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

December 11, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Dec-11 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 11 December 2001 Mardi 11 décembre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPECIALISTS' SERVICES

GOOD NEIGHBOURS CAMPAIGN

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

RAMADAN

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

PUBLIC SAFETY

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES CORONERS

TORONTO WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION

CORPORATION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

DE REVITALISATION

DU SECTEUR RIVERAIN DE TORONTO

ORDERS AND NOTICES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TORONTO WATERFRONT

DEFERRED VOTES

MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MFP FINANCIAL SERVICES

HIGHWAY 407

MFP FINANCIAL SERVICES

TUITION FEES

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ICE FISHING

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

FIREARMS SAFETY AND CONTROL

HÔPITAL MONTFORT

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

SENIORS' HOUSING

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

OHIP SERVICES

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

CHILD CARE

LORD'S PRAYER

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

CHILD CARE

HIGHWAY 407

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Tuesday 11 December 2001 Mardi 11 décembre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPECIALISTS' SERVICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): The Timiskaming Municipal Association is asking the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to

make a commitment to fund the visiting specialist clinic program at the level of days designated in January 1999. The TMA wants the ministry to commit to this level until a policy decision is made

to establish an efficient and effective model for delivering specialist clinics.

The TMA, which met in Earlton the other day, believes that the changes in the program that have been recently implemented are going to threaten to reduce the

availability of visiting clinicians to the hospitals in the Timiskaming area. The planning, management and delivery of medical specialists' services has already been impacted because the ministry

is not providing a long-term-care policy nor stable funding for these clinicians.

It's a very important matter for those of us who live in isolated areas and small towns that don't have readily accessible specialists' services. We rely on this

program to bring the specialists to us. As you know, in northern Ontario we have the health travel grant, but that's a lot of money being expended and a lot of time being wasted as a lot of our

patients have to go to centres like Sudbury and, in the northwest, Thunder Bay to receive those services.

It makes efficient use of everyone's time to bring the visiting specialist to our centres and it saves the government money, but there's a total lack of

coordination in the Ministry of Health in funding access to specialists. We need to get that coordination, and the way to do that is to let northerners make these decisions for themselves.

GOOD NEIGHBOURS CAMPAIGN

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): In my riding of Cambridge, a long-standing institution, Gmelin Flowers, has organized a Good Neighbours campaign

dedicated to help the families of the victims of September 11 and those involved in the relief efforts in Afghanistan. The campaign is symbolized by this rather pretty ribbon of three colours,

along with the Canadian flag in the middle.

Gmelin Flowers and a group of dedicated volunteers have, to date, raised over $25,000 in donations for this important cause, to be distributed through the

Canadian Red Cross.

I would like to thank everyone who has donated to the Good Neighbours campaign, and especially acknowledge the rotary clubs in Cambridge for their support: the

Preston-Hespeler Rotary Club, the Galt Rotary Club, the Cambridge North Rotary Club, the Cambridge Sunrise Rotary Club and the Kitchener-Conestoga Rotary Club. They have all put forth a tremendous

effort.

This important project has been a huge success due to the hard work of dedicated organizers, strong community response and countless hours put in by volunteers

such as my good friends Dede, Carl and Bob Gmelin, David Mitchell, Diane Cooper, Kathy Murphy and Donna Diamond, just to name a few.

This campaign is a true example of what makes Cambridge and Ontario a great place to live. I hope everyone will support the Good Neighbours campaign.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): In my community we are struggling with a made-in-Toronto solution: plans to restructure our

hospitals. I think the city, the united counties, the local hospitals and the provincial government need to sit down and actively discuss the possibility of a brand new hospital. I would be more

than willing to facilitate the process.

Three years ago the government's hospital closing commission went against the local committee and told us that one of our hospitals would have to close to acute

and chronic care patients, and the other would have to have substantial renovations. Since that time the estimated cost of the restructuring has ballooned to close to $67 million, and our community

has been told that they have to come up with $20 million to pay for the decision, a decision that was forced on them by the government.

Every day I hear from constituents who feel the only way the community will raise $20 million is to go for a brand new hospital, a state-of-the-art facility.

Hardly anyone wants to pay for expensive renovations of an old building that will likely be inadequate to meet the needs in a few short years. And nobody who has spoken to me wants the municipality

to have a tax levy for the renovations.

Two weeks ago I asked the Minister of Health to make a commitment to the people of my community. I asked him whether or not he was prepared to provide new money

before Christmas. Well, Christmas is two weeks away and nothing has changed. My community is still on the hook for $20 million for a decision that was made in Toronto, and the only thing this

government is committed to is big corporate tax cuts and $234 million worth of government advertising. The government is not committed to working families in the province.

RAMADAN

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): The month of Ramadan is drawing to a close. Ontarians of the Islamic faith will soon be

celebrating Eid ul-Fitr.

During the month of Ramadan, over 14 centuries ago, the word of God, which we refer to as the Qu'ran, was revealed to the prophet Muhammad. Peace be upon

him.

Ramadan is a time of fasting. This fasting is one of the five pillars of Islam. It is

an act of self-purification and self-discipline, to become more conscious

of God and of the suffering of other human beings.

The Eid celebration comes with the new moon. This weekend, Muslims all around the world will be celebrating Eid ul-Fitr. Families in Ontario will be among the

celebrants. Ontario has a growing and vibrant Muslim community. More and more Ontario Muslims are descended from immigrants, but are themselves born and bred here in Canada. And that means that Eid

is becoming more and more a part of the fabric of Canada's multicultural holiday season. There will be Eid parties, people will share gifts with each other, and especially with the poor and less

fortunate in the community. They will be thankful to God for the health, strength and opportunities that he gives.

To Ontario's over 300,000 Muslims, I wish Eid Mubarak, or a blessed feast.

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): Back in March 2000, the Minister of Community and Social Services levied a $925 head tax on

international orphans. The head tax was nothing short of discriminatory. The processing of these adoptions occurs in the child's country of origin and the tax is only levied on those adoptions

finalized outside Ontario.

In September 2000, I introduced a private member's bill designed to rescind this head tax, and it passed second reading with the support of five cabinet

ministers. This government should do all it can to honour the families that are adopting internationally. They make a huge financial and emotional commitment to raise a family, and this head tax is

nothing but offensive to them and to their families.

As we near the end of this session, I call on the government to pass this act because my private member's bill would provide tax relief for families being

charged intercountry adoption fees. Other jurisdictions, including Quebec, provide internationally adopting families with $5,000 in tax relief. The tax relief I am proposing will require less than

$1 million in total. Your education tax credit, the tax credit that you will provide for private schools, will cost $500 million. You have the money to support private, wealthy schools but you

don't have the money to support hard-working families.

Do the right thing. Move my private member's bill immediately, as it will implement the tax credit for these hard-working families. These families deserve

nothing less.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): This government yesterday rammed through another closure motion -- and of course we'll be dealing with

yet another one this afternoon -- on Bill 130, which is the government's provincial takeover, and a hostile one at that, of the CCACs. In the process of the debate, I've heard an awful lot of

government members pointing to the review of the service in Hamilton. To be sure, there were structural problems that needed to be addressed, but in defence of the Hamilton CCAC, let me put a few

things on the record.

First of all, the people who were on that board -- I know most of them -- were good people who cared about the clients, who cared about our community and cared

about providing the kind of services that CCACs are mandated to do. Secondly, before this government could step in and do anything about changes in the Hamilton CCAC, they had to cough up more

money. At the end of the day, that's the core problem: not enough money.

When you've got a group of people who have to make decisions that in some cases are close to life and death and there's not enough money, no matter what they

decide, in

part it's going to be the wrong decision because all the needs aren't being met. Further to that, the managed competition has been a total disaster. All it's doing is pushing non-profits

like SEN and VON out of the home care service business, where they have been for decades providing an excellent service.

Before you go pointing fingers and saying, "That's why we have to do this across the province," take a close look at your underfunding for home care in this

province.

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Canadians consider health care to be their most treasured social program. Citizens want their governments

budget dismissed the concerns of Ontario residents by allowing federal underfunding for health care to continue.

The facts are clear. The Ontario government's operating spending has increased by $6.8 billion since 1995, and 90% of that increase was given to health care. As

compared to the federal funding levels in 1994, the federal cuts to health care represent $2 billion per year in Ontario alone. The federal government has increased overall spending by 9.4% in this

budget and they did so, to quote the Premier from today's Globe and Mail, without "one cent for Canadians' number one priority, which is health care. I do think it's wrong," he said. I say the

Premier is absolutely correct.

I introduced a private member's resolution in this House two years ago that addressed the fact that the federal government was not paying its fair share for

health care. In it, I called for a full restoration of the funds that were cut and the establishment of an escalator clause to increase funding to match rising costs such as those needed to take

care of an aging and growing population.

With the support and leadership of the former Minister of Health, Elizabeth Witmer, a similar government resolution was brought to this House on April 2, 2000,

with the Premier leading off the debate and vigorously defending Ontario's interest. On April 13 of that year, all members of this Legislature supported my resolution and it passed unanimously.

Although yesterday's federal budget demonstrates a lack of understanding, I remain optimistic, for Ontario is not alone in our sentiment. There is an outcry from

provinces across Canada, and they continue to voice the need for fair funding for health care. The federal government will have no --

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

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): Today I want to bring a very serious issue to the attention of this House and of the citizens of Ontario.

Recently I've been working with the grieving parents of children whose deaths were preventable. These parents have been fighting the coroner's office for

measures that would ensure that an inquest would be automatic for such deaths in schools, in hospitals, on provincial roads or in any provincial public body.

When public safety is at risk because of deficiencies in any provincial public sector entity, the recommendations of the coroner's jury must be mandatory. For

grieving parents who have experienced the tragic and senseless loss of a child, solace and sometimes peace can be found in changing the system to protect others: maybe your child or loved one. This

is a very noble motivation, and I am honoured to introduce a private member's bill today to help them achieve that goal.

