

very important scientific project for Ontario.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the Minister of Economic Development and Trade has been working

very hard on this file, and I'm sure he's prepared to answer this.

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The Ontario government has consistently expressed its support for the ITER

project. Shortly after the Premier was sworn in, on October 6, he sent a letter to the Prime Minister of the country and I want to quote from the letter. It says, "Prime Minister, it is very

important that Canada indicate its commitment to the ITER project as soon as possible. Once again, I urge you and your government to come to the table with a solid financial commitment to this

vital endeavour."

It was indeed a very important initiative. The Premier supported it, the Minister of Finance also expressed his support for this project. This government was

fully behind the effort. We sent our officials to the various international meetings, supported by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. We continue to support the efforts and

initiatives.

Mr Flaherty: The reports in the press are negative of late, as the minister probably knows. You made a commitment -- the Premier made a

commitment in writing -- in support of this project before he was elected. Premier Eves and our government made a 50% commitment that we would participate regardless of the siting, whether the

siting was in Ontario or elsewhere. This is 68,000 jobs in Ontario going forward over the next 30 years -- operational jobs, construction jobs. Just as importantly, this is the big idea in the

scientific world today in terms of research.

What have you done? Have you gone to Ottawa and talked to your federal Liberal friends, to Mr Martin and Mr Manley? You pride yourself on the relationship.

What have you accomplished? Can you assure the people of Ontario that this project will get federal support? Because then we'll win.

Hon Mr Cordiano: I can assure the member that our relationship with the federal government is a very sound one. What we have accomplished is

$300 million in terms of funding for SARS, something you failed to do over there. We were able to put that together.

I would also like to note that our government is working very well with the federal government, given the recent GTA caucus meeting that was held between the

federal members of Parliament and our members of provincial Parliament -- a very historical meeting, I might add, that dealt with transportation and issues around housing, something you miserably

failed to do when you were the government. You failed to sign an agreement on housing with the federal government. You couldn't co-operate if your lives depended on it, and it was proven to the

people of this province because they threw you out of office.

With respect to ITER, the federal officials indicate that the project is still being considered. We fully support it. There is a commitment made by this

government in unequivocal terms that we will support our 50%. It's still on the table. We continue to support the initiative.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. As you know, it appears that the

Canadian and US negotiators have worked toward a proposed interim deal on the softwood lumber dispute. Many of us have heard loudly and clearly from Ontario's softwood lumber producers that this

deal is not in the best interests of Ontario's softwood industry. In fact, it's my understanding that they have written the federal Trade Minister Pettigrew, urging him to categorically reject the

proposal.

I share the concerns raised by the softwood industry. I fear that this agreement will punish our softwood producers and this could lead to further job losses

in northern Ontario, which we certainly cannot afford. Minister, will you fight for Ontario's softwood industry and will you protect these valuable jobs in northern Ontario?

Hon David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): I'd very much like to thank the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North for the question. As

he knows, especially to our region of Ontario, it's a very important issue, it's a very important industry and it's especially a very important industry to northern Ontario. We have to fight for

that industry and for our economy.

Forestry is 10% of the economy of Ontario; it's about 50% of our northern economy. This is a bad deal for Canada, and therefore it's a bad deal for this

province. The quotas that will come out of this agreement mean that there will be an immediate 8% to 10% production cut in our mills across northern Ontario. Of course, that's going to mean

production cuts and therefore laid-off workers. For new and expanding producers, such as First Nations that we're dealing with on a day-to-day basis, expanding their economic opportunities, it's

going to mean that they're no longer going to be able to enter that market, so it's going to curtail their activities. Furthermore, the $1 billion that our industry is going to leave on the table

means that the US industry is going to be able to take that money and modernize their facilities and become more competitive against our industry, at our industry's expense. Quite frankly, those

countervailing duties have shown to be illegal by the WTO panel. This is a bad deal.

