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

March 30, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Mar-30 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 30 March 2004 Mardi 30 mars 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CRIME PREVENTION

BRAMPTON SPRING CLEANUP MONTH

WATERLOO-WELLINGTON TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN

VAISAKHI

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

BRIAN COLLINS

GOVERNMENT FUNDING

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

TRAFFIC SIGNALS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL PARKWAY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA PROMENADE

ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ROLE OF THE SPEAKER

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

TRANSIT SERVICES

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

AUTISM SERVICES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

GOVERNMENT FUNDING

LAND DEVELOPMENT

TRANSIT SERVICES

FOOD SAFETY

HIGHWAY 69

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AMBULANCE SERVICE

POLICE OFFICERS

IDENTITY THEFT

HEALTH CARE REFORM

VISITORS

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

SUDBURY REGIONAL HOSPITAL

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

TOBACCO TAX

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

LCBO OUTLET

LANDFILL

TOBACCO TAX

SENIOR CITIZENS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREENBELT PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CRIME PREVENTION

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise in the Legislature today to remind the McGuinty Liberals yet again of a very important promise they

made during the recent election campaign. You might recognize it as promise number 53, or you may have seen it on page 23 of

section 2 of your Liberal plan, entitled Growing Strong Communities.

Check under the heading "Getting Tough on Crime." That's where you and leader Dalton McGuinty made the following promise: "We will put 1,000 more cops on the street."

This promise is of particular significance right now, because representatives and members of the Police Association of Ontario will be in the building later

today. I'm sure they'd like the hear what the Liberals have to say about it, if and when this promise will be honoured. In fact, the PAO is holding an informal reception in the legislative dining

room this evening between 5 o'clock and 9 o'clock.

When we were in office, we delivered on our promise to get 1,000 more police officers working in communities across this province. During the recent election

campaign, Ernie Eves promised funding for at least another 1,000 front-line police officers. Just to be clear, that's in addition to the first 1,000 I've already mentioned. Given our track record

on community safety, you can bet we would have delivered again. We would have kept our promise.

While I look forward to an announcement of money for more police officers in the upcoming budget, I'm not holding my breath. After all, Dalton McGuinty and his

government, just like their Liberal cousins in Ottawa, are hard on your pocketbook but soft on crime.

BRAMPTON SPRING CLEANUP MONTH

Mr Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): I'm pleased to announce that April is Brampton Spring Cleanup month, and to commend Brampton city

council and the citizens of Brampton for their enthusiastic support of the event. So far, more than 20,000 individuals from community groups and schools have made the commitment to clean up our

city in the coming month.

Brampton Spring Cleanup is a joint venture that has seen city of Brampton community services, works and transportation departments, Tim Hortons of Brampton and

the region of Peel partner to help keep Brampton clean and a beautiful place to live. These groups have all worked hard to ensure that the keep-Brampton-clean-and-green message is getting out to

residents throughout the city.

As the snow gives way to reveal the ground below, and as citizens return to enjoy our province's green spaces, it is critical that we promote and encourage such

initiatives in every riding. I am thrilled to have the opportunity to offer my sincere thanks, on behalf of all of Brampton's residents, to the organizers of the event and to each of the 20,000

people who have already made this important commitment to our environment. I would also like to encourage the rest of Brampton West-Mississauga to follow their lead in April and help make our

parks, rivers and forests into community spaces that we can all enjoy and be proud of.

WATERLOO-WELLINGTON TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I'm rising this afternoon to express support for the Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan and

urge the provincial government to expedite the projects our municipal councils and I have identified as priorities. This action plan, which is vitally important for safety, the environment and the

strength of our local economy, is visionary in its scope and will be exciting in its application.

The plan includes completion of the work identified in the corridor study of Highways 7 and 8 through Wilmot township, between Kitchener and Stratford; a new

four-lane Highway 7 between Guelph and Kitchener; assistance for the county of Wellington to rebuild Highway 24 from Guelph to Cambridge; a repaired and upgraded Highway 6 from Fergus north to

Mount Forest; Waterloo region's light rail transit initiative; as well as the need for a new grant program like OSTAR to help rural municipalities and other important projects.

I want to congratulate the planning, environment and transportation committee of the city of Guelph for its recent expression of conditional support for the

ministry's proposed new Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph. This is an important development that merits positive recognition, as the past city of Guelph council was not prepared to support the

proposed new Highway 7 route and was the only area council opposing it.

However, we were disappointed to learn that the new government does not yet appreciate the importance of our new Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph. In fact,

according to a recent press report, our local mayors were informed by the member for Kitchener Centre that it may take until 2012 for a new Highway 7, a project that has already been discussed for

some 30 years.

I say to the Minister of Transportation, we cannot wait that long. As MPP for Waterloo-Wellington, I will not sit back quietly while the government neglects our

important transportation needs. It's time the new government took them seriously and began to address them.

VAISAKHI

Mrs Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I would like to highlight an important day for the Sikh community. April 13 marks the 305th anniversary of

Vaisakhi. Vaisakhi marks the birth of the order of Khalsa, the Sikh religion. This is one of the most important festivals for this religion, which was founded over 500 years ago.

Vaisakhi began as a harvest festival in the Indian state of Punjab. However, it gained another dimension when the 10th and last Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, founded

the order of Khalsa in 1699.

The Sikh religion has a worldwide following of over 200 million people and is ranked as the world's fifth-largest religion. Sikhism preaches a message of love,

understanding, devotion, remembrance of God at all times, truthful living and equality of mankind. Sikhism is open to all through the teachings of its 10 gurus, which are enshrined in the Sikh holy

book.

The Sikh community has become an integral part of Canadian society. The first Sikh pioneers settled in Canada over 100 years ago. Brampton has one of the largest

Sikh communities in Canada. In fact, approximately 34,000 members of Ontario's Sikh community call Brampton home. To celebrate this occasion, there will be a parade in Peel region on April 18. I

encourage all members of this House to join me in celebrating this rich culture and important religion.

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Yet another broken Liberal promise, this time the Liberal promise to our folks and our grandparents living in

long-term care. Foyer Richelieu Welland, a non-profit long-term-care facility that does an exemplary job of taking care of old folks, senior citizens, retirees down there in our community,

especially those from the francophone community -- what they're telling me is that they were counting on the promise made by the Liberals to put new money, new investment into long-term care.