I want to thank Mike and Brenda Neuts and Nancy Brown for their support of this bill. I hope that for once -- just for once -- this government will put aside

their partisan politics to support this bill to help save lives.

Jeffrey Brown died because of a preventable medication error and young Miles Neuts was a victim of a senseless tragedy in the bathroom of his Chatham school.

When a coroner's jury makes recommendations to protect the public, they must be implemented regardless of cost and regardless of any internal politics or shameless damage control by this

government.

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I tentatively stand today to applaud the security measures announced by the federal government in yesterday's

budget. I am encouraged by the funding for border safety finally announced after years of neglect.

However, at the same time, I must also condemn yet another anemic performance by federal Health Minister Allan Rock. Once again, no new federal investment in

health care.

In 1993 the Mulroney federal Tory government contributed 18 cents toward every dollar spent on health care in Ontario. The federal Liberals have since decreased

that funding to 11 cents out of every dollar. Thanks to Premier Mike Harris, the Liberals have started to increase their share. It's now at about 14 cents out of every dollar -- still far below

what it was in 1993. Initially, I want to point out, health care was funded 50-50 between the federal government and the provinces. We are only asking that the federal government reinstate funding

to 1993 levels.

We are not alone. Let me quote New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord: "The big story is what's not in the budget. What's not in the budget are additional

investments for health care." The PQ finance minister says, "Nothing for health care. Nothing for transfer payments. Martin wasn't swayed by the unanimous demands by the provinces." The NDP Premier

of Saskatchewan: "Like every other Premier, I was hoping to see some movement on a commitment to greater resources to health and it just wasn't there." Shame on the federal Liberals.

VISITORS

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to introduce and welcome, in the visitors' gallery,

Peter Callaghan and a group of third-year business students from Loyalist College. I can only hope they forget what they see here today.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on estimates.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Mr Peters from the standing committee on estimates presents the committee's report as follows:

Pursuant to standing order 60(a), the following estimates (2001-2002) are reported back to the House as they were not previously selected by the committee for

consideration and are deemed to be received and concurred in:

Office of the Assembly:

201 Office of the Assembly program, $89,449,700;

202 Commission(er)'s program, $9,935,400.

Office of the Chief Election Officer --

Interjections: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Dispense? Dispense.

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 129,

An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act / Projet de loi 129, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de

protection des animaux de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES CORONERS

Mr Hoy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 150,

An Act to amend the Coroners Act to require that more inquests be held and that jury recommendations be acted on / Projet de loi 150, Loi modifiant

la

Loi sur les coroners afin d'exiger qu'un plus grand nombre d'enquêtes soient tenues et que les recommandations du jury soient appliquées.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): This bill, on behalf of grieving parents in my riding, would require an automatic inquest when preventable

deaths occur in Ontario's public domain. When public safety is at risk, this bill would also require that the recommendations of a coroner's jury be implemented.

TORONTO WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION

CORPORATION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

DE REVITALISATION

DU SECTEUR RIVERAIN DE TORONTO

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 151,

An Act respecting the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation / Projet de loi 151, Loi concernant la Société de revitalisation du

secteur riverain de Toronto.

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

The Minister of Finance for a short statement?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'll make a minister's statement.

ORDERS AND NOTICES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, I rise pursuant to the standing orders dealing with the Orders and Notices paper. You'll note

in today's Orders and Notices paper that under "Orders of the Day," the matter to be considered this afternoon, in roughly an hour and a half, is "to be announced."

I've just been informed by the government House leader a few moments ago that the government intends to call time allocation on Bill 30, which they gave us

notice of yesterday. However, we have a problem that requires your attention.

Clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 86 was not completed in committee this morning. Our members on that committee want the opportunity to finish that

clause-by-clause consideration. The dilemma we have in the opposition is that if the time allocation motion on Bill 30 is called this afternoon, we would not be able to agree to do the

clause-by-clause on Bill 86, because our critic would effectively have to be in two places. We think that is not the proper way to do business. It's very clear in the standing orders. It's very

clear that the government is attempting to put us in a position of saying no to a bill which quite frankly we'd be prepared to support if it was given due consideration.

Accordingly, Mr Speaker, I would ask two points of order: first, why would we even publish an Orders and Notices paper if probably the most important element

of the day is left "to be announced"?

Second, we need your intervention to protect the opposition's ability to discuss legislation in a meaningful way. Failing that, we in the official opposition

would be prepared to introduce a motion now to allow the House to sit next week and to allow the House to sit in January.

We are being put in a position where approximately 12 minutes ago we were told what the item to be considered today is. How are we supposed to function

effectively as a Legislature if we don't know what matter is going to be discussed in the House on any particular afternoon until an hour before we're supposed to discuss the matter? We need your

help, sir.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member. The government House leader on the same point of order.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, just to respond to the honourable member, as he well knows, in

the last days of the Legislature there are a number of matters that all three parties are interested in discussing. We've been attempting to work out arrangements for a number of pieces of

legislation. I appreciate the fact that sometimes the notice is shorter than we would all like it to be. But as he well knows, having been House leader many times, there is an attempt to try to see

if we can focus the time of the House on bills that all three parties think are most important, and others might well carry over to the spring session, to be dealt with at that time.

The other thing I would like to say, as the House leaders of both parties are aware, having had a conversation with them just earlier: it was certainly my

intent to seek unanimous consent of this House to finish clause-by-clause of Bill 86, the youth prostitution bill, this afternoon. Originally, they had thought they could be finished this morning.

They were not able to be finished. I appreciate that there's great interest in this bill. I had thought that it might be helpful if we could finish clause-by-clause on it this afternoon and was

prepared to ask for unanimous consent of the House to do that. It is certainly the purview of the other two parties whether to agree or disagree with that procedural issue.

The Speaker: The member for Niagara Centre on the same point of order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Indeed, and the reference of course is to 69(

d) of the standing orders.

Look, the government knows what the committee's agenda is. The government chooses what to call in orders of the day. The rationale for 69(

d) is so that a

critic, for instance, doesn't find himself or herself split between two obligations. It's not a matter that can be resolved so readily as is presumed by unanimous consent, because unanimous consent

doesn't resolve the conflict that a critic has; it's one of government exercising its choice. The rule is there to preserve the orderliness of debate, the orderly passage of matters through

committee as well as the House, and the committee should expect to be bound by 69(

d) come 3:30 or orders of the day this afternoon.

The Speaker: I thank the members for all their input. The House leader for the official opposition will know that the government is at liberty

to call anything on the order paper. There is no requirement to indicate daily business in advance. I know at these times when discussions are going on with the House leaders there is a tremendous

give and take back and forth, but there is no requirement.

Also, the committee consideration: nothing is now out of order. If the order is called this afternoon and that same policy field is being discussed in the

committee, then it can be raised in the committee dealing with that matter, and I'm sure the committee Chair and the committee will deal with that. So the proper place to raise that would be, if

the order is called and there is other consideration, to raise it in the committee.

I thank all the House leaders for the points they made on this point of order.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Concerning Bill 86, youth prostitution, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion respecting standing order 69(

d) and the

standing committee on justice and social policy and that the question on the motion be put immediately without further debate or amendment.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections.

The Speaker: That was very clear. Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Believe me, he just happened to be the loudest. Right behind him there was another no. The member for Windsor-St Clair?

Mr Duncan: I seek unanimous consent to introduce a motion to extend the House calendar to allow the House to sit next week and into January,

if necessary.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes again.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TORONTO WATERFRONT

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I am pleased to announce today the introduction of enabling legislation to establish a

permanent Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp, delivering on an earlier provincial commitment to take the lead on this important initiative. It's the next step in realizing our shared vision for

the revitalization of the Toronto waterfront.

The proposed Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Act, 2001, would achieve a number of important purposes, including enabling the city of Toronto to

participate in the corporation and any subsidiary corporations that may be established and providing a broad outline of the corporation's purpose, powers and mandate.

It also provides a framework for future decisions regarding the corporation in such key areas as business planning, financial accountability and annual

reporting requirements.

In that regard, the province will continue to work co-operatively with the federal government and the city of Toronto, our partners in this venture, to develop

regulations and agreements to further empower the corporation in the months and years ahead.

The proposed legislation also sets out the structure of the corporation, providing for a publicly appointed board of directors.

It also enables a smooth transition from the current interim waterfront corporation, which was announced November 1, 2001, to the permanent entity being

proposed today. Robert Fung, the author of a high-profile report on the future revitalization of the waterfront, is the chair of the interim corporation and will also become the chair of the

permanent corporation.

As members know, in October 2000, the Ontario and federal governments and the city of Toronto announced a total investment of $1.5 billion, $500 million each,

to revitalize and transform the Toronto waterfront. Under the proposed legislation tabled today, a permanent waterfront corporation would be charged with the responsibility to leverage the three

governments' initial investment to become financially self-sufficient and to attract private sector investment to the waterfront area. To ensure accountability, the corporation would require

approval of the three governments to borrow funds, mortgage its assets or generate revenues.

As I stated in budget 2001, the province is making a $500-million investment through SuperBuild to revitalize the Toronto waterfront, strengthen the city's

international competitiveness, and create jobs and neighbourhoods in its downtown. Waterfront revitalization will be an opportunity to put into practice the main principles of the province's Smart

Growth initiative: to build strong communities with strong economies and a safe and healthy environment.

The waterfront revitalization project is also an excellent opportunity to make full use of the province's brownfields redevelopment initiative that is designed

to facilitate the transformation of derelict and contaminated land into vibrant, productive uses.

The waterfront revitalization corporation would be responsible for developing business strategies, implementing projects and championing innovation to achieve

the three governments' goal of revitalizing Toronto's waterfront in a financially self-sustaining and environmentally responsible manner. These are the principles underlying the city of Toronto's

proposed central waterfront plan. The waterfront revitalization corporation would be required to undertake its responsibilities in a manner consistent with Toronto's plan, once it's approved by

city council.