Mr Gravelle: I think all of us in the north appreciate that response.

I was also pleased to see that Minister Pettigrew has stated that he will take his marching orders to accept or reject the deal from the industry and the

provinces. He's quoted as saying something I'd like to quote back to the House: "I will listen to what the Canadian industry and the provinces have to say. If they believe it's good enough, that

will be it. If they believe that we should continue with the litigation course instead and try to get something else, I will do that." I trust that he is committed to that position.

Minister, my supplementary to you is, have you had the opportunity to share your concerns about the proposed deal with Minister Pettigrew and your provincial

counterparts? If so, what do you see as the next step for the province?

Hon Mr Ramsay: Yes, over the last few day I have been in touch with International Trade Minister Pettigrew and my colleagues across the

country. I've made it very firmly known that this is a bad deal for Ontario. Our government is going to stand up for the forest industry of this province. To solve this dispute is a very high

priority for our government. It has been ongoing and hurting our northern economy especially. To date, 17 communities and over 4,000 workers have been affected by this.

We must continue to negotiate, but we don't want anything to prematurely fold those negotiations or prejudice the clear progress that we are making with the

trade panel rulings that have come down so far. Each of these decisions should be giving us greater and greater leverage to negotiate a better deal. I'm asking the minister to do that, to go back

to the table and get a better deal for Ontario and Canada.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As the minister responsible for the Oak Ridges moraine, he

has now been in his position for a number of weeks and I'm sure he has had an opportunity to familiarize himself with his files. I wonder if the minister can, for the benefit of the House and the

people who are interested in the negotiations that he, no doubt, has been leading, confirm for us whether he has in fact seen an estimate of the costs involved for the trade-off of some 50 acres in

Richmond Hill. Can he confirm for us whether he is aware of the cost of that trade-off?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs, minister responsible for seniors): I can tell you this: The deal we made about three or

four weeks ago was a heck of a lot better than your deal. Under our deal there will be 900 fewer homes built there, there will be a much wider corridor for wildlife, and there will be a

$3.5-million contribution toward the parkland. As you know from earlier comments made in this House, the trade-off of land for units will be on a value per value basis. That process is going on

right now.

Mr Klees: This is really quite appalling. As the minister who has the lead responsibility for negotiating this deal, what he's admitting to

the House today is that he has no idea what the value is that he's trading off. That's shameful. As a government that represents itself to be responsible, this first major sell-off that this

minister is responsible for -- he has no idea. Can the minister at least clarify whether or not he has had any dealings whatsoever directly on this file of negotiating this deal? Has he had any

involvement personally in negotiating this deal? Clarify that.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: The real tragedy of the situation is that your government made a solemn commitment to this House that the Oak Ridges moraine

was going to be protected, but at the same time you made a side deal with the developers to allow 6,000 units of houses to be built there. We took that bad deal and were able to negotiate a

reduction of 900 units and a major contribution toward the parkland, and also made sure there is a much wider corridor for the wildlife that is there so that the environment can be protected in a

much better way for future generations.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): My question today is for the all-important Minister of Tourism and Recreation. As you're well aware, the cost

associated with use of community schools has skyrocketed over the past eight years. Many sports-based organizations throughout the province, especially in my riding of York West, are feeling the

weight of increased user fees for the use of community school facilities, including library spaces. What

part is your ministry playing in decreasing those costs and helping our community schools

become the vibrant centre of activities they once were?

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): It's an excellent question and one which requires an answer, which we did not hear

previously, because what happened -- I know that members of the government of the past will want to know what actually happened. They decreased the amount of money that was available within the

school system, for instance, for the community use of schools. As a result, school boards charged a tremendous amount of money for the utilization of those schools.

Second, they downloaded on to municipalities all kinds of additional onerous financial responsibilities and, as a result, we have these huge increases in fees.