The folks at Foyer Richelieu tell me that they can simply no longer afford to feed our folks and grandparents on the meagre budget of $5.24 per person per day;

that they don't have enough money to hire the nurses and personal support workers they need; that staff burnout and higher turnover rates are increasingly common; that a registered nurse at Foyer

now looks after 60 residents on day and night shifts, with only two PSWs during the night shift; that only about 12% of residents with rehabilitation potential actually receive physical therapy --

the other residents have physiotherapy services once every two weeks or in case of emergency; that during the evening, there are only three persons available in the Alzheimer's and dementia

section

at the time of meals. They have to help 12 residents eat their meals and supervise and encourage 10 others.

You see, this isn't fair to our seniors. The Liberals have failed them. The Liberals misled them to get elected, and it's now time for them to keep their

promise.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member from Niagara Centre, would you like to withdraw that unparliamentary comment?

Mr Kormos: Of course, Speaker. I withdraw.

BRIAN COLLINS

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Today, I want to pay tribute to the London chief of police, Brian Collins. Chief Collins is retiring tomorrow

after 33 years on the London Police Service.

In January 1970, he immigrated to London, Ontario, from Ireland to join the London police force as an officer, and in the year 2000, Brian became chief of police

during a period of uncertainty and shaken morale. He has led the force with integrity and dignity, and is an example to all Londoners of solid leadership during difficult times. Because of his

leadership, the London Police Service is a strong, united and essential feature of the city of London.

Chief Collins has been an advocate of community policing and has highlighted the need for more government funding to resolve mental health issues that affect not

just citizens but also the people who serve to protect them.

I congratulate Chief Brian Collins on his 33-year career, and I wish him the very best as he retires from the London Police Service.

GOVERNMENT FUNDING

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I rise today to bring to your attention a very disturbing issue that I became aware of this past

weekend. An

article in the Ottawa Citizen indicated that filmmaker Ken Takahashi was awarded a grant from the Independent Filmmakers' Cooperative of Ottawa, which received provincial government

funding through the Ontario Arts Council, to produce a film about pedophiliac relationships entitled "Last Night with Jessie."

Hardly a day goes by that we don't read a story about some despicable account of sexual abuse perpetrated against children in this province. While our police

officers go out each day and try to prevent these events from taking place, and bring the criminals to justice when they do, governments give tacit approval by funding organizations that produce

and promote this kind of garbage.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm the minister responsible, and in fact no

such money has flowed.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order, really.

Do you want to continue?

Mr Yakabuski: I have received many calls on this subject from constituents in Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke who are just sickened by the fact that

their tax dollars can be used to fund something that endorses a sexual relationship between adults and children. I too am disgusted by this. I call on this government to cancel all funding to any

organization or agency that supports this. Not one penny of our tax dollars should be used to encourage this type of trash. Our children are simply too precious to allow them to be treated in this

fashion.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Today is a red-letter day for public transit, for the TTC, for the people of Toronto and all the men and

women who built this amazing subway 50 years ago and for the millions who ride it every day.

For the first time in history, it was wonderful to see the Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin, the Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, and the mayor of

Toronto, David Miller, signing an historic agreement to invest $1 billion in public transit as the TTC marks its golden anniversary.

It's a welcome change to see the provincial government back funding public transit and working together with the city and the federal government in helping to

improve the TTC and restore its former glory and build upon its amazing record of efficiency. This billion dollars today builds upon $126 million that the McGuinty government already provided last

fall for subway safety.

As a former TTC chairman and long-time transit advocate, I congratulate Prime Minister Martin, Premier McGuinty and Mayor Miller for signing this historic

agreement that benefits not only transit but also our economy, our environment and the very air we breathe. Long live the TTC. Subway forever. Let's hear it for the TTC, subway, transit. Yes,

yes.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): Today, I'd like to take this opportunity to call upon the Minister of Transportation of the Liberal government to

help me with a local issue that involves traffic signals at the intersection of Highway 89 and the entrance road to the Green Briar development and the Nottawasaga Inn in Alliston.

In June 2003, the Honourable Frank Klees, as Minister of Transportation, and I announced, along with the ministry engineers and the ministry staff at the

Nottawasaga Inn, that traffic lights would be installed. Some money was set aside. At that time the idea was to realign two side roads -- the Tenth Side Road of New Tecumseth north-south with the

Sixth Line of Essa -- and put stoplights there, which could create a gap so that the residents of Green Briar and the guests at the Nottawasaga Inn could get out on to the highway.

Here's the problem. Honda has over 5,400 associates or employees. About 3 o'clock in the afternoon, 2,000 cars are going east, 2,000 cars going are west. People

are lined up 15 to 20 cars deep trying to get out of the Nottawasaga Inn, trying to get out of Green Briar.

Green Briar consists of several hundred residents, most of whom are senior citizens. They deserve some safety on this highway. There is going to be an accident.

There was a very serious two-person fatal accident last year near this location. So, I call upon you, Minister, and your government, to fix the problem that we already had plans to fix.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I beg leave to present a report on pre-budget consultation 2004 from the standing committee on finance and

economic affairs and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Mr Hoy presents the committee report and moves the adoption of its recommendations.

Interjection: No.

The Speaker: Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Hoy: I want to thank all members of the committee, and I move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Mr Hoy moves adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those against, "nay."

I think that the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1348 to 1353.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kular, Kuldip

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Orazietti, David

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Churley, Marilyn

Dunlop, Garfield

Eves, Ernie

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Miller, Norm

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57; the nays are 24.

The Speaker: The motion is carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL PARKWAY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA PROMENADE

ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL

Mr Levac moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 44,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act to name Highway 403 the Alexander Graham Bell Parkway / Projet de loi 44, Loi

modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement des voies publiques et des transports en commun afin de nommer l'autoroute 403 promenade Alexander Graham Bell.

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

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): The majority portion of Highway 403 runs from Woodstock through to Burlington. At the heart of this road is the city of

Brantford. While many try to claim Alexander Graham Bell as their own, Brantford is where he spent most of his formative years. It is here that he did much of his creative work that fundamentally

changed the way we work and live in our society today. He will ever be remembered as the inventor of the telephone, but what you don't know in some cases is that he was the forerunner of the iron

lung, all the hydrofoils we see on the lakes today, and improving the lives of the hearing impaired. Alexander Graham Bell is an extremely great man who needs to be recognized in this province and

indeed around the world.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, March 30, 2004, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

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

All those against, say "nay."

I think the motion is carried. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1359 to 1404.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise and be counted.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Eves, Ernie

Flaherty, Jim

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

The Speaker: All those against, please rise and be counted.

Nays

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Murdoch, Bill

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 77; the nays are 7.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ROLE OF THE SPEAKER

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg the indulgence of the House to allow me to address you briefly on the matter of the presiding role of

the Speaker.