The proposed legislation also envisions that a permanent waterfront corporation would focus on creating an accessible and active waterfront for living, working

and recreation; promoting and encouraging private sector involvement in waterfront development and redevelopment; and encouraging public input in the development plan.

We have lost no time moving forward with this critical economic and urban renewal initiative. The interim corporation is already mandated to begin work

immediately on long-term business and development plans. To kick-start the renewal process, the interim corporation will soon launch four initial capital projects worth a total of $300 million that

are tied to Toronto's central waterfront.

Today's announcement underlines Ontario's strong commitment to revitalize Toronto's waterfront and to continue to work co-operatively with our federal and

municipal partners through the proposed Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp to realize our shared vision.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to respond on behalf of my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and our caucus, first to say that

this is an extremely important asset for the city of Toronto, and all of us appreciate the importance to the future of the city of Toronto that it be developed well. We only really get one chance,

certainly in a generation, at our waterfront, and it's extremely important not just to the city of Toronto but in many respects to Ontario that this be done very well.

So we're very supportive of the plans to regenerate the waterfront and recognize it as a significant economic asset to the city of Toronto, and we look forward

to debating the legislation to ensure that it fulfills the mandate that I think all the people want for the city of Toronto. We're pleased that Mr Fung, with a very good reputation, appears to be

prepared to take on the chairmanship.

We'll be very supportive of positive moves that allow the city of Toronto to substantially enhance our waterfront. As I said, urban environments around the

world treasure their waterfronts, and I look forward to an outstanding development there, and frankly I hope an improvement on what took place in the rest of the waterfront in the city of

Toronto.

I will express several questions as we proceed with this; one is in terms of the resources. If you look at the 2000 budget, the province budgeted about $200

million for what was called the SuperBuild millennium fund, designed to move projects like this ahead. When you look at what happened, I think $14 million of the $200 million was spent. For those

of the public who care to look, the capital budget of the province of Ontario for this year is the smallest it's been in at least 20 years. It's under $2 billion, and there's a modest amount in the

budget this year for the project we're talking about today. I always say I spend more time watching what the government does than listening to what they say, and so I would just caution us to

follow the money.

The second thing is that there's much mention in here of private-public sector partnerships along the waterfront, which we look forward to with interest. The

one private-public sector partnership that this government embarked on was the 407. We think there's considerable evidence that the 407 owner benefited substantially. The 407 deal closed on May 5,

1999, literally the day the election was called, and it provided a $1.6-billion slush fund for the government's re-election platform. But the 407 users, the people we are supposed to be here

representing, have been ripped off. I reinforce that for us, because that has been the government's centrepiece of private sector partnerships. In my opinion, and in our caucus's and our leader's

opinion, the government of Ontario did not look after the people we were elected to look after, and that is the taxpayers. They were left out to dry.

The third thing about the legislation that we will be interested in is transparency. I said earlier in my remarks that the waterfront is an enormous asset and

we only really get one crack at this in a generation. I would hope that the legislation, which I just received literally five minutes ago, provides for some public transparency, that what takes

place on the waterfront shouldn't be done behind closed doors and without the opportunity for the public to have input and to understand what's happening.

Again I go back to the 407. Our caucus has been fighting now for two years to find the details of what tolls are going to be charged on the road, which should

be, in my opinion, a right of the public to know. As we look at this legislation, it is our hope that the waterfront development won't be done behind closed doors, out of the sight of the public,

because after all, this is their asset, no one else's.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): The waterfront in the city of Toronto is and could be the jewel of the entire city. Today, though, if

anyone wanders by there, if anyone has an opportunity to drive down or to look at the derelict factories, if you look at the Ataratiri site that is so badly polluted that it is beyond use -- it

cannot be used for any public purpose -- if you look at the pollution which is literally everywhere, the weeds that are growing through the cracks in the concrete, someone would wonder what this

real jewel was.

However, there is an opportunity to move forward on that, and I welcome the government's tabling this legislation.

However, the lands are largely in public holding. The lands belong to the city of Toronto; the lands belong to the province; the lands belong to TEDCO and to

the port authority. The lands already belong to the people and they need to be protected for the people. The city of Toronto is of course anxious to proceed. The city of Toronto is anxious to name

the people and to have the legislation, I would assume, passed at some point in the future.

But I have to question and I need to know from the government, and we haven't heard this yet: when do they intend this to proceed? Are there going to be public

hearings? Is there going to be transparency? Are the people of this city going to be allowed an opportunity to comment on this bill: who sits on the board of directors, what their plans are, where

they are going to raise funds?

There was some rush, and I admit there may have been some rush had Toronto been successful in its Olympic bid. But as we all know, Toronto was not successful

in its Olympic bid. We now have a bill which is setting up a corporation to redo the waterfront, and we're thankful for that, but we need to know how fast this is going to be pushed through.

With the greatest of respect, subsection 13(1) of this particular legislation, and I did have an opportunity to read all of it in those five minutes --

Interjection.

Mr Prue: I did -- sets out that the corporation will exist for 20 years; 13(2) sets out that the corporation can be extended for 25 years. If

we are going to be doing this right, clearly, to set up a 25-year corporation, we should be willing to take the time to do it right. We need to protect those public lands. We need to make sure the

public has full input. We need to make sure that those lands remain in public hands and are used for public purposes. We do not need to repeat the mistakes of the city of Toronto and the province

and the federal government around the harbour front, where all of the prime public lands are now owned by condo owners. We do not want to see, and I think nobody in this House wants to see, those

lands sold off to the highest bidder and have condos to the sky, blocking out the views of the people who want to come down and use those public lands.

We need to know that a smooth transition is going to take place, that the financial impacts of $1.5 billion are going to be wisely spent.

We need to know and have an opportunity to figure out who the 13 members are going to be. Only nine of them are listed, and we need to know who the other ones

are.

We need to know about the accountability and the financial reporting. Although it is set out in the legislation, it is vague and it requires regulations to

flesh it out.

Everyone needs to know -- and where is the reference within the legislation, the minister's statement, the compendium or anything else that is attached to

this? Where is the reference to the city of Toronto's official plans, and must those official plans be followed? It is absolutely clear and crucial that the city of Toronto's official plans should

have paramountcy, that the statements made by Robert Fung in what many consider a brilliant report on the waterfront are going to be followed, and not necessarily that in the rush to involve the

private sector, large amounts of money are going to be made for building condominia, possibly for building other structures. There was some discussion about gambling establishments and everything

else that might be located there.

There needs to be discussion of where the transportation fits in and how the transportation is going to be actioned by the board of directors, how the

environmental cleanups are going to take place, whether in fact affordable housing is going to be built anywhere on that site.

There need to be clear statements on how the instructions are handed down to the board of directors, although I do see in subsection 7(1) some reference to

that.

There is the entire question of paramountcy that has to be asked. We have not yet signed a memorandum of understanding with the city of Toronto or any

municipality or AMO.

All of that has to be decided, and I ask that we take our time in doing it.

DEFERRED VOTES

MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 111,

An Act to revise the Municipal Act and to amend or repeal other Acts in relation to municipalities /

Projet de loi 111, Loi révisant la

Loi sur les municipalités et modifiant ou abrogeant d'autres lois en ce qui concerne les municipalités.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1415 to 1420.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 48; the nays are 44.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MFP FINANCIAL SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Chair of Management Board. We have learned that since your

government took office, you have paid MFP Financial Services $425 million. That's a lot of money. We've also learned that every single provincial ministry has done business with this same

company.

You will know that the alarm bells have been rung when it comes to dealings with MFP. Municipalities and other public institutions are in the process of

reviewing their business dealings with this company. Some have launched lawsuits. We're hearing now about forensic audits. We've also heard of cases where contracts were actually being ripped up by

people who entered into these contracts with MFP.

We think the responsible thing to do in the circumstances is to release the contracts your government has entered into with MFP, and at the same time give the

Provincial Auditor an opportunity to review those same contracts on behalf of the public. Will you agree to that, Minister?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): This is actually the same question that was asked by the member for Essex

yesterday. If the Leader of the Opposition had been here yesterday, he would have known what the answer was.

When the member from Essex raised this originally back in October, both in a letter and also in a question in the House, I indicated at that time that I have

asked my officials in Management Board to review these contracts and report back. They have reported back to me, and what I said yesterday is the same as I'm going to say today: they reported back

saying that all contracts we have appear to be above-board, and certainly they have no legal disputes between them or any of our government ministries at this point in time.

I have confidence in our officials at Management Board. If the Leader of the Opposition has any information upon which he can base any allegation of anything

that is untoward, I ask him and urge him to bring it forward. If not, if he is just speculating, I would urge him as well to cease doing that.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, what are you hiding? Why won't you just simply make these contracts available? Why wouldn't you simply allow the

Provincial Auditor to review those and report to the public?

If you're looking for some facts, I have some for you. Brock University had its contracts with MFP revised. The region of Waterloo is suing MFP. Windsor yanked

a $2-million leasing agreement from MFP and is now conducting a forensic audit. Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority is conducting a forensic audit of its contracts. The Union Water System is

conducting a forensic audit of its contract with MFP. There is smoke out there.

We think the responsible thing to do under the circumstances is make public the contracts you've entered into on behalf of the government and ensure that the

Provincial Auditor has an opportunity to review those same contracts and provide us with the reassurance you are trying to give us here but which we don't accept. We want the Provincial Auditor to

take a look at these contracts. Why won't you allow that?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I might inform the Leader of the Opposition that the Provincial Auditor certainly has the right to go into whatever areas he

decides to, as you full well know. In his year 2000 report, the Provincial Auditor recommended to MBS that we formally assess the desirability and cost-effectiveness of leasing IT equipment, follow

a competitive process, work with ministries to ensure competitive prices are achieved through implementation of the proposed total-cost-of-ownership concept.

The Deputy Minister of MBS responded in the report and recently wrote to the auditor outlining how MBS will achieve lower costs for desktop computer systems,

regularly evaluate equipment pricing, continue with public-service-wide training programs, implement government-wide vendors to get the best value for the money.