I am working together with the Minister of Education and with the Minister of Community and Social Services in a multi-ministry manner, along with our municipalities and our partners who are

involved in sports and recreation, to bring down those costs so that those who have a modest income will be allowed to have their children participating, and the health of the province will be

increased immensely.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of order: With all respect, in light of the fact that the Minister of Municipal Affairs did not answer

my question, I am going to request a late show, so that it gives him an opportunity to think about it.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Serve papers and the show will be on the road.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents, like Eve Vandering and Herman Kropper.

It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

fully implemented; and

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

to send their children to a school of their choice;

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

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

I affix my signature in support.

TUITION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I keep getting petitions from the Canadian Federation of Students regarding freezing tuition fees. The petition

reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"

(1) Freeze tuition fees for all programs at their current levels; and

"

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

deregulated since 1998."

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

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the equity in education tax credit seeks to restore equity and parental choice to Ontario's education system;

"Whereas the equity in education tax credit allows those from lower-income homes to have the same opportunities as other students;

"Whereas families who choose to send their children to independent schools have to pay twice for their children's education;

"Whereas the majority of families who benefit from the equity in education tax credit come from lower or middle-class homes;

"Whereas the United Nations has called on the government of Ontario to remedy the inequity in the education system;

"Whereas senior members of Dalton McGuinty's cabinet support the equity in education tax credit;

"Whereas Premier Dalton McGuinty has been inconsistent on his stance on the equity in education tax credit;

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty promised the people of Ontario that he would not raise our taxes;

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

"To allow the equity in education tax credit to continue to be the law of the land in Ontario, and allow lower- and middle-income parents the privilege to send

their children to independent schools if they so choose, and vote against Bill 2, which would repeal the equity in education tax credit."

I affix my name.

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a petition entitled "Don't scrap the seniors' property tax credit" signed by people from

Selkirk, Jarvis, Vanessa, La Salette, Langton, Port Dover, Waterford and Simcoe.

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

renters and owners;

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

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

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

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

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

I sign my name to it.

HISTORIC VEHICLES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario, through Bill 99, enabled owners of historic automobiles to display year of manufacture plates on their vehicles; and

"Whereas John O'Toole, MPP for Durham, has worked with others, including MTO staff, to pass legislation allowing registration of vehicles using year of

manufacture licence plates; and

"Whereas owners and restorers of old automobiles have made suggestions for improving regulations governing year of manufacture plates; and

"Whereas these improvements would enable old auto enthusiasts to display year of manufacture plates and further encourage the collection and restoration of

vintage vehicles;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario enact legislation that would make more licence plate numbers available to the public by freeing up the numbers that

have been assigned to non-automotive vehicles such as trailers and snowmobiles; and

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario reduce the cost of year of manufacture plates to encourage more owners to make use of these plates and reflect the

fact that most historic vehicles are not driven on a regular basis."

I'm pleased to support and sign this petition.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition here signed by a great number of constituents. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas this government promised to invest in the next generation of researchers and professors by increasing graduate scholarships by 50%;

"Whereas your government promised to improve financial help for students;

"Whereas your government promised to offer prepaid tuition programs for students;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the provincial government to stop playing politics and campaigning for the next election and start working for the taxpayers of

this great province. Please keep at least some of your promises to the people of Ontario."

It's signed, as I said, by a great number of people in this great province, and I affix my signature to it.

HYDRO LINES

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition from constituents from my riding. It says:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

"Improve hydro lines to stop frequent and prolonged power outages on the Kahshe Lake corridor."

I support this petition, and I affix my signature to it.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have another petition from the residents near the old Hughes Public School, and it reads as follows:

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

School Board;

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

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

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

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

religious school';

"Whereas the TDSB has chosen not to lease the subject premises to a computer training company for $1.25 million annually. Instead, the board has chosen to

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

"Whereas a lease has not been signed between the TDSB and Beatrice House, while renovations to the building are underway;

"Whereas local taxpayers' concerns have been ignored by the TDSB;

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

have been offered to Beatrice House to no avail;

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

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

"

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

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

diploma.