Let me first say that I have been getting tremendous co-operation from all members in my quest to improve decorum in this House, and I greatly appreciate

it.

As a long-serving parliamentarian and a keen observer of the proceedings of this House, I have arrived at certain opinions with respect to order and decorum

and effective methods of preserving it.

While the Speaker is the servant of the House, he also has the delicate responsibility of maintaining order in such a way as to facilitate the business of the

House while respecting the rights of all members.

As Erskine May notes, "it is absolutely necessary that the Speaker should be invested with authority to repress disorder and to give effect promptly and

decisively to the rules and orders of the House." In this regard, the Speaker has significant powers. Among these is the power to name a member. It is my view that naming is the most severe

disciplinary tool at my disposal and one that should be reserved and applied as a last resort. It should be held not only by the Speaker, but by the House itself, as a profoundly serious

consequence of disregard for the authority of the Chair.

It is my opinion that the Chair has exercised the naming option so frequently in recent years that its effectiveness has been eroded. In fact, at times it has

become a method of demonstration, even garnering applause from members themselves. When a member is named, it should be understood that the Speaker is exercising that option only as a last resort,

and that the infraction is one that is an affront not just to the Chair but to this institution as well.

Naming, therefore, has its unfortunate place. But in somewhat less serious circumstances, where the firm intervention of the Speaker is nevertheless still

required, I see much merit in the approach used occasionally by Speakers of this House and more frequently by Speakers of the Canadian House of Commons, as set out in Marleau and Montpetit's House

of Commons Procedure and Practice as follows:

"If the Speaker has found it necessary to intervene in order to call a member to order, he or she may then choose to recognize another member, thus declining

to give the floor back to the offending member. On occasion, a member who is called to order by the Speaker may not immediately comply with the Speaker's instructions; in such a case, the Speaker

has given the member time to reflect on his or her position and upon the duty of the Chair, exercising in the meantime the prerogative of the Chair not to `see' the member if he or she should rise

to be recognized."

In my view, these other options, when applied judiciously, can be more effective methods by which to preserve order and decorum.

Recently, I have employed these methods in this House, and it is my intention to continue to do so. Naming will not be my first inclination when addressing

instances of disorder. Instead, if members will not heed my requests, I may just move on to another member, as the House witnessed last week. In other cases, I may simply decline to recognize the

offending member.

In clarifying this matter, my purpose is to be as effective, balanced and fair as possible in my presiding role.

Finally, I want to say that in hindsight I recognize that it may have been prudent of me to formally advise you of my intent at the outset, and I will

endeavour to do so in the future.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, through to you the Premier: You've stated on several occasions over the last few days

that your Minister of Finance is not under investigation, even though the company he served as a director on is apparently under investigation by the Ontario Securities Commission, the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police and the CCRA, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. If, as you claim, your Minister of Finance is not under investigation in any way, shape or form, either as a director,

exercising his responsibilities for that company, or otherwise, why would you remove from him the responsibilities he had under the Ontario Securities Commission?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm happy to return to this matter. I want to tell the Leader of the

Opposition, and Ontarians as well, that it was out of an abundance of caution that I felt it was important to remove those particular responsibilities from the Minister of Finance. By the way, the

Integrity Commissioner agreed with that approach.

Mr Eves: But you haven't cut to the crux of the issue. If he's under no investigation in any way, shape or form, either in his actions as a

director, along with other directors or others, there would be absolutely no need to remove him from his responsibilities under the Ontario Securities Act. Then a week later, you took a further

precaution, as you would put it, or unprecedented step, by removing his responsibilities for the Toronto Stock Exchange Act, the Commodity Futures Act and the Toronto Futures Exchange Act. Why

would you have taken those steps, and why would you take them a week later?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again, purely out of an abundance of caution. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that to the very best of my knowledge, no

one has produced any evidence that would suggest the minister is the subject of any investigation. If the leader has information that he might care to share with this House, we'd be pleased to

receive that.

Mr Eves: That makes absolutely no sense at all. If the Minister of Finance is not in any way, shape or form, other than his responsibilities

as a director or otherwise, under any type of investigation or subject to any type of investigation, he would not be stepping aside under the Ontario Securities Act, the Toronto Stock Exchange Act

or any other act, for that matter. Isn't the reality, Premier, that for the week between February 26 and March 4, you allowed the Minister of Finance to continue to exercise his responsibilities

under those three acts even though he was in a potential conflict position?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, he can't have it both ways. He can't, on the one hand, claim that the minister was at

one time in a position of conflict, and now tell us that I should not remove him from those responsibilities. I have acted appropriately in the circumstances that have been agreed to by the

Integrity Commissioner. There is no evidence of any kind that the minister is under any kind of investigation. What we have done is the right thing.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question, the member from Nepean-Carleton.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Premier, I don't think you understand just how important this is. It's about the ethical standards that

you enforce on your cabinet and on your administration.

On February 26, your Minister of Finance invoked

section 16 of the Members' Integrity Act. I'm going to read that for you so it's clear: "A member of the

executive council who has reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has a conflict of interest in a matter requiring the member's decision shall ask the Premier ... to appoint another member" of

cabinet to perform these duties.

If your man Sorbara is under no cloud, is under no investigation and there is no problem, why would you invoke the potential conflict of interest clauses of

this act? Would you stand in your place and tell us that, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I want to remind the member opposite of a very specific finding within the Integrity Commissioner's letter of March 8, where

he says, "I see no violation of the Members' Integrity Act, 1994," none whatsoever.

Mr Baird: Premier, in fact the reason you stripped your minister of responsibility for the OSE and then followed it up a week later, under the

cover of darkness, behind closed doors, for three additional acts was that he was in a conflict of interest. What you won't acknowledge is that he had been in a conflict of interest for 66

days.

Dozens of newspapers around the province of Ontario have come to similar conclusions. He kept you in the dark for five months, and as Premier that should be

unacceptable. It would have been unacceptable to Bill Davis, to Frank Miller, to David Peterson, to Bob Rae, to Mike Harris and to Ernie Eves, and it should be unacceptable to you. What you're

doing, Premier, is lowering ethical standards.

Can you stand in your place and tell the people of Ontario, without reservation, that your Minister of Finance is not under investigation by the Royal Canadian

Mounted Police -- a criminal probe -- and that his actions are not subject to an investigation at the OSE or by Revenue Canada? Can you stand in your place and, without reservation, confirm to this

House that he is not under investigation?