I've asked the ministry to review these contracts. They have come back and are satisfied that these contracts are legitimate --

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

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you should know by now that your blithe and bland assurances really have very little meaning. What we want to happen

here is to have the Provincial Auditor, who is on the side of taxpayers in Ontario, on the side of working families, take a very close look at these same contracts. Why can't he do that?

Let's understand again what we're talking about here. Every single ministry has done business with MFP Financial. Your government has already paid them $425

million. We're talking about contracts that over the long term, 20 and 30 years out, are going to cost us in the neighbourhood of billions of dollars. We already know that lawsuits are mushrooming

around the province of Ontario. We think the responsible thing to do in the circumstances is not to have you bury your head in the sand; instead, we think the appropriate thing to do is make the

contracts public and give the public auditor a chance to look at the same documents.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I prefaced the last answer by indicating that the Provincial Auditor has the right to enter into any type of investigation

or review he desires to do.

I guess the Leader of the Opposition doesn't like a bland response. The fact of the matter is, and what I'm indicating is, there is the Provincial Auditor's

report for the year 2000. That's what I'm talking about. You want the Provincial Auditor involved. These are his recommendations. The Deputy Minister of MBS reported back to the Provincial Auditor

in response to this report indicating that these are good points that the Provincial Auditor was making and that the government was complying with his advice, which is the prudent thing to do,

quite frankly.

If the Leader of the Opposition has any information, please bring it forward. We will be interested in seeing that. But as I said before, the Provincial

Auditor has every right to do this. This is his job. If he does embark on any type of review, of course all ministries of government will comply.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): The question is for the Minister of Finance. Just days before calling the last election, your

government made a very specific promise to motorists in the 905 area. You told them that while you were selling the 407, you would do everything you could to protect them against unfair and

outrageous toll hikes. I can tell you that during the past two years what has happened to motorists in the 905 travelling the 407 is that they have in fact been subjected to outrageous and unfair

toll hikes.

When is it that you decided, Minister, because it's important for us to know now, that you were going to be on the side of the highway owner as opposed to on

the side of the motorists?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, the Minister of Transportation.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): I thank the leader of the loyal opposition for the question. I have a question for the Leader of

the Opposition. I have in my hand a study commissioned by the David Peterson government in 1989.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We ask the questions. They're supposed to answer them, not --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That's not a point of order. Take a seat. Minister, sorry for the interruption.

Hon Mr Clark: Here's what the government under the Liberals proposed regarding Highway 407. Your study, sir, found that in order to finance an

eight-and-a-half-kilometre

section of Highway 407, toll rates would have to be $1.86 for automobiles and $9.30 for trucks. That works out to 22 cents a kilometre and $1.09 for trucks. Your deal

under your government was outrageous. Thank goodness we didn't accept your advice, and, sir, clearly Ontarians know --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up. Supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Supplementary, the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can see why the Minister of Finance is trying to put some distance between himself and his predecessor

on this one. I can see that.

Minister, I've got a release here put out by the Office of Privatization dated April 13, 1999, and it's all about the deal, of course, for the sale of Highway

407. It says specifically in it, "This would mean that tolls could" only "increase by about three cents per kilometre over the first 15 years." In 15 years, tolls would go up three cents a

kilometre. Well, we're not 15 years since then, we're a little over two years, and we've discovered that in many cases, for many motorists, tolls have gone up by close to eight cents per

kilometre.

Again I come back to the same question that I put to the Minister of Finance, which he chose to dodge, and I ask you the same thing: when exactly was it that

your government decided in this particular public-private partnership that you were going to take the side of the highway owner as opposed to standing on guard for Ontario motorists?

Hon Mr Clark: I do find it interesting that the leader of the loyal opposition only reads a part of the backgrounder. It states very clearly

in there that 2% per year plus inflation for 2001-02 -- it very clearly states what it's going to be.

The rate currently is 11½ cents a kilometre, yet your financial analysis when you were in government stated that it should be 22 cents a kilometre and

$1.09 a kilometre for trucks.

I'm having a little bit of difficulty, sir, taking credibility from you criticizing us, when clearly we offered the taxpayers of Ontario a far better deal than

you were contemplating when you were in government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Sorry for the interruption. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I guess those answers are going to lend a great deal of comfort to motorists who feel that they've been gouged and abused because

you decided to take the part of the highway owner as opposed to honouring a campaign commitment, which was to protect motorists against unfair toll hikes.

I want to bring the minister kicking and screaming into this millennium. I want to make him talk about this contract that was signed by his former finance

minister, and I come back to the same quote. You said in here that tolls could increase by about three cents per kilometre over the first 15 years. You have failed to honour this promise. You have

failed to respect the interests of motorists.

I ask you again, when exactly was it that you decided, when it came to this particular contract with that particular company, that you were going to stand on

the side of the highway owner -- not only that, you were going to act as a strong-arm agent when it comes to taking away licences -- instead of standing up for motorists and protecting them against

gouging?

Hon Mr Clark: Clearly, not only are we protecting the taxpayers in the province of Ontario, but by the Liberals' own document we're protecting

the people who are driving Highway 407. Highway 407 invested $3.5 billion --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I don't like to do this but I have to get up. Come to order, please. Sorry again, Minister.

Hon Mr Clark: As a result of the negotiations of this government, $3.5 billion of taxpayers' money was taken from a roadway and put into

hospitals and education. Clearly, by your own document you were willing to charge twice what we are charging on cars and three times what we're charging on trucks. I don't know how you can stand

there and criticize this government for offering a far better deal than your own financial analysis did when you were in government. It's absurd.

MFP FINANCIAL SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The leader of the third party has the floor.

Mr Hampton: We know that a $100-million financial scandal is eating its way through municipal budgets, and for some reason your government

doesn't care. Toronto, Windsor, Waterloo and at least two other organizations have all been taken to the cleaners financially by a group of MFP companies.

Each municipality that MFP has done contracts with has found that tens of thousands of dollars more -- in some cases tens of millions of dollars more -- have

somehow been thrown into the contract than ever should have. With more than $100 million of taxpayers' money in question, we called on your government last Friday to send in the Provincial Auditor.

You refused.

As this scandal grows, we're asking you again: will you direct the Provincial Auditor to go in and audit these contracts between MFP and the assortment of

municipalities?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I think we can all appreciate the concern of local residents and municipal

councils about this issue, and I support the need for accountable and transparent local government. I would like to point out, though, that some of these cases in the examples that he uses are

going to appear before the courts or they're filing motions to appear before the courts, and so I think he knows, as a former Attorney General, that that would be inappropriate for me to comment

on.

I can say that the new Municipal Act that you just voted on has a

section in it that calls for more transparency around leasing arrangements, where the terms

of the repayment have to be made clear to the public and, most importantly, to the councillors.

Mr Hampton: There is absolutely nothing that stops your government from sending in the Provincial Auditor. That is not in conflict whatsoever

with whatever legal actions may happen. But I think I know why you don't want to send in the Provincial Auditor -- because we've learned that the MFP companies have contributed over $110,000 to the

Conservative Party in the last three years. At the same time that they've contributed $110,000, they have received over $252 million in government contracts.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): There's a good investment.

Mr Hampton: That is a great investment: they contribute $110,000 to the Conservative Party; they get $252 million in contracts with your

government. I think taxpayers might be curious. Why won't you send in the Provincial Auditor to look at this? Why won't you even show any concern about this?

Minister, send in the Provincial Auditor to examine the circumstances around the $252 million in provincial government contracts and the over $100 million in

municipal contracts. This is taxpayers' money, and you ought to be concerned about what's happening to it.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think we're hearing more of the NDP Christmas smear. You know full well that the Provincial Auditor can take a look at any

of the contracts signed by the Ontario government. The Chair of Management Board has stated that to you repeatedly in the last few days, and we welcome that, we welcome the auditor's reports.

In terms of the municipalities, for the last three weeks your party has argued against supporting the Municipal Act, because you thought the city of Toronto

and other municipalities should have more autonomy. Today you're saying, "No, we should have the right to take a look at every contract a municipality signs," when they're democratically elected,

accountable bodies, and they're doing a fine job right across the province. The arrangements you're talking about are either before the courts or the councils are implementing lawsuits to get to

the bottom of their own affairs. Your own member was part of a council that signed some of these contracts. So if you want to smear anybody, go ahead. It's your own party.

Mr Hampton: Minister, this is not about signing contracts. This is about municipalities coming forward and saying very clearly that they were

misled by MFP, and you refuse to investigate, you refuse to require a special audit by the auditor. Now we find out, because MFP is so deep into the Conservative Party pockets, that you don't want

this information out there -- $252 million, and all your colleague has to say is, "Well, the company is in compliance." He doesn't say if these contracts were awarded without tender. We'd like to

know that. I think the taxpayers would like to know. How were the $252 million in contracts tendered, or were they properly tendered at all? And we want to know, finally, what did the government

get for this $252 million?

I say to you again, Minister, there's over $352 million in taxpayers' money at stake here. You don't want to investigate. Are you merely incompetent, or are

you corrupt?

The Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat. You're going to have to withdraw that.

Mr Hampton: Is the minister merely incompetent, or is it something else?

The Speaker: Order. You need to withdraw it.

Mr Hampton: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Chair of Management Board?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Speaker, it's very unfortunate that the member of the third party was practising his question and wasn't listening to the

Leader of the Opposition. I will repeat the answer I gave earlier today, and I will make reference once again to the fact that the Provincial Auditor has the perfect right to review any contracts,

to review anything to do with government. This government has clearly indicated that we will comply and work with the Provincial Auditor in any type of review he undertakes.

I did make reference earlier on to the 2000 report of the Provincial Auditor, where he made certain recommendations to MBS. As a result of these

recommendations, the Deputy Minister of MBS responded and recently wrote to the auditor and outlined how MBS will achieve lower costs for desktop computer systems, regularly evaluate equipment

pricing, continue its public-service-wide training program, and implement government-wide vendors to get the best value for money.