"

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

specified in regulation 444/98.

"

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

"Therefore, we respectfully ask" the Minister of Education "to consider our plea for justice. The Toronto District School Board has ignored our concerns and

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

I'm delighted to make this presentation to you.

SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This is a petition titled "Stay the Course on Small Business Tax Relief." It was signed by people

attending a meeting of the local

chapter of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.

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

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

and

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

and

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this government promised to live by the balanced budget law; and

"Whereas your government promised to measure every investment against results; and

"Whereas your government promised to give the Provincial Auditor enhanced powers to protect taxpayers;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the provincial government to stop playing politics and campaigning for the next election and start working for the taxpayers of

this great province. Please keep at least some of your promises to the people of Ontario."

I'll sign that as well.

TUITION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and the subject of it is the ever-increasing

rise of tuition fees in Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"

(1) Freeze tuition fees for all programs at the current level; and

"

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

deregulated since 1998."

Our side of the House, all of us here, are certainly in favour of this petition, and I'm delighted to sign my name to it.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this government promised to ensure that parents had access to affordable quality daycare; and

"Whereas your government promised to end the 60-hour workweek; and

"Whereas your government promised to create an auto sector strategic investment fund;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the provincial government to stop playing politics and campaigning for the next election and start working for the

taxpayers of this great province. Please keep at least some of your promises to the people of Ontario."

I'd be happy to sign my signature to that as well, and I'd be happy to give it to Daniel here to run down.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Oak Ridges has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the

answer to his question given by the Minister of Municipal Affairs concerning the Oak Ridges moraine agreement. This matter will be debated at 6 o'clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE

STABILIZATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA STABILISATION

DES TAUX D'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 3, 2003, on the motion for second reading of Bill 5,

An Act to temporarily freeze automobile insurance rates for

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

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

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

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I think we've reached questions and comments on the member for Oxford's speech.

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): I'm happy to speak in favour of this bill, because during the campaign we received numerous requests in respect of

how incredible the insurance rates have been during the last few years. I think it is important for us to recognize that this does not apply only to residents and ordinary motorists but also to

small business people who have been experiencing such great difficulty in running their businesses. Insurance premiums are in fact one of the greatest expenses for these folks.

I think it's important for us to freeze the insurance premiums to begin with, because this is a much more complex issue than some of us initially anticipated.

I think it is fair to say that even some of the members do not fully appreciate the complexities when we really get down to the level of detail that we now intend to.

It is unfortunate enough that many of the insurance companies obtained approvals even prior to the election, never mind prior to October 23, when the

announcement was made, but many of the residents now have received bills with increases of insurance premiums. It of course depends on medical costs as well as administrative costs, and those are

exactly the aspects our government intends to deal with.

I want to say that it might be unfair for us to just say that the professionals such as physiotherapists, neurologists, occupational therapists, chiropractors

and all the rest have been irresponsible in making the insurance premiums as high as they are. I do not accept that. I think it's much more complex than that, and we really want to get down to the

facts, so that we know what numbers we're looking at, how much which profession is in fact charging, maybe in an unfair manner, and we want to deal with those unfair details.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to rise this afternoon to make a few comments on the debate by the member from Oxford, a person

who has a great deal of business experience and municipal experience. Certainly in his years as the president and chairman of the ROMA board of directors, this issue of insurance has come up many

times in the life of the honourable member from Oxford. We've heard a lot of debate, and I know we're voting on this this afternoon at 6 o'clock, but I think what's important is that we have to

know that most of the plans we're looking at now were actually implemented earlier in the year.