Hon Mr McGuinty: For the life of me, I can't understand how the member opposite can talk about standards of integrity in government when what

weighs heavily when it comes to the absence of responsibility would be Hydro One and OPG and his government's failure to bring transparency, credibility and integrity to the dealings of that

particular institution.

I say to the member opposite again -- I'll quote again from the letter from the Integrity Commissioner: "I see no violation of the Members' Integrity Act,

1994.... I do not think that you were in a position of conflict as a result of not taking the remedial action you took on February 25, 2004, earlier."

Mr Baird: You just don't seem to get it. You've said repeatedly outside this House, and then just a few moments ago to my leader, "To the best

of my knowledge, he's not under investigation." Premier, "to the best of my knowledge" doesn't cut it when you've got the corner office and when you're heading a government. You are chiefly

responsible for informing your cabinet of the ethical standards that you personally impose on them as servants of the people of Ontario.

There is an option, Premier. You can ask Mr Justice Coulter Osborne to make inquiries of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the OSE and Revenue Canada, and

report back to this House and tell us that on no way, shape or form are the minister or his actions part of the serious investigations going on at these three agencies. Will you stick your head in

the sand, or will you come clean with the people of Ontario and commit to us that you will do that and confirm that neither your minister nor his actions are the subject of investigation? Will you

do that, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: No, I will not personally, directly or indirectly contact any body that might be conducting any kind of investigation in

connection with this matter.

I know that the members opposite don't want to allow the facts to get in the way of their particular story, but here are the facts: To the very best of our

knowledge, the Minister of Finance is not under investigation. The province's independent Integrity Commissioner has specifically found that the minister at all times acted appropriately and never

was in a conflict of interest.

Here is the final fact that I will put before the members opposite: I have every confidence in our Minister of Finance.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question for the Premier. Your TTC announcement today with the Prime Minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I would appreciate it if you didn't do that.

Mr Hampton: I would suggest that this is a situation where they doth demonstrate too much, because their announcement was long on spin and

short on substance.

Premier, this is your pre-election document, Growing Strong Communities, where you said that two cents a litre of the gas tax would go to municipalities. In

Toronto, that would have meant $200 million a year. In your announcement today, you couldn't even whisper the words "two cents a litre of the gas tax," and you didn't deliver $200 million a year

for the TTC.

Interjections.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Tell him the truth, Michael. You were there.

The Speaker: Order. May I ask the Minister of Health to withdraw?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I withdraw.

Mr Hampton: As I said, methinks they doth protest too much, and that's the heart of the issue. You didn't deliver $200 million; you didn't

deliver two cents a litre of the gas tax; you delivered far less. Why did you break your promise, not just to Toronto but to other municipalities across the province?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to a very important

announcement that was made this morning. For the first time in recorded history, the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government came together with an unprecedented

plan to invest in public transit. What we have done today, all three levels -- it's remarkable what you can accomplish when you actually work together. All three levels of government have come

together. We've agreed to a capital investment plan that will extend over the next five years. It lends certainty and predictability to the TTC. It's going to involve the expenditure of $1.05

billion by all three levels of government. I say to the leader of the NDP, that is nothing at all to be laughed at.

Mr Hampton: Premier, it's about your promise of two cents a litre of the gas tax, which comes to $200 million a year for the TTC, which you

didn't deliver today. Not only that; what you announced today is less than the Conservatives were going to contribute to the TTC. They were putting forward $100 million a year; you're only putting

forward $70 million a year. Mike Harris, no friend of public transit, was prepared to invest more than you are investing. Premier, can you tell us why Mike Harris was even more committed to public

transit than you are?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I could say that the mayor of Toronto, David Miller, was most appreciative of this step forward. I have made it clear to the

mayor, to the people of Toronto and to people throughout the province that this is not our first investment in public transit and it is not our last investment in public transit. We very much look

forward to delivering on our two cents of the gas tax when it comes to investment in public transit in Ontario.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: To the Premier, it's not just Toronto. Yesterday, there was an historic meeting. The mayor of Toronto, the mayor of all the GTA

municipalities and the mayor of Hamilton all came together and unanimously agreed to press your government to keep your promises to the municipalities.

Another example: The city of Hamilton has an $83-million deficit. They haven't seen their two cents a litre of the gas tax, which would come to something like

$30 million. So they asked you to at least pool their social assistance costs with the neighbouring city of Burlington, which could give them about $19 million in relief. You said no to that

too.

You've broken your promise, Premier, and now you're saying no to another municipality. What happened to your promises? Did they just evaporate after the

election?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I obviously disagree entirely with the leader of the NDP's

interpretation of recent events. We are working as hard as we can

to develop a new approach when it comes to dealing with our municipal partners. We want to work together with them, not against them. We intend to treat them with respect.

The other thing that we have done today that I am so pleased about is that instead of, as the previous government did, going out of its way to pick fight after

fight with whatever other level of government they could possibly find, we encouraged, we urged, we cajoled the federal government into delivering $350 million to the city of Toronto for public

transit. That has never been done before, and we're proud of the work we did in getting that to happen.

Mr Hampton: Surely the Premier isn't so naive. Surely he understands there's a federal election coming and Mr Martin wants to buy his way out

of a scandal. Surely you must know that. This is about your promises -- your promises. You were the one who said, "Two cents a litre of the gas tax."

Hamilton should be receiving $30 million from that. They've seen nothing. So they asked you to pool social assistance costs. You said no to that. Then they

said, "Look, $20 million of this comes from the unfair downloading of social assistance costs onto the people of Hamilton. Would you at least pick up the social assistance cost?" You said no to

that as well.

Premier, what happened to your promises? What happened to the two cents a litre of the gas tax? What happened to your promise to invest in our cities? What are

the people of Hamilton supposed to do? They haven't seen the gas tax, and they're $83 million in deficit. What's your answer?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'm pleased to say that one of the first meetings I had, subsequent to earning the privilege of serving Ontarians as the

Premier, was with the mayor of Hamilton. I went and visited in his city hall. He told me -- they told me -- that they couldn't recall the last time an Ontario Premier went to their city hall to

visit with the mayor. I was pleased to do that.

Notwithstanding the difficult financial circumstances in which we find ourselves as a result of the irresponsible approach by the previous government, we are

determined to provide assistance and to provide a real partnership, to create a real partnership when it comes to our municipalities throughout the province. That includes delivering on two cents

of the gas tax when it comes to helping municipalities invest in their public transit systems.

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Premier. It is really going back to a question that I posed last week and that

he refused to answer surrounding the appointment of a new vice-chair of the Ontario Securities Commission. The Premier effectively pled the fifth and refused to answer the question with respect to

Mr Sorbara's involvement surrounding that particular appointment.