Clearly we've taken steps at MBS to indicate that. When the member from Essex raised the question earlier, I asked the ministry to review the contracts we had

with this particular company. They reported back that these contracts were in compliance.

The Speaker: The member's time is up. New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: My question, back to the Deputy Premier: $352 million in government contracts are at stake, allegations are being raised by

municipality after municipality and you do not want to have a special audit by the Provincial Auditor.

Your colleague from Management Board was very careful in how he chose his words. He said, "We have no legal disputes with the company, and we believe they're

in contractual compliance." I want to ask another clear question and I want to ask if anyone in the government has checked on this: of the $252 million in contracts with your government -- I'm not

talking about the municipalities now -- can you guarantee us that they were all properly tendered?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The Chair of Management Board of Cabinet.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Once again, I can only speak upon the obligations to the provincial government here and, yes, I spoke about this and

answered this question back in October from the member for Essex and once again just recently.

I did indicate as well -- he's quite accurate -- that I had been advised by the officials from my ministry that we have no legal disputes with any of the

contracts and that the government -- and all the ministries, by the way -- have assured me that there's compliance with their contractual liabilities and their obligations to the province of

Ontario.

Once again, I can only go to the procedural recommendations that the auditor made back in the year 2000, which the deputy minister from this ministry agreed to

comply and deal with, and we have been compliant. As I said before, the Provincial Auditor has the right to review, and we will certainly comply with any review that he does undertake.

Mr Hampton: The minister knows that the Provincial Auditor has a limited budget. To do a special audit of this kind would require resourcing

and would require the direction of this government. Without the resources for a special audit, you know that this will not happen.

But, my question to you was very clear: in view of the fact that these companies, the MFP companies, contributed over $110,000 to the Conservative Party, can

you assure us that the $252 million in government contracts were all properly tendered? Yes or no, Minister? Were they properly tendered or not? Have you even bothered to find out?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The leader of the third party makes reference to the Provincial Auditor and his budget. It's my understanding that's

controlled by the Board of Internal Economy, of which his party is a member. As I understand it as well, they also got an increase in the budget for the Provincial Auditor.

The auditor in the past, and certainly recently, has not let anything stand in his way of reviewing the areas he chooses to review and, quite frankly, he's

done a good job in terms of reporting back to the Legislature and many of the ministries.

Once again, I can only comment on the fact that, of our contracts for the provincial government, when I've asked the officials for our ministry to review these

contracts and they answer back to me that they have compliance with these contracts, that there are no outstanding legal issues, I think that's the best that can be. Quite frankly, as a result of

the auditor's report in 2000, there are certain measures that the ministry --

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

TUITION FEES

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, fees paid by

Ontario students for post-secondary education have more than doubled in the last decade and the average debt load at graduation is now over $20,000. As a consequence of your government's cutbacks

to post-secondary education, the president of Queen's University last year submitted a plan to deregulate undergraduate tuition. This would lead to large tuition increases to now regulated

programs.

The other week, representatives from Queen's met with the finance minister and the Premier's office, where they were promised an answer to their deregulation

scheme by the end of December. Can you tell the Legislature and the students of Ontario whether you will stand by your commitment to cap tuition fees and preserve to some extent an accessible

university education in this province, or will you allow a lame-duck Premier to shift post-secondary policy in his final hours in office?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): We have many considerations

in our office right now and into the new year. This may be one of them. We also have considerations with regard to the work of the quality assessment board. We're waiting to hear what private

universities and what applied degrees could come forward.

There are lots of things happening within the ministry; this could be one of them. I'm not prepared to discuss anything that we're considering in the House

that is between myself and another university, or the quality assessment board recommendations at this time.

On the issue of tuition and capping students' tuition, I'm pleased that the member opposite has recognized that that was a good five-year plan. She is

absolutely correct that 10% a year in increased tuition was not acceptable. That is the record of both the Liberal government and the NDP government. Thank you for the question.

Mrs Bountrogianni: Minister, check your facts. The increases, the significant increases, occurred under your first mandate. Under the second

mandate, you did attempt to do the right thing by capping it at 2%. Queen's University wants to undo that, Minister, and I asked you, are you going to let them? Your frightening answer was: it's a

consideration. I want the students of Ontario to hear that.

How long before the other universities -- McMaster, University of Toronto -- follow along? Do you want an Ivy League system as in the United States, where the

rich go to the expensive universities and the rest of our children go to the state universities? Is that what you want? Is that what you're going to let him do to our post-secondary education?

Interjection.

Mrs Bountrogianni: I'm not finished. It must be very tempting to the finance minister. Tuition deregulation would be an opportunity for him to

further cut operating grants to universities to solve the deficit problems that your careless tax policies have caused.

We already know that deregulated programs in medicine are out of reach. Minister, yes or no? Are you going to allow Queen's to set this --

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

Hon Mrs Cunningham: There are a number of initiatives in place to help our students. Different universities have, over time, come with

different proposals. Every university, including McMaster University, when they have come forward with their deregulation requests, has been considered. Some have been approved, others have been

rejected. If we are in the process of looking at a proposal, we will look at the proposal. We will look at proposals in the best interests of quality education and choice for students.

I should remind this House that students who have debt at this point in time, every penny of debt over $7,000 that has been borrowed through OSAP, is forgiven

every single year. With our partnership with the federal government, because it was thrown at us and planned so badly, those students are allowed to be forgiven any penny over $6,500. No government

has taken the interests of students with regard to their ability to go on to post-secondary education more seriously with regard to --

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

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Minister, yesterday the federal Liberals brought down

their first budget in two years, and in it Finance Minister Paul Martin again completely ignored the province's call for more health care funding. Surprise.

When it comes to health care, Mr Martin has not just stolen Christmas, in fact he's pilfered the entire new year.

The federal minister missed an opportunity to respond to the number one concern of not just my constituents in the riding of Durham, but of all Canadians;

certainly the number one concern in my riding.

I was talking recently with Dr Chuck Rowe, Dr Tony Stone and Dr Pat Morra. They gave me a tour of the Lakeridge Health hospital. I spoke with front-line

providers in the emergency room. Clearly, all of them, including workers at GM, senior citizens, small business -- in my entire riding the number one priority, Minister, is health care. It's

obvious that the federal government has just ignored them and gone on their own little spending spree.

Last week the Premiers from across the country, not just our Premier, led an assault on the federal government to fulfill their original --

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

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We have been anticipating the federal budget for some time now. Ontario has been

very consistent in saying that health care is our number one priority here.

A recent Ipsos-Reid poll indicated that 82% of Canadians want health care to be their number one priority and only 16% indicated security was their

priority.

Premiers and leaders from across the country have called upon the federal government to invest in health care, to restore the health care level to what it

actually was in 1994, which is 18%, and to introduce an escalator. Yesterday, it was very clear that the federal Liberals have not listened to leaders across the country. They haven't listened to

the provinces and territories and, more worrisome, they haven't listened to the needs of the citizens. They did put some money in health: $170 million for research. Here's what the Premier of

Manitoba said, "The federal government is going to spend money to count nurses. We've got to hire them. We've got to retrain them" --

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up. Supplementary.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister, for that very detailed response. I know these are complex issues. The federal government doesn't get it.

Actually it all boils down to dollars and cents. The federal government has clearly -- the people of Ontario understand -- not stepped up to the plate on this one. In fact, since 1994 the federal

government is spending $400 million less on health and social transfer payments since they took office. The question still lingers: will the federal government do what the provinces are calling for

and increase funding to health care and understand that it is Ontario's and Canada's top priority?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I thank my colleague for bringing this up in this Legislature. We're talking about a federal budget. My colleagues across the

way often complain that we talk about federal matters, but this is important for Ontario and it's puzzling to us why the federal Liberals don't respond. Every Premier and territorial leader across

this country has said to the federal government, "Health care is the number one issue." They want the principles of medicare to be respected, which were 50-50, and they don't understand why the

federal government will not respond to their citizens' needs.

The federal government says it spends $23.5 billion in health care to the CHST. That is correct. What they forget to say is that they cut $25 billion out of

the CHST budget previously. Whether you're from Manitoba, whether you're a Liberal leader, the story is the same and I think New Brunswick's Premier put it just right, "The big story is what's not

in the budget: additional investments in health care."

The federal Liberals have not responded and the Ontario Liberals don't get it. Ontarians are asking --

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

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, on October 23, I asked you about your

unwillingness to fund the treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Your answer at that time was that there were problems and there was stalling by the federal government on their approval,

even though that happened in February 2000. You said, "We have the issue under advisement and would like to report back to him and to this House at the earliest available opportunity." People are

going blind every day while your ministry fights internally as to which branch of the ministry should fund it.

I would like to introduce Marie Thurston and her son Carl from Waupoos. Mrs Thurston has lost her vision in her left eye due to macular degeneration and is

losing it in the right. There is a cure for this. Her problem is not lack of medical technology; her problem is lack of $15,000. Mrs Thurston has paid taxes all of her life. Her vision depends on

your making a decision to fund it for her and the hundreds of other Mrs Thurstons. Will you now, today, agree to fund the treatment for macular degeneration for the seniors of this province?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I can say to this House that of course the issue is presently with the government. I

can confirm that. The honourable member knows that there are not only issues of technology with respect to the new treatment, but there are also issues with respect to physicians and the

application, who's going to be applying this technology and so forth. The issue is a bit more complicated than your typical medication, and we are moving in an expeditious way to deal with an issue

which is complicated and has to be treated in the proper way for the health and security of Ontarians.

Mr Parsons: You should be ashamed of yourself. The other provinces fund this. She has the doctor and Visudyne exists. What she needs is

$15,000 of the tax money she has paid over the years. You will pay almost $1,000 a month to her as a pension if she goes blind. Minister, that is cruel. Authorize now, for her and the hundreds of

others.

We will be waiting outside at the end. Will you meet with Mrs Thurston now and explain why the millions of dollars for the health care ads are more important

than curing her blindness?