On July 2, 2003, our government at the time announced changes to regulations which complement legislative changes passed in the budget bill. That's the bill

called Keeping the Promise for a Strong Economy Act (Budget Measures), 2002. I just wanted to put on the record in this debate that the ones on July 2 did in fact streamline access to treatment for

common injuries such as whiplash by introducing a pre-approved framework for treatment. They improve benefits for children suffering from serious injuries; they restrict the use of medical

examinations by insurers in order to end duplication; they prohibit unfair business practices by health care providers and paralegals; and they introduced a code of conduct for paralegals.

It's too bad that the Liberals didn't follow up on this as they took over the government. But again, they've decided to take another route, and we'll look

forward to the results of that. They've already guaranteed, under a promise, a 20% reduction in rates. We look forward to seeing those rates happen. I hope it's not another broken promise.

Mrs Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): I'm pleased to respond to the member from Oxford and his comments the last time this was debated. I'd

like to actually respond to something that the member from Simcoe North just mentioned, which is that much of what we are seeing happening right now was previously in place. I think it's very

important for the voters of the province, those people who are getting their insurance bills right now, to understand that despite the fact that the Liberal government has asked insurance companies

to freeze rates, consumers are seeing increased rates because the previous Conservative government, over the course of the last year, approved increases. Despite the fact that voters were very

upset about rising insurance rates, despite the fact that as we go door-to-door we hear horror stories about consumers who are not able to purchase insurance any longer because of the exorbitant

cost, the Conservative government continued to approve increased rates. Those are the rates that are currently being seen.

Effective October 23, we have stopped any further rate increases. Effective January 23, insurance companies will be required to file with us their plans for

rate reductions, which will average 10%. We believe that in working with the various stakeholders in the insurance industry, we can find ways to implement those cost reductions. We have received a

number of concrete suggestions, and we are very optimistic that we can see an average 10% rate reduction.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I'm pleased to join in and offer comments on the insurance bill that has just been put forward by the

Liberal government and would like to comment on the comments made by the member for Guelph-Wellington, who was trying to somehow blame the past government for recent increases.

I'd like to point out that the work done by our past insurance commissioner, Rob Sampson, would have had reductions in auto insurance in place as we speak, had

they been allowed to be put in place. On July 2 he had made changes to the insurance regulations that would have taken several hundred million dollars in costs in the industry out of the system.

Then, in late August, there were further changes made that were going to reduce the cost of the whole system by $1.4 billion, more than the $650 million the Liberal government is putting forward

now in this Bill 5.

So what the government has done is water down the savings that the taxpayers of the province would have received, had the changes that were in process been

allowed to go through. It also delayed it by several months, so there is a late freeze. There is, sometime next year, supposed to be a 10% reduction in the amount that people will pay on their auto

insurance bills, when, with the savings that would have gone through had they been allowed to be put forward by the past government, good drivers would have seen a 15% reduction in their auto

insurance costs, this at the same time as they're going ahead with many other tax hikes and increased energy costs as well. I'd just like to point that fact out.

The Speaker: The member for Oxford has two minutes to respond.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'd like to thank the members for Markham, Simcoe North, Guelph-Wellington and Parry Sound-Muskoka for their kind

comments to my presentation. I have some further comments on the some of the issues they brought up.

The member from Guelph-Wellington spoke about previously approved rates. As it goes through the insurance commission, of course, insurance companies must apply

to increase their rates, as they always have in the past. That had been going on. That was, I suppose, what necessitated the need to deal with rising insurance rates. During the election campaign,

I think it was pointed out quite clearly by the government that they were going to immediately stop the rates from going up. Then, within 90 days, they were going to bring the rates down by at

least 10%. They did make the effort to immediately freeze the rates. The Premier, within minutes, I suppose, or maybe within an hour of being sworn in, said he was going to freeze the rates where

they were. I was then hoping that the legislation coming forward would immediately allow the 90-day process to start and within 90 days my constituents could see at least a 10% reduction. That

doesn't happen in this bill.