I think that by refusing to answer whether or not the Minister of Finance or his staff participated in any way, shape or form in reaching the decision to

appoint Ms Jenah, he is showing contempt for the members of this assembly and showing contempt for the people of Ontario. By refusing to answer, he is encouraging suspicion surrounding Ms

Jenah's appointment. In effect, what we're talking about is the Minister of Finance participating in the appointment of a judge and jury that may sit in judgment of his activities with Royal Group

Technologies. That is wrong. That is serious. The people of Ontario and the members of this assembly deserve an answer.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the Chair of Management Board would like to speak to this.

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I think the public expects that the government of Ontario does everything it

possibly can to ensure that the securities commission is well managed. This particular individual we're talking about was among several, I gather, interviewed by a committee appointed by the

securities commission. They interviewed several well-regarded individuals. In this particular case, this individual, I'm told, was selected unanimously by the securities commission's nominating

committee as an individual of impeccable credentials and was referred to the government by the securities commission, strongly recommended as the vice-chair of the board. The government accepted

that recommendation gladly, because this individual will serve and has served Ontario well in her role at the securities commission.

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, this is nothing short of contempt of the Legislature, in my view. This is a Premier's appointment.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member is alleging contempt of the

Legislature with no basis whatsoever. The minister responded to the question. To suggest there is contempt, I would suggest, is out of order.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): It is not a point of order. I don't regard it as a point of contempt.

New question.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Are you not allowing the government to respond?

The Speaker: I'm very sorry. You may complete your question.

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, this is a very serious matter. This is a Premier's appointment. The Premier, in my experience -- having served, as I

mentioned last week, in three cabinets -- when you are talking about an appointment of this significance, would always consult with the minister responsible for that agency, board or

commission.

By refusing to respond to this, the Premier is reinforcing the view that there was participation by the Minister of Finance. That is totally wrong; that is

totally serious, Mr Speaker. We're talking about someone who ultimately could sit in judgment of the activities of the Minister of Finance with respect to his involvement with Royal Group

Technologies. If the people of Ontario and the members of this assembly deserve the respect that the Premier suggests we should be receiving, he should stand on his feet here today and answer the

question directly. Did the Minister of Finance and his staff participate in any way, shape or form with respect to the decision to appoint a new vice-chair to the securities commission?

Hon Mr Phillips: First, I would just repeat for the members of the Legislature, and indeed the public, that the individual we are talking

about is beyond reproach, selected unanimously by the nominating committee, with 10 years of experience on the securities commission.

I remind the Legislature as well that the Integrity Commissioner examined this matter in some considerable detail, looked at the role the Minister of Finance

played and concluded that the minister acted entirely properly. It would have been totally inappropriate of the minister to do anything that would in any way have disclosed that he had become

inadvertently aware of an investigation in the company. It would have been a mistake of the first order, and that's what the Integrity Commissioner said.

Again I say that the individual who was appointed is an individual beyond reproach, and the Integrity Commissioner has looked at the role that the Minister of

Finance played and concluded that he acted properly.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister come to order, please.

AUTISM SERVICES

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): This question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. I have been meeting with a family who

have a child with autism. They told me about their problems: sleepless nights and uncertainty for the future.

You announced a plan to solve that problem. Can you clarify for us how we can solve that problem? I know that you are one of the best professionals in this

province and probably in the country who deal with these issues. Can you tell us about this problem?

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I want to thank the member

opposite, although in a moment of madness I left that profession five years ago. But thank you for the compliment.

I did consult with world-renowned experts, and the McGuinty government is supporting children with autism from their early years right through their school

years. We're spending an additional $40 million in new funding per year to assist these children. Our plan doubles our spending to serve the 8,000 children across the province diagnosed with

autism. We will be supporting the approximately 1,500 autistic children under six with $50 million every year -- $10 million in new funding -- and we will be supporting the approximately 6,500

children over the age of six with ABA supports in the classroom.

Mr Ramal: Minister, another concern, as you know, is that after the age of six, the children will go to school. I know you're not seeking

political gain but are looking to serve those children. What's your plan to look after the kids when they go to school after age six?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I'm pleased to announce that the Ministry of Children and Youth Services and the Ministry of Education have a joint

working group that will determine how ABA supports will be provided in the classroom.

Interjection: IBI.

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: We will train teachers, we will train education assistants and we will train parents for children over six in the

classroom at a cost of $30 million per year. We will also train 200 new therapists per year at the college level, increasing not only the quantity of therapists but the quality of

therapists.

At present, IBI training is two weeks. It's not a regulated profession in Canada yet. It doesn't even have the credentials that the American system has. Until

they reach that level of accountability, we believe they need more education as well as more support. We will also evaluate our program to see if this type of therapy and this type of programming

could be generalized to other special-needs children.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): My question to the Premier is in regard to the ongoing criminal investigation into Royal Group Technologies and

the role of the finance minister.

I want to point out a few facts from the business newspapers. During the 66-day, self-imposed, self-determined blackout period, Royal Group Technologies shares

continued to trade. At that time, their value increased substantially. When the information of the criminal investigation became public, the share value plummeted immediately by at least 20%.

During this blackout period, insiders knew the investigation was coming. New investors and outsiders did not know that was coming. Investors, whether they're seniors or working families, didn't

know what was happening, and they have suffered losses in the markets as a result.

The integrity of the role of the finance minister is paramount to maintaining the integrity of our financial markets --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question?

Mr Hudak: Will you do the right thing and ask the finance minister to step aside until we know the facts, until the full investigation is

complete?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Nobody put it better than the Integrity Commissioner himself when he

addressed the specific issue of the finance minister's unwillingness to disclose what could be claimed to be insider information. He said: "Put bluntly, it would have been manifestly wrong for you

to involve yourself or your ministry in any aspect of the OSC's investigation of Royal, or in any OSC investigation. If particular it would have been wrong for you to have taken it upon yourself to

disclose, or to cause the disclosure of the OSC/Royal investigation."

Mr Hudak: Further facts: On December 22, OSC ordered the Royal Group to disclose the investigation. It was forthcoming. Two days later, the

TSX ordered the opposite. We don't know who said what to whom. We don't know why there was a conflict between those two agencies.

Premier, this is about leadership. It's about the standards you set for your cabinet ministers. In June 2003, you said to our then-Premier: "You cannot fob

this matter over to the Integrity Commissioner. It's about you, your judgment and your standards." At what point in time are you, as Premier, going to exercise some leadership, at least some

modicum of leadership, and tell your caucus and cabinet ministers that in your government there are some things that are right and some things that are wrong?