Hon Mr Clement: I would be happy to

schedule a meeting between the honourable member and his local member of Parliament because in fact, as he

well knows, the federal Liberals are the ones who are underfunding our health care system. They should be ashamed of themselves. They spend --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister?

Hon Mr Clement: The federal government is a government that has a $36-billion EI surplus on the backs of Ontario workers and employers. That

is a shame, that is unacceptable and I'd be happy to work with the honourable member --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Prince Edward-Hastings, please come to order. He's asked the question. The minister needs to have a

response. Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Clement: I would be happy to work with the honourable member and with the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Party, to

shame the federal Liberals to end their pork-barrelling, to end their wasteful administration, and to spend the money on the number one health and spending priority of the people of Ontario and

Canada: health care, health care, health care.

ICE FISHING

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. In my riding, ice fishing is an important

winter tourism and recreational activity. My riding hosts the annual Canadian Ice Fishing Championship, which will be held this February 22 and 23 off Jackson's Point on Lake Simcoe. I want to make

sure tourists know about this event and about the great ice fishing in York North all winter long. What can your ministry do to help in this regard?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation): I appreciate the member for York North's interest in ice fishing and her strong

promotion of this important recreational tourism activity in Ontario. No doubt it fits with our goal to make sure Ontario is a four-season tourism destination. Certainly events like the Canadian

Ice Fishing Championship can have important spinoffs for the local and regional economy.

I would encourage the member -- we talked about this already -- to have them get in contact with the ministry for the tourism event marketing partnership, the

TEMP program, which helps to market and bring new tourists into the area by helping to address new markets and attendance, and obviously there's an economic impact. Finally, there's an industry

partnership proposal program that helps to create packages of not only ice fishers, but guides, hotels and other attractions in the area. No doubt this will help to market Lake Simcoe as one of the

country's premier ice-fishing areas.

Mrs Munro: Minister, I was pleased to hear about your ministry's new $14-million plan to market Ontario as a must-see four-season destination.

Can you tell the House what initiatives you have currently in place to market ice fishing as a fun winter activity in Ontario?

Hon Mr Hudak: I appreciate the kind words. We have increased the tourism marketing budget for this year by some $14 million, more than

doubling what we normally do in North America, an increase of $10 million in Minister Flaherty's recent economic statement to help the tourism industry bounce back.

Some publications that are part of our program include the Fish Ontario guide, which features a full page on ice fishing; the Snow Country Ontario guide, which

has text and photos of ice fishing throughout; and certainly the Ontario Adventure guide, which tells readers to "head for the huts," advising them to come and book their package, and rightly calls

Georgina, in the member's riding, the ice-fishing capital of the world.

I encourage local businesses and municipalities to get involved. Check out our Web site at Ontariotravel.net and our 1-800-Ontario line. As well, the Northern

Ontario Tourism Marketing Association has their own dedicated guide, called Ice Fishing in Northern Ontario, for those who want to travel even farther north after experiencing Georgina.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Yesterday, I raised the published comments of John

Mayberry, president and chief executive officer of Dofasco. He says point-blank that your dirty deal to sell off our electricity system will cost the Ontario economy a lot of jobs. He also says

your deal to privatize and deregulate our electricity system will mean that energy companies that export electricity to the United States will not have to pay a stranded debt charge on the

electricity that is exported, but Ontario electricity consumers will have to pay a debt retirement charge for every kilowatt of electricity they consume. It means that under your scheme to

privatize and deregulate our electricity, Ontario consumers would be paying more and would, in effect, be subsidizing electricity exports to the United States.

Minister, is Mr Mayberry right? Yes or no?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Mr Mayberry is right, but the honourable member is wrong again. Mr Mayberry wants

us to actually sell off more of our electricity system faster, so that we'll have more competition and large companies like Dofasco and many others in the province will have an opportunity to shop

around for competitive prices for electricity. He's totally misunderstood Mr Mayberry's comments and the concerns expressed by large industrial users in the province. They want us to move faster

and harder to make sure there's more competition, so they don't have to buy just from Ontario Power Generation but can actually, for the first time in a hundred years, shop around for lower prices

and more competitive prices than the monopoly has been able to provide in the past. That's Mr Mayberry's point. It's the exact opposite of what the honourable member contends.

Second, any power we sell to the US, to Quebec, to Manitoba, or power they sell us, is surplus power. It's opportunity power. It's pure profit, in terms that

it's power that otherwise would go to waste or not be generated. We have high-paid workers sitting there ready to --

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

Mr Hampton: I don't think I misunderstood Mr Mayberry at all. An Ontario consumer, whether residential or industrial, is going to pay a debt

retirement charge of seven cents a kilowatt hour under your scheme. At the same time, if a company like British Energy or TransAlta exports that electricity to the United States, there is no debt

retirement charge. It means that Ontario consumers are going to be paying a special charge and, in fact, subsidizing the export of electricity to the United States. It means exactly what Mr

Mayberry says. You're going to put Ontario industries in an uncompetitive position relative to American industries.

Throughout all this, I ask, why are you in such a hurry to benefit the economies of Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and New York by providing them with cheaper power

while you force up the price of electricity here in Ontario? What is it that you've got against Ontario consumers and Ontario industries that you're so hungry to give away our electricity at a

reduced price?

Hon Mr Wilson: The whole restructuring of the electricity system, just like everything else this government does, is about creating jobs here

in Ontario, so that people can raise their families, get off the welfare cycle and have the dignity of a job, which is the greatest thing a politician can offer. If you do anything positive in this

House, Mr Hampton, you might want to try that agenda. It might actually bring you up in the polls.

You have the Power Workers' Union, which owns 4% of the Bruce plant. They're quite capable of producing good, cheap, clean electricity. Again, the independent

market operator, the regulator, will make sure that Ontario is served first. But if there's surplus power, if those good workers at the Bruce want to make some money for their company, if Ontario

Power Generation wants to make some money which goes to paying down the debt that the Liberals and NDP left -- some $38 billion, which desperately needs to be paid down because the interest

payments are a killer, and they're hurting our jobs, they're hurting our electricity rates. If we can make money on surplus power in the United States, we're damn well going to do that. We're going

to pay our debts, we're going to pay our way and we're going to have the best electricity system in North America. I guarantee it.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry to interrupt. We'll just wait; it's a little noisy. Thank you, members.

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Minister of Health. I want to return to the matter raised by my colleague just a few moments ago relating

to Mrs Marie Thurston, who is sitting in the gallery today. Minister, your answer, in a word, was unacceptable.

Marie Thurston, so you are a bit more familiar with her, is 72 years of age. She was widowed some 28 years ago. She raised her three children on her own. She

worked as a store clerk. She has gone blind in her left eye. She is now losing sight in her right eye. She can't afford the treatment, Visudyne, that costs $2,000 per treatment. The total treatment

will cost her at least $15,000.

Maybe you lost sight a long time ago of what government's all about. But do you know what it's about, Minister? It's about helping people like Mrs Thurston

here overcome those challenges that are too big for her to overcome on her own. I think it is wrong for us at the beginning of the 21st century here in Ontario, when seven provinces are covering

this treatment, seven other provinces.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Five.

Mr McGuinty: Seven. You go and count them, Minister. You say five somehow justifies it. If five are doing it, that's OK, that makes it

legitimate and responsible? I think you've got a responsibility to help this woman. I think you've got a responsibility to make sure she doesn't lose sight in her remaining good eye. I think that's

fundamentally what government is all about. Will you help Mrs Thurston?

Hon Mr Clement: I'd be happy to help individuals he mentioned, individuals in this province who expect a health care system to be there when

they need it. That's what we all want on our side of the House as well, and we are doing it each and every day -- $6 billion of new spending since we got elected. We're doing it without a partner.

They're not partners on that side of the House. They have not supported a single measure we have tried to take to get the federal government to live up to their responsibilities.

Yes, I'd like to help the lady you mentioned. I'd like to help every single lady and man who needs help. We need the help of you and your Liberal crony --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We have a guest in the gallery who would like to hear the answer. She's not going to get to hear the supplementary. She's

come a long way to hear the minister and to hear the question. I would ask all members if they would kindly be quiet so we can ask the question. Otherwise, she will have come a long way and we

won't get to ask the question. The time is clicking down. We have a guest here who wants to hear an answer from the minister. I would suggest you let the leader of the official opposition place the

question.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, how can you tell us you don't have $15,000 for Mrs Thurston, but on the other hand you have $2.2 billion for corporate

tax cuts, you've got half a billion dollars for private school tax credits, and you've got close to a quarter of a billion dollars for partisan political advertising? Don't tell me you don't have

the money. What you're really telling me, Minister, is that she's not a priority.

This is the face of Ontario right here. That's what it's about. This is the privilege of government. This is the privilege of public service, so you don't lose

sight of these people and their fundamental needs. You lost sight of that a long time ago. I feel sorry for you, but not as sorry as I feel for Mrs Thurston and the fact you simply lack any sense

of responsibility to help her out.

I'll ask you again, Minister, understanding how fundamentally important this is to Mrs Thurston --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Sorry to interrupt, leader of the official opposition. Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, please come to order.

I've yelled three times at you. You don't even hear me yelling, you're yelling so much. Please come to order. Sorry, the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, just listen. Give your answer to this woman, who played by all the rules, raised her kids, worked long and hard, paid

her taxes. She's 72. I feel we owe her now. We should make sure she can get this treatment so she doesn't lose sight in her remaining eye. I think that is a responsibility we all share. You look

her in the face and you tell her why it is that in five other provinces -- you say; I say seven other provinces -- where they're covering treatment -- they all share, by the way, the same federal

government. You tell her why in your Ontario we can't afford this treatment.