I also want to point out that the other thing this bill does is allow the insurance company to come forward and put forward the position that they can't

provide the insurance for the rates they are presently getting. Then it allows the insurance commission to approve that rate. So, in fact, it takes away the freeze. I think that's of great

concern.

The other concern I have is that the bill only deals with insurance on cars; it doesn't deal with trucks and the insurance farmers and small business people

have to pay. Incidentally, those rates are as much out of line as car insurance, and we are now doing absolutely nothing to deal with those.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank them for their comments and thank you for the time.

The Speaker: Further debate? The member for Etobicoke North --

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. There's a rotation time with the NDP. My apologies.

The member for Trinity-Spadina.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): It could happen to anyone. Thank you, Speaker.

I welcome the citizens of Ontario to this political forum. It's 20 to 4 and we're on live, happy to have 10 minutes, a mere 10 minutes, to speak to a bill of

serious import. I'm sure the good doctor will be able to get his time to speak today.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: I suppose we'll do our best to say what we can in 10 minutes.

The previous Conservative speakers talked about many things, except I want to say to the citizens of Ontario that nothing they did helped you, drivers of

Ontario, and nothing the Liberals are doing or will do will help you either. And that's the dilemma. You drivers are going to continue to be whacked, day in and day out, year in and year out. It

doesn't matter whether the Tories would have remained in power or whether the Liberals are in power, the result is and would have been the same: Drivers are going to get whacked -- good drivers

especially are going to get whacked -- and you are experiencing it at the moment.

I want to use myself as an example of how this Bill 5 doesn't affect me at all. The first part of this bill says, "The bill temporarily freezes automobile

insurance rates for private passenger vehicles at the rates in effect on October 23...."

For the benefit of some MPPs -- I'm sure they have their own stories. It isn't just us; I'm sure it's ordinary folk out there. We have a little more money than

most ordinary folk. My insurance rates two years ago were about one thousand, one hundred and something dollars, and last year my rates went up about 500 bucks. That was last year. I called the

broker and I said, "I haven't had any accidents. I have no problems with the law. My rates went up 500 bucks" --

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): You're driving a Mercedes. What do you drive?

Mr Marchese: Richard, quiet down, please.

I said, "I didn't drive my automobile through some building that would have caused my rates to have gone up. It wasn't me. I didn't do anything. It's not right

and/or fair that my rates would have gone up 500 bucks," a year and a half ago. They explained that it was maybe having to do with many, many issues, of course.

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Rosario, in here, I'm looking --

Mr Marchese: What are you looking at, Jim?

Hon Mr Bradley: -- for government insurance.

Mr Marchese: Ah. I'm getting to that, Jim. Take it easy. I wouldn't avoid that.

And so my rates this year -- again, no accidents, good driver -- went up from --

Mr Patten: Big car.

Mr Marchese: It's irrelevant, Richard. Tell your story when you stand up for two minutes. It's irrelevant what kind of car I've got.

My rates went up from about $1,600 to $2,798, and it comes into effect January 14. I'm not sure how this bill helps me. I'm not sure how this bill will help

anyone who finds himself or herself in the same situation. I say to you that the majority of people driving are in the same situation. Freezing the rates has whacked me and whacked many other

people like me. We're not protected at all. This is a toothless bill that doesn't help anyone, and that it should pretend to do so belies the facts. It would be wrong to say that this particular

bill is helping anybody out there, because it isn't.

I'll be fascinated to listen to a number of speakers who will get up for their two minutes, or 10, and show me how they're helping me. I'm looking forward to

it.

The Minister of Tourism has a book in his hands and he says, "What did you do when you were there in 1990?" He is right. We didn't keep that promise. And some

of us in that caucus said that to have not kept that promise, even in and in spite of the economic recession we were feeling, and yes, even if, some of us argued, some jobs would be lost -- yes, in

a recession -- some of us said, "We've got to keep that promise." At the end of that discussion, some of us lost and we broke that promise.