When are you going to walk the talk with the words you used on the opposition side? When are you going to set high standards and do the right thing for the

markets, do the right thing for the Legislature and have this finance minister step aside until this matter is fully resolved?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Just to remind the member opposite of the order of these events, I first made the decision, after careful consideration, that

Minister Sorbara had acted responsibly. Subsequent to that, as a result of a letter sent by the Minister of Finance to the Integrity Commissioner, the Integrity Commissioner ruled that the Minister

of Finance -- he also happened, coincidentally, to rule that he acted responsibly. I think that what has been done in all of the circumstances is the right thing, and I continue to believe that to

this very day.

GOVERNMENT FUNDING

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): My question is for the Minister of Culture. The Ottawa Citizen carried a story that caused me and many people very much

troubling concern. It says that the Independent Filmmakers' Cooperative of Ottawa is considering funding a pedophiliac movie. The film depicts a sexual relationship between an adult and a child.

Minister, can you tell me specifically if this film will be receiving any money from the government of Ontario?

Hon Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Culture, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I thank the member from Brant for asking this very

important question. I am uncomfortable with government funding for any film that depicts a sexual relationship between an adult and a child, and I am pleased to report to this House that this

morning the board of the Independent Filmmakers Cooperative refused the filmmaker's request for a funding grant. Let me repeat: The filmmaker's request for funding was denied.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary?

Mr Levac: Speaker, I'm extremely satisfied with that answer, and I know that we all are, so there will be no supplementary question.

LAND DEVELOPMENT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Premier. Before the election, you promised to protect forever green space that

surrounds our cities, but some of that green space is already turning into brown space. You already broke your promise to stop development on the Oak Ridges moraine, and now, as I pointed out

yesterday, your government is turning 620 hectares of land on the Niagara Escarpment near the town of Blue Mountain over to the Castle Glen development corporation. Instead of protecting green

space, you are sanctioning the construction of 1,600 new residential units, 300 retail units and three golf courses. Why are you breaking this promise?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Natural Resources would like to speak to this.

Hon David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): As the member knows, in 1975 it was the Bill Davis government that brought forward an

agreement with all the stakeholders in Ontario that there should be a special management system for the Niagara Escarpment. At that time, there were certain projects that were grandfathered into

the planning act of the Niagara Escarpment, and the one you mentioned today is one of those.

Ms Churley: No, it is not. This development, in fact -- your big-picture mapping shows the Castle Glen property as a top priority of your

government's environmental protection. This is a very serious matter. This development will be a year-round urban area built in a UNESCO world heritage site. Since coming under provincial

protection in 1975, there has been no new year-round urban development built on the escarpment under any government of any stripe.

There is a remedy. Don't throw it off to the Ontario Municipal Board. We know it's going there, but because the previous members of the commission approved it,

they'll probably let it go ahead. You can bring in a minister's zoning order to stop it now, as the previous government did for Oak Ridges moraine areas in Richmond Hill. You can do that today to

stop this development. Will you do that? It is a disgrace if you don't.

Hon Mr Ramsay: As the member probably knows, I do not have the power to bring in a zoning order. That is the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing, under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. As the member stated, this particular project is before the Ontario Municipal Board at this moment. That is the process that

should be followed.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Premier. Today, with great fanfare, you announced what will prove to be a $475-million cut

to the TTC. There is good reason that the mayor --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order.

Mr Klees: There is good reason that the mayor of Toronto referred to this announcement as a down payment. He referred to that quite

sheepishly, because he knows your record of keeping promises, or breaking them.

Can you tell us how you convinced the mayor and Howard Moscoe to cut a cake in celebration of a $475-million cut to the TTC?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will tell you why the municipal council, the mayor and Howard Moscoe,

are celebrating today: not only because of the 50th anniversary of the subway system, which is a remarkable achievement for the city and indeed our province, but because they have a government at

Queen's Park which is determined to work hand in hand with them to increase the strength, the vitality of this city by beginning with its public transit system.

Mr Klees: The Premier should have checked with his Minister of Transportation, who I notice wasn't involved in the announcement, the numbers

for last year: $64 million for safety improvements; $62.3 million for OTRP; $20.4 million for the GTIP program; and $19 million for the Union Station platform expansion. That amounts to $165

million to the TTC last year.

What was announced today is $70 million. That is a significant cut -- $475 million over five years in cuts to funding for the TTC. The previous government had

committed $3.25 billion to transit funding, all of which was flowing according to schedule.

Can the minister tell us today how he can justify repackaging an announcement that effectively is in a larger box but amounts to a $475-million cut to the TTC

in this city?

Hon Mr McGuinty: To suggest that the Mike Harris government was a friend of public transit in Ontario is like saying that Colonel Sanders only

had the best interests of chickens at heart. We are pleased to be able to work with the TTC and other public transit services around the province as we try as hard as we can to make up for so many

years that were lost during the previous government.

FOOD SAFETY

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Notwithstanding any references to chickens, I

want to ask you a question. Last Saturday, I was pleased to meet with about 20 representatives of the Perth County Federation of Agriculture, who meet with me every year to brief me on issues of

provincial concern. As you know, agriculture is the largest industry in my riding of Perth-Middlesex. Food safety is the pre-eminent priority for farmers and my constituents, not only for their

families' sake but for the sake of our economy. As the second-largest industry in this province, we depend not only on the safety of food but on the perception of the safety of food. Given this,

what action is your ministry taking to address the safety and quality of food in this province?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Our goal is to ensure that we have the safest food in the province. We want to have a

safe, seamless system that is going to ensure that food is safe from the farm gate to your plate. That is our goal. That's why we moved to hire full-time meat inspectors. We're in the process right

now of completing that and doing away with contract meat inspection like the previous government put forward. That's why we've moved forward with increased water testing at abattoirs in this

province, to ensure that we have up-to-date tests. That's why this government is committed to an independent review of the meat system, not only from the abattoir system but also for further food

processing. We're looking very much forward to Justice Haines's report, and we are going to move forward.

In 2001, with a lot of fanfare, the previous government talked about the Food Safety and Quality Act but did nothing. They neglected food safety and quality in

this province and sat on that report. We're moving forward, because we're going to ensure that we have the safest food in this province.

Mr Wilkinson: As the farmers in my riding know, food safety is imperative in every step of the process. I heard from the processors in my

riding discussing the new hazard analysis critical control point system known as HACCP. It provides advantages for both small and medium-sized processors. Can you tell the farmers in my riding how

this program will benefit the products that they are so proud to produce?