Hon Mr Clement: I'd be happy to answer the question. There are a lot of things he's just mentioned right now. I could tell you that there are

hundreds of procedures and hundreds of medications that we cover in Ontario that aren't covered in other provinces because we're --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Clement: Come on, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I know we like to hear you, but we can't, and it was your minister who was yelling when he was asking the question. We've got it

both sides. You're going to get an opportunity. We have a guest who's come a long way and wants to hear the Minister of Health. It's your side that was yelling and interrupted the leader of the

official opposition when he was in his flow. I know it's very disruptive for members when they're trying to think of a question, but unfortunately it's members from both sides who are doing it, not

just one side, I say to the Minister of Health. I apologize for the interruption. I want to make it quiet so he can hear you, because if I can't hear you, I can assure you that our guest, who has

come a long way, can't hear you. Again I apologize to the Minister of Health. It's now the Minister of Health's time. Sorry.

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member uses compassion like it's some sort of commodity, that there's some sort of unflowing commodity on this

side of the House. We have compassion on this side of the House.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): Prove it.

Hon Mr Clement: Walk a mile in our shoes, I say to the honourable member. He doesn't know the first thing about leadership, the first thing

about tough decisions. Every day of the week, every minister and every caucus member on this side of the House makes some tough decisions, trying to find the money, trying to find the resources to

help people like the lady in the gallery. That's our job. We know it's a tough job. We take that job willingly because we have the compassion to make the right decisions for the people of

Ontario.

FIREARMS SAFETY AND CONTROL

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Solicitor General. Typically, jurisdictional responsibility is a pretty

straightforward situation. However, there are areas of federal responsibility and areas that are provincial responsibility, and sometimes these areas overlap. Firearms is one of those areas.

Minister, can you tell this House and my constituents in Northumberland how that responsibility for firearms safety and registration works?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): The Canada Firearms Act requires that all firearms be registered and licensed. Ontario chose to

appoint its own chief firearms officer to administer the licensing provisions of the act, and indeed Ontario gun owners support this. The federal government continues to be responsible for

administering the registration provisions and the Ontario chief firearms officer is responsible for investigating those who apply for licences to ensure that they are not a risk to the public

safety, also for revoking licences where that is deemed necessary and for notifying the police if firearms should be seized. The Ontario Chief Firearms Office maintains an excellent working

relationship with law-abiding, responsible firearms owners.

Mr Galt: Certainly Ontario's law-abiding gun owners made it clear that they wanted the province to administer the federal act; however, are

they pleased in how it's going?

Also, I'm regularly being contacted by members of the firearms community about a rumour that keeps going around that you are planning on closing the firearms

office in Orillia. I don't need to tell you just how upsetting that would be to the people in my riding. Minister, will you stand in your place, come clean and explain to us, are you in fact

planning to do this or are you not?

Hon Mr Turnbull: Support for Ontario's role in firearms safety continues to be very, very strong. In fact, a recent edition of Canadian

Shooting Sports magazine praised Ontario's decision to appoint its own chief firearms officer and reported that Ontario's Chief Firearms Office has credibility and trust with the firearms

community.

I certainly understand that there has been this rumour circulating, concerns about the office in Orillia closing. It's simply not true. It will remain open to

provide law-abiding Ontario gun owners with the services they need. This government supports the work of the chief firearms officer and is confident of his abilities to promote responsible

ownership.

HÔPITAL MONTFORT

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier) : Ma question s'adresse au ministre de la Santé. Depuis vendredi dernier, les

Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes ont un nouveau slogan qui dit : « Montfort ouvert et pour toujours ». Tel est le slogan que nous pouvons maintenant crier haut et

fort à la suite de la décision claire et unanime que vient de rendre la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario face à Montfort. Comme le disait très bien la présidente de SOS Montfort,

Gisèle Lalonde, « Montfort est vivant. » Dans le foyer même de l'hôpital, vous avez vous-même exprimé quelques jours avant la décision votre

confiance en l'avenir de Montfort.

La crise de Montfort a assez duré. Il est temps de passer à autre chose, d'accepter qu'un jour nouveau se lève en Ontario et qu'enfin l'heure

est à la réconciliation et à la coopération.

Monsieur le ministre, pouvez-vous nous assurer que vous allez enfin mettre fin aux procédures judiciaires et que vous allez ajuster le financement de

Montfort en conséquence et reconnaître sa mission académique comme hôpital de formation pour les francophones ?

L'hon. Tony Clement (Ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée) : Il est important de savoir que l'hôpital

Montfort est un hôpital qui a beaucoup de mandats : pour la santé et aussi pour les soins de longue durée, par exemple. Il y avait bien sûr une décision de la Cour

d'appel de l'Ontario au sujet de l'avenir de Montfort. Le procureur général et le gouvernement de l'Ontario sont maintenant en train d'étudier cette décision. Il y avait une

décision complexe, une décision qui contient 71 pages de paroles, et j'espère que, dans les quelques semaines à venir, il sera possible d'avoir une réponse pour cette

Chambre et pour les francophones de l'Ontario en ce qui concerne l'avenir de Montfort.

M me Boyer : Je comprends, mais vous avez le jugement en main depuis vendredi dernier et la décision de la Cour

divisionnaire depuis quelques années. Soixante pages, ce n'est quand même pas si volumineux.

Monsieur le ministre, rendez-vous donc à l'évidence et admettez qu'après deux décisions unanimes vous avez bel et bien perdu la cause. Je

suis convaincue que la Cour suprême trancherait en faveur de Montfort.

La décision est claire. La cour confirme le jugement de la Cour divisionnaire, annule les directives de la commission et, de plus, rejette l'appel de la

province. Le jugement confirme aussi que les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes ont des droits : des droits constitutionnels, des droits intouchables aux institutions qui sont vitales

à leur épanouissement.

Je me répète : allez-vous enfin ajuster le financement de Montfort en conséquence et, s'il vous plaît, reconnaître sa mission

académique comme hôpital de formation pour les francophones ?

L'hon. M. Clement : Je peux dire aussi que surtout le gouvernement de l'Ontario appuie les services francophones pour la francophonie

d'Ottawa et des autres endroits. Il est important de protéger ce service francophone. C'est un travail très important pour ce gouvernement. Bien sûr il y a eu un jugement, un

jugement complexe, comme j'ai dit, un jugement long qu'il est important d'étudier parce qu'il y a beaucoup de questions, beaucoup de défis dans ce jugement. Il faut répondre à

ce jugement. Il y aura 60 jours pour répondre, et le procureur général et nous, le gouvernement de l'Ontario, voulons répondre aussitôt que possible.

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It will probably be the last time before the hostile

takeover of CCACs that I'll be able to present this petition.

"Whereas the need for home care services is rapidly growing in Ontario due to the aging of the population and hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the prices paid by community care access centres to purchase home care services for their clients are rising due to factors beyond the control of our

CCACs; and

"Whereas the funding provided by the Ontario government through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is inadequate to meet the growing need for home care

services; and

"Whereas the funding shortfall, coupled with the implications of Bill 46, the Public Sector Accountability Act, currently before the Legislature are forcing

CCACs to make deep cuts in home care services without any policy direction from the provincial government;

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

"

(1) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to take control of policy-setting for home care services through rational, population-based

health care planning rather than simply by underfunding the system; and

"

(2) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to provide sufficient funding to CCACs to support the home care services that are the

mandate of community care access centres in the volumes needed to meet their communities' rapidly growing needs; and finally

"

(3) That the Legislative Assembly make it necessary for the provincial government to notify the agencies it funds of the amount of funding they will be given

by the government in a fiscal year at least three months before the commencement of this fiscal year."

I give this petition to Kathryn after I've signed my signature in support of it.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Because we, the undersigned, believe in our responsibility as teachers to maintain a high degree of professionalism; and

"Because such professionalism is best served when professional learning is self-directed and based on teacher need, improves professional skills, improves

student learning, is based on best practice accountability and is funded by the appropriate educational authority; and

"Because we oppose the government's teacher testing program and the College of Teachers' professional learning program because they do not meet the objectives

of effective professional learning,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that you repeal all clauses and references to professional learning from the Stability and Excellence in Education

Act, 2001."

That's signed by Joe Caporicci, Brad Bissonnette, Rose Digout, indeed, 709 Catholic teachers. I agree with them. I support them. I have affixed my signature as

well.

SENIORS' HOUSING

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I have a petition that reads as follows.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is currently a shortage of affordable housing for seniors; and

"Whereas the waiting lists for subsidized seniors housing surpasses a period of eight years; and

"Whereas the Tenant Protection Act does not prevent rent increases upon moving; and

"Whereas seniors find themselves committing over 80% of their income to rent alone;

"We, the undersigned, hereby respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows: that the government of Ontario will:

"Subsidize current homeowners to remodel their homes and bring possible rental units up to current regulatory standards through low-interest or no-interest

loans and funding;

"Provide subsidized housing for seniors in their current residences until more housing is made available."

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the recipients of benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Act have not received a cost-of-living increase since 1987; and

"Whereas the cost of living in Ontario has increased in every one of the last years since, especially for basic needs such as housing, food, utilities,

transportation, clothing and household goods; and

"Whereas disabled Ontarians are recognized under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, and as such have the right to have their basic needs met,

including adequate housing, a proper and healthy diet, a bed that does not make them sicker and clothing that fits and is free of stains; and

"Whereas their basic needs are no longer being met because the Ministry of Social Services has not increased the shelter and basic needs allowances of disabled

Ontarians eligible to receive benefits to reflect the increased costs of shelter and basic needs; and

"Whereas the new Ontarians with Disabilities Act has yet to be passed to help protect the thousands of vulnerable people in Ontario who are dependent on others

for their basic needs and care and who are eligible for benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, request the Ontario Legislature to urge the government to respect their own definition of basic needs and

provide a cost-of-living increase to recipients of benefits through the Ontario Disability Support Program Act that is sufficient to cover the increased costs of their basic needs as of 2001 prices

and that this benefit not be reduced as a result of increases in the Canada pension plan benefit."