You would think that successive governments would learn from those mistakes. We did. We learned that we can't regulate this beast, this insurance company, any

insurance company -- the beast. They can't be regulated. Liberals tried it when Richard Patten was there in the early years of the Liberal Party. We tried it in 1990, and even New Democrats can't

regulate. We can't regulate. Tories tried it. Every political party tried to regulate the insurance industry. It doesn't work.

Our rates have been skyrocketing in Ontario, similar to many of the Atlantic provinces, causing the Liberals in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to reconsider

their position vis-à-vis public auto insurance. Oh yes, we have learned from our mistakes and we admit that we made a mistake. And Jim Bradley, the Minister of Tourism, can stand up and show

the book and say, "Yeah, you did it." Yes, we did.

That's why I stand up here to tell you we made a mistake that cannot be repeated. Your bill to freeze rates does nothing. Even if, at some point, some of you

guys can bring in another bill and say you're going to reduce the rates by 10% -- my bill, up from $1,600 to $2,798; what kind of help are you giving me?

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: Sorry, Mikey. You can blame the Tories all you like, but you are not helping me one bit. I'm talking about you driving the

wheels. You will be in cabinet some day, too, and you'll be driven; not to worry.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): But the approvals came before --

Mr Marchese: I know, Michael, I know. This is Michael Colle -- through you, Chair, because I can't see you. He's a tall fellow.

It's what the Liberals are doing, not what the Tories did. What they did was bad, wrong --

Mr Colle: But you're paying for their sins.

Mr Marchese: But, Michael, I'm asking, what are you doing for me? What did you say during the election that was going to help me?

The Speaker: Refer to members by their riding names.

Mr Marchese: Yes, what did he say? And you, when you were there, tell me about how you were going to help me reduce my rates. It's not about

them; it's about you. You are in charge. Michael, you must remember now that you guys have the limousines. You're no longer in opposition without them. You have the limousines and you have to

decide how you're going to help me.

Mr Colle: Correct the record. I have a Jetta.

Mr Marchese: That's great. You have a Jetta, Michael. That's good.

Ms Monique Smith (Nipissing): You haven't identified your car yet. We're still waiting.

Mr Marchese: My point, Madame, is that public auto insurance is the only way to go.

Ms Smith: Mademoiselle, please.

Mr Marchese: It's the only way, Mademoiselle, to go. There is no other way.

You can have all the insurance companies talk about how fraud is the big problem. Some have spoken and said, "God, if fraud is the problem, why haven't we seen

thousands and thousands of prosecutions?" It's a criminal act. Why haven't we seen the prosecutions to make fraud not an issue? That's what the insurance companies say is the problem. Liberals say

that's a problem; Tories say that's a problem.

Some say, "Ah, it's the stock market." And yes, we argue that investing badly in stock markets by the insurance companies is forcing me to have to pay for

their problems and their mistakes. They lose money and I pay? I don't like it. I just don't like that. And I'm convinced that thousands of drivers, millions of drivers, like me say, "I don't like

the fact that they play the market, they do badly and I've got to pay for them. Sorry." And then to say, "It's fraud," as an excuse? Uh-uh.

Public auto insurance is the only way to go. It works in British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It does. You'll have Tories and Liberals argue, "Oh no,"

but it does. There's nothing that would prevent us from bringing in a public auto insurance system that would work for us; nothing at all.

I love the arguments my Tories and Liberals -- when we say we can make it more efficient, we can consolidate 110 insurance companies and make it more efficient

and save money. When you have an opportunity for the Tories to agree with you -- because we speak the language that they normally speak -- they say, "Oh no. That kind of efficiency doesn't work."

The first time New Democrats say that we can consolidate public auto under one company and save money, causing greater efficiencies, the Tories say, "No. That's not good." They can consolidate all

they want to save money, as they did for eight years; New Democrats can't do it. Public auto insurance is the only solution to solving the skyrocketing rates we've seen in the last eight years.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I agree with all the members from the three sides that the insurance issue is a very difficult issue to

deal with.