Hon Mr Peters: HACCP was designed in the 1960s by the space industry to ensure that we had the safest food at the processing level. HACCP,

though, has been very much based toward large processors. Our goal is to work with medium-sized and small processors -- there are over 700 in Ontario -- to bring that skill and technology right

down to the ground level. We need to ensure consumer confidence, because consumer confidence benefits everybody. That way we know that the food we eat on a daily basis is safe. Consumer confidence

benefits the farming community to a great degree. We need to ensure that we have the safest food, and that's why we've introduced the HACCP advantage. We had over 500 food processors attend the

launch of the HACCP advantage conference. This is a program that is going to benefit the agricultural community for many years to come.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. During the election campaign your

government stated that there would be no tolls placed on highways that don't have alternate routes. Minister, what is the alternate route for people travelling from Parry Sound to Sudbury on

Highway 69?

Hon Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I want to reinforce that while the criteria are being developed for tolls on

highways, I am very, very confident that the unique concerns of the north, the unique challenges of the north and the uniqueness of the northern Ontario highways is being considered.

Mr Miller: Minister, recently while in Sudbury, the Premier stated that he is considering tolls on Highway 69. Both of us know how devastating

tolling Highway 69 would be to the northern economy. This highway is a vital link to the north that our businesses and communities rely on. You yourself have campaigned vigorously in the past when

you were in the opposition for strengthening this link. However, now you seem not to be able to say whether Highway 69 is going to be a toll highway or is not going to be a toll highway. I

therefore want to ask you, on behalf of all those in the north and in your riding, who promised a freeway --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order.

Would you put your question again, please?

Mr Miller: I want to ask the minister: Can he guarantee, for those in the north, that Highway 69 will be a freeway, not a toll highway?

Hon Mr Bartolucci: I'm very concerned that too many people on the opposition side are watching Fear Factor on Monday evenings at 8 o'clock. I

would suggest to you that the only thing I will commit to is that this government will be fair to northerners, that this government listens to and understands the concerns of northerners, that this

government is committed to ensuring that northern Ontario prospers.

Unlike the previous government, this government will not make announcements that they will not live up to. For example, in November 2002, the former Premier of

the province committed to $100 million in the 2003 budget. It wasn't there. In November 2002, the former Premier suggested -- no, promised -- that construction from Sudbury would begin in 2003. It

never happened.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): My question is for the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Let's just settle down a bit, please.

Mr Fonseca: My office, as I'm sure is the case for many of the members here, has been receiving many calls, e-mails and letters with respect

to auto insurance rates. Many of my constituents are facing increases in their rates. This has placed many people in the situation of having to leave their cars on the driveway, or worse, risk

driving without insurance, simply because they cannot afford the premiums.

Minister, just recently the insurance companies posted record profits of $2.6 billion, yet they still feel the need to raise premiums. How can insurance

companies make these kinds of profits when rates are increasing for drivers?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): As Minister of Finance, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on profits of any company, public

or private, but I want to say --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Sorbara: It's a cacophony over there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Many members have expressed a concern that they won't be able to hear the answer or their questions put forward; question period

will end. So if we allow the minister to respond, maybe you'll get your question on.

Minister?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I support that, sir. Let me just say, though, that those profits create the perfect economic environment for this government

to realize the very first steps that it took as a government, bringing in regulation and then a piece of legislation to lower insurance rates in this province by an average of 10%. We took that

action on the very first day.

Ninety days later, all auto insurance companies were required to refile rates. By mid-April this year, consumers will begin to see their auto rates go down,

after three years of unprecedented rate increases while that party was in government.

Mr Fonseca: I'm glad to hear that your ministry and this government are listening to the concerns of Ontarians, that steps are being taken to

address this situation, which was created by the inaction of the previous government. Shame on you. In other provinces, auto insurance reforms meant that benefits and injured people were greatly

reduced. Will Ontario be stripping coverage from our drivers?

Hon Mr Sorbara: It's a good point. The problem of rising insurance rates has plagued every jurisdiction in Canada. Ontario was not prepared to

tackle the problem by way of going after benefits that individual accident victims look to. We have brought forward a measured number of initiatives to ensure, on one hand, that accident insurance

premiums will go down -- as I said, by the middle of next month, individual drivers should see the impact of those initiatives -- but not doing it on the backs of those who have suffered damage and

physical damage as a result of automobile accidents. We're very proud of that.

AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): My suggestion to the Minister of Health: St Catharines Standard reporter Kalvin Reid tells me that the

thickest file on his desk is the clippings history around the Niagara ambulance dispatch centre. The last government, as you know, failed to deliver. Every Liberal candidate in the Niagara region

during the course of the election campaign was promising prompt announcements of the Niagara regional ambulance dispatch centre. Well, it still hasn't been delivered.

Lives are at risk; you know that. This is a very dangerous scenario for Niagarans to have to live with. You haven't delivered either. This ain't rocket

science. All the planning has been done. All the inquiries surely have been made. You sought a three-month extension. We're now two months into that three-month extension. When is the announcement

going to come? The people of Niagara deserve to know.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I agree that this is an important issue to the people of Niagara, and if I

didn't know that, I've got Jim Bradley and other aggressive members from Niagara who remind me of that every day, including the member --

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): And you hear from them so often.

Hon Mr Smitherman: Yes, I do hear from them so often, and not from you, Mr Hampton. I would say to my friend that the three-month extension

ought to give you some guideline about the term we need to get this dealt with.

Mr Kormos: The problem is that folks in Niagara, the political leadership in Niagara, have endured postponement after postponement. You've got

to understand that the confidence level, the trust level, has been significantly eroded. Will you please stand up here today and tell the folks in Niagara that you will, in fact, make an

announcement about their Niagara regional ambulance dispatch centre, that it will be made before the timeline has expired -- that is, before April 30 -- and that you will be announcing a fully

funded, fully resourced Niagara ambulance dispatch service within that time frame?

Hon Mr Smitherman: It would with be appropriate for me to say, when talking about political leadership in Niagara on that issue, that no one

provided more leadership on this file than Debbie Zimmerman, the former regional chair. I'm pleased to see that she's in the gallery today. I've given her an undertaking, as I have to the member

from Erie-Lincoln when he asked, that we're working with this, alongside a number of other issues in the Niagara region. As I said in my earlier answer, the timeline we've established relates very

closely to the extension we requested and received from Niagara region, and we should all have news shortly.

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Premier, and I don't think you need the Integrity Commissioner letter on this

one. On page 23,

section 2 of your election platform, Growing Strong Communities, it mentions, "We will put 1,000 more police officers on the street." How many additional police officers can we

expect to be put on the streets in the spring budget?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I refer the question to the Minister of Community Safety.

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): We made a commitment that we would put 1,000 new police officers

on the streets of Ontario. We stand by that commitment, and during this mandate we will deliver those numbers.

Mr Dunlop: I'm not sure that answer is very satisfactory to the Police Association of Ontario, who will be in the building later on today. To

the minister, when we were in office, we delivered on our promise to get 1,000 more police officers working in communities across the province. You remember the statement, "Promises made, promises

kept." We kept our promise of 1,000 new police officers.

I just want to know, with all the turmoil we've seen and all the task forces we've seen taking place over the last few weeks, why are you being soft on crime

on this particular issue? Why can't you give us or commit to deliver 1,000 new police officers -- at least some of them -- in the spring budget?

Hon Mr Kwinter: It's quite strange that we have a member of the previous government talking about broken promises. You gave a promise to the

people of Ontario that you would deliver a balanced budget. You promised that you would deliver a balanced budget. Instead, we find that you delivered a deficit of $5.6 billion-plus, and that is

what is hindering our ability to deliver those police officers today. But we will correct your mismanagement, and we will deliver those officers during our mandate.

IDENTITY THEFT

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. There has been recent media coverage in the

province about identity theft, and I know that many Ontarians would be concerned about that, should they realize how serious a problem it is. Can you advise me and my constituents what the

government is doing with regard to identity theft?

Hon Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I want to thank the honourable member for Essex, because certainly in the last

Parliament he was a leader in terms of dealing with identity theft issues, and I very much commend the work he did.

As the honourable member knows, identity theft is the fastest-growing crime in North America. The McGuinty government, just a few months after taking office,

indicated that it was going to deal with this in a very systematic fashion, and we launched a program entitled Keep Your Identity Safe. We've been working with the OPP, with Phonebusters, with

credit card companies and other retail operations to ensure that information is available so that when someone's identity is stolen, they have a way to gain it back. I want to thank the member and

all the voluntary groups that have been working with my ministry to ensure that we deal with this problem in a very thoughtful and systematic fashion.

Mr Crozier: When a consumer is a victim of identity theft, it is often an extremely difficult time, and it takes a lot of time to repair that

damage. I've heard from some of my constituents that the process can take months to communicate with various agencies and businesses involved in reclaiming one's identity. What is the Ministry of

Consumer and Business Services doing to ensure that Ontarians are not subjected to unnecessary hassles when they become victims of identity theft?

Hon Mr Watson: The honourable member from Essex is quite correct. When an individual's identity is stolen, time is of the essence. In many

instances, we end up having to fill out many different forms to reach the various credit card companies, banks and other financial organizations.

I'm pleased to report that our ministry has developed what we call an identity theft statement, which in essence is one-stop shopping. An individual who has

been a victim of identity theft can simply fill out the form and use one form that's available on the ministry Web site, which is www.cbs.gov.on.ca. By filling out that one form, individuals can

use that form, which is accepted at a number of retail organizations, financial institutions and credit reporting organizations.

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Health. As the minister well knows, there continues to be a

tremendous amount of concern about the sweeping powers that are given to the minister under Bill 8. The question I have for the minister is very, very simple: If you indeed understand the Public

Hospitals Act, why do you feel that you need the sweeping powers contained in Bill 8, which are unprecedented, when you have the same power by using the Public Hospitals Act?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): When Roy Romanow did his work on behalf of Canadians, he said that the Canada

Health Act and medicare needed to be transformed, with accountability added as a significant sixth principle. Bill 8 seeks to add accountability to our health care system. The former minister well

knows that the powers under the Public Hospitals Act that she refers to give me, the Minister of Health, the power, if supported by cabinet, to remove a CEO from their position. The powers that are

anticipated in Bill 8, and that I recommend to this House for consideration and support, simply provide an opportunity: If a hospital and a hospital CEO fail to live up to a negotiated

accountability agreement, the Minister of Health reserves the right, in exceptional circumstances, to seek a minor adjustment in their salary. These are hospital administrators, whom we value

deeply; they play a great role. But across the breadth of that former government's record, they removed a bunch of them. That's not what I'm seeking.

Mrs Witmer: The minister knows full well that he has similar powers under the Public Hospitals Act. This is simply a power grab on behalf of

the minister. I would say to the minister, you talk about accountability. There is no mutual accountability in this act. There is no accountability on the part of the government. There is no

commitment on the part of the government to publicly report on wait times. Why is there no public accountability on behalf of the government to the people in this province?

Hon Mr Smitherman: To the former minister, how is it possible that new powers can be sweeping if I already have them? Maybe you could take

another question tomorrow and explain that to me, because that is exactly what you said.

On the matter of accountability, I'm enormously proud to say that for the first time, envisioned in Bill 8, is the opportunity for all Ontarians, through the

mechanism of the Ontario Health Quality Council, to be provided, on an annual basis, with a report across a broad range of indicators that talk about how our health care system is performing and

that goes one step further: It talks about how Ontarians are doing from the standpoint of their health, with measures such as obesity, rates of activity and rates of smoking.

Accountability is a two-way street, and as a government we're very pleased to say that once and for all Ontarians will have the opportunity --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

VISITORS

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With your indulgence, I would like to draw your attention to

the members' gallery and introduce Mayor Ed Jacyno and Councillor Shirley White from the great city at the centre of my riding, Pembroke.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Liberal government was elected after promising in their election platform that they were committed to improving the Ontario drug benefit program

for seniors but are now considering delisting drugs and imposing user fees on seniors; and

"Whereas prescription drugs are not covered under the Canada Health Act unless dispensed in a hospital; and

"Whereas the federal Liberal government refuses to acknowledge this as a necessary health service despite the Romanow report's strong support for a national

drug program;

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

"To immediately and unequivocally commit to end plans for the delisting of drugs for coverage under the Ontario drug benefit program;

"To immediately commit to ending plans to implement higher user fees for seniors and to improve the Ontario drug benefit plan so they can obtain necessary

medications; and

"To instruct Premier Dalton McGuinty to demand more health care funding from Ottawa instead of demanding more" health care "funding from seniors."

This petition has my support.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Could I have a little quiet, please, while the petitions are being read? Could all those who are having

meetings or discussions have them outside?

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to present the following petition on behalf of my riding:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada,

raise their families, educate their children and pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and

managerial talent from practising the professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their county of origin; and

"Whereas