OHIP SERVICES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions from Sudbury, Hamilton and Welland regarding hearing tests being denied. The

petition, entitled It's Time to Listen, reads as follows:

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

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

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

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

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

transcutaneous nerve therapy stimulation and biofeedback; and

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

and

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

industrial workers; and

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

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

On behalf of my constituents and the NDP caucus, I add my name to this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas wide parental and student choice are essential to the best possible education for all students; and

"Whereas over 100,000 students are currently enrolled in the independent schools of Ontario; and

"Whereas the parents of these students continue to support the public education system through their tax dollars; and

"Whereas legislation has been passed to implement an equality in education tax credit;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to encourage the government to stay the course. Fairness in funding is long overdue. We ask

the government to move as quickly as possible to phase in the equality in education tax credit."

I'm pleased to affix my name to this petition, and I'm particularly pleased that Nicole Agro is here to accept it from me.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Because we, the undersigned, believe in our responsibility as teachers to maintain a high degree of professionalism; and

"Because such professionalism is best served when professional learning is self-directed and based on teacher need, improves professional skills, improves

student learning, is based on best practice accountability and is funded by the appropriate educational authority; and

"Because we oppose the government's teacher testing program and the College of Teachers' professional learning program because they do not meet the objectives

of effective professional learning,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that you repeal all clauses and references to professional learning from the Stability and Excellence in Education

Act, 2001."

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition signed by my friends from Blaydon Community Day Care in North York, A Child's World in Port

Colborne, Byng Avenue daycare in Oshawa and as well from Debbie Bent from St Catharines. The petitions read as follows:

"Whereas an internal government document states the Conservative government is considering cutting the regulated child care budget by at least 40%;

"Whereas the same internal document states the government is also considering completely cutting all funding for regulated child care and family resource

programs in Ontario;

"Whereas the Conservative government has already cut funding for regulated child care by 15% between 1995 and 1998 and downloaded 20% of the child care and

family resource program budget on to municipalities;

"Whereas Fraser Mustard and Margaret McCain identified regulated child care and family resource programs as integral to early childhood development;

"Whereas the Conservative government will receive $844 million from the federal government over five years for early childhood development;

"Whereas Ontario is the only province which didn't spend a cent of this year's federal money on regulated child care;

"Whereas other provinces are implementing innovative, affordable, and accessible child care programs such as Quebec's $5-a-day child care program; and

"Therefore,

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

"We demand the Conservative government protect the current regulated child care and family resource program budgets and invest significant federal Early Years

funding in regulated child care and family resource programs. We demand future federal Early Years funding be invested in an expansion of affordable, regulated child care and in continued funding

for family resource programs."

I agree with the petitioners and I sign my signature to it.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer, also called Our Father, has been used to open the proceedings of municipal chambers and the Ontario Legislative Assembly since the

beginning of Upper Canada in the 18th century; and

"Whereas such use of the Lord's Prayer is part of Ontario's long-standing heritage and a tradition that continues to play a significant role in contemporary

Ontario life; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is the most meaningful expression of the religious convictions of many Ontario citizens;

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario maintain the use of the Lord's Prayer in its proceedings, in accordance with its long-standing established custom, and do all

in its power to maintain use of this prayer in municipal chambers in Ontario."

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario wants to implement a teacher testing program in the province of Ontario and the College of Teachers professional learning

program; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believed in our responsibility as teachers to maintain a high degree of professionalism and, as such, professionalism is best

served when professional learning is self-corrected and based on teacher need, improves professional skills, improves student learning, is based on best practices, accountability and is funded by

an appropriate educational authority; and

"Whereas we oppose the government's teacher testing program and the College of Teachers professional learning program because they do not meet the objectives

of effective professional learning,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that you repeal all clauses and references to professional learning from the Stability in Education Act, 2001."

I affix my name to this petition and give this to Alim.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have more child care petitions, these from St Joachim Children's Centre of Ancaster in Ancaster, Rainbow

Nursery School in Welland, Sunnyside Garden Daycare in Toronto and A. Newell of Lansdowne. They read as follows:

"Whereas an internal government document indicates the Conservative government is considering cutting the regulated child care budget by at least 40%;

"Whereas the same internal document indicates the government is also considering completely cutting all funding for regulated child care and family resource

programs in Ontario;

"Whereas the Conservative government has already cut funding for regulated child care by 15% between 1995 and 1998 and downloaded 20% of the child care and

family resource program budget on to municipalities;

"Whereas further cuts would run counter to the support identified for regulated child care and family resource centres by Fraser Mustard and Margaret

McCain;

"Whereas the Conservative government will received $114 million this year for early childhood development and will receive $844 million from the federal

government over the next five years for the same;

"Whereas Ontario is the only province which didn't spend a cent of this year's federal money on regulated child care;

"Therefore,

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

"We demand the Conservative government guarantee the current child care and family resource budget is secure and will not be cut under this government's

mandate and we demand that future federal Early Years funding be invested in an expansion of affordable, regulated child care."

I agree with the petitioners and sign my name to it.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario has proposed the extension of Highway 407 into," my colleague's area, "Durham region and the proposed route, designated as the

technically preferred route, will dissect the property of Kedron Dells Golf Course Ltd Oshawa;

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

vibrant golf course;

"We, the undersigned," and this is for my colleague from Durham, "respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to change this routing to one of

the other identified alternate routes, thus preserving this highly regarded, public facility patronized annually by thousands of residents of Durham region and the GTA," and my colleague from

Durham, the honourable John O'Toole.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm a bit perplexed because sequentially, in reading the petitions, it went around

and went by me. Perhaps there's an explanation. You didn't see me?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): I saw you.

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned," 5,000 individuals from southwestern Ontario, "petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Harris

government take immediate action to ensure that these most important health services are maintained so that the health and safety of people throughout southwestern Ontario are not put at risk."

I present these petitions on their behalf and have affixed my signature in full agreement.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): This completes the time allocated for petitions.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for the member for

Durham to present a petition.

The Acting Speaker: The Minister of Northern Development has asked for unanimous consent for the member for Durham. Agreed? I heard some

noes.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding

any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 30,

An Act to provide civil remedies for organized crime and other unlawful activities, when Bill 30 is next called as a

government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That, notwithstanding standing order 28(h), no deferral of the third reading vote may be permitted; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Minister.

Hon Mr Young: Mr Speaker, Bill 30 has received considerable attention. It has been the subject matter of considerable debate and deliberation,

not just in this past session -- although that, of course, is true, and I'll talk about that a little more in a moment -- but has also been a matter that was considered by this honourable assembly

in the previous session. A very similar bill, not an identical one -- and again, I will come back to the distinction between the two pieces of legislation -- was the subject matter of considerable

debate last year, not only in the formal assembly chamber in which we're privileged to serve this day, but also at the committee level; and not only at the committee level, which is part of the

formal Legislative Assembly in which we participate, as do members of the public in various ways, but also at forums that have been hosted by my ministry and others in order to discuss what needs

to be done in order to deal with a growing and very, very serious problem in this province, in this country and, indeed, throughout the world. That problem is organized crime.

Let's be clear about what we're talking about here. We are talking about an insidious operation that takes place every day across this province. We're talking

about an operation that takes hard-earned dollars from hard-working Ontarians, an operation that takes money from individuals who in many instances don't even know they are being defrauded until it

is too late and the money is long since gone.

We are not just talking about the type of organized crime that has plagued our society for some many decades; we're talking about a new type of organized

crime. We're talking about an organized crime that reverts to and utilizes computers, credit cards and ATM technology to take from individuals their hard-earned dollars. We're not just talking

about drugs and thugs. We're talking about a very sophisticated, international in many instances, approach to organized crime, one that we have not experienced previously on that scale in this

province or in this country.

The Mike Harris government came forward last year with some relatively innovative measures that we felt were necessary -- and I'll explain why we felt that way

-- in order to combat this growing and very serious problem. As I indicated, we held a forum at which experts from around the world came to talk about their approaches to organized crime, and a

good deal of time was spent talking about a civil remedy to organized crime. It was from that forum and the discussions that ensued thereafter that the original bill was developed, presented,

debated in this Legislature at some length, and ultimately sent to committee, where it spent two days. Again, experts from the United States, Canada and around the world came to testify about the

pros and the cons. Not everyone embraced the bill. There were some who came forward and had some problems with it.

By the way, you will see that the original bill as compared to the bill we have tabled today is reflective of the comments of some of the individuals who have

come forward to discuss this in what was a very thorough, comprehensive and fulsome debate over the past year and a half. Some of those changes that we have made to the original legislation come

from the very thoughtful dialogue that took place about the original bill and about the subsequent bill. In fact, we have come forward to this Legislative Assembly with a bill that I am indeed very

proud of, a bill that is modelled on the experiences in other countries, because there is no similar approach to battling organized crime in existence in law in Canada. In other countries,

countries like the United States, Ireland and South Africa, they have in the past reverted to this approach to crime with some considerable success in many instances.

I'm reminded of the comments made by an inspector from Ireland who came forward as we were developing this bill to say that their experience in Ireland was

such that whole families, groupings of organized criminals, left the jurisdiction. Why? Because their civil remedy approach took the profit out of crime. What it did is it look the lifeblood away

from their criminal activity. Let there be no mistake: whether they be in Ireland, South Africa, the United States or Canada, they are engaged in this criminal activity primarily for the purpose of

making money. They want to make money. If you take away the money they make, if you take away their ill-gotten gains, there is no purpose, no incentive, no reason for them to continue that

activity.

We have drafted this bill with that in mind. We have, as I indicated, spent a good deal of time debating it both formally within the Legislature and informally

outside of the Legislature, as well as in committee hearings.

I will say to you that there comes a time when the debate must end, when the talk must stop and action must take place. We are hearing this from law

enforcement personnel including chiefs of police of many major cities and smaller jurisdictions across this province. Chief Fantino, for one, has repeatedly asked for the passage of this

legislation. I know that Chief Robertson has again expressed his desire to have this tool in place to assist his force to battle organized crime. We are here today and we have come forward with

this time allocation motion with a view to acceding to their request, with a view to providing them with a further tool -- not a panacea, but an additional tool to assist them in their battle,

which is not an insignificant battle. It utilizes a great deal of the resources of our law enforcement personnel and crown atto