I appreciate the comment my friend made a few minutes ago that they tried in the past to regulate the auto insurance industry, but they failed, also the

comment by different speakers from the Conservative side -- from Simcoe North, from Oxford, from Parry Sound-Muskoka -- that they promised the people of Ontario to reduce auto insurance by 20%. But

they had more than eight years to deal with this issue and never did anything with it.

This issue only came alive around election time, and now they are accusing the Liberals of trying to play games. We know it's very difficult. We know the

insurance industry is a beast; it's a strong and dangerous beast. That's why we promised the people of Ontario we'll give them a freeze at the beginning, and deal with experts later on, in order to

introduce a bill -- a fair one -- for all the drivers across the province, not just come and deal with it without any scientific solutions. We're looking for long solutions, not a temporary

solution. I believe our approach, Dalton McGuinty's approach and his government's, is the right approach to deal with this issue. Hopefully we'll see the positive result in the near future.

The Speaker: The member for Haldimand --

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): Halton. The great riding of Halton.

The Speaker: The member for the great riding of Halton.

Mr Chudleigh: The member speaks with great passion, and I know he believes in everything he says. It's always disappointing to me that someone

who believes so passionately in what he says can be so wrong. But that's something I guess he has to live with.

He said you can't administer auto insurance. Well, in 1996, we passed Bill 59, the automotive rate reduction bill, and it reduced auto insurance rates in this

province by 20%. Rates came down 20% in 1996 and 1997.

He talked about the only solution being public auto insurance. I'd like the member opposite to give me one example of what government does better than private

industry does. What does government do that is more efficient than what private industry does? Oh, I know the party mantra is that someone is making a profit out of it. It's too bad profit is not a

four-letter word, because it would fit with the lexicon of the NDP party. Unfortunately, it's not a four-letter word; it's more letters than that.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Be careful, Ted. Your arthritis is going to start to act up.

Mr Chudleigh: I keep moving, Howie. If I move, I'm OK.

What does government do more efficiently? I can't think of anything. The profit factor: most companies in Ontario could live well and make a nice return on

investment, plus cut the costs of most services, just through efficiency alone, because there is so much waste in most government programs.

Mr Hampton: I want to congratulate the member for Trinity-Spadina for pointing out that in a number of jurisdictions now in Canada it's beyond

debate that public auto insurance is the effective way to lower the cost of auto insurance for individual consumers. It's worth noting that since the NDP implemented public auto insurance in

Saskatchewan, for example, Saskatchewan has had Liberal and Conservative governments, and yet those Liberal and Conservative governments have not touched the public auto insurance system. Why?

Because it works effectively. In British Columbia, since the NDP implemented public auto insurance and substantially lowered people's auto insurance premiums, they have had Social Credit

governments and they now have a Liberal government, although it looks more like a Conservative government, and they all have agreed that public auto insurance is the most cost-effective and

efficient way to deliver auto insurance to consumers.

In Manitoba, since the NDP implemented public auto insurance there, they've had two Conservative governments and two different Conservative Premiers who

consistently have said that public auto insurance is the way to go. They're not interested in changing the public auto insurance system because it is so cost-effective and efficient in terms of

providing affordable auto insurance that people can rely on. Even in Quebec, where you have a bit of a hybrid system where part of the system is operated on a public, not-for-profit basis, you had

Liberal governments and you now have a former Conservative, now Liberal, Premier who also admits that public auto insurance is the most cost-effective way to provide people with auto insurance

coverage. I congratulate the member for pointing that out.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I'd like to make sure we understand that if we read the book Rae Days,

chapter five, Revenge of the Pink Ladies, we

will see exactly what's being said about public auto insurance.

What I also want to suggest to the members opposite is to take a look at the claim rates in public versus private auto. The claim rates are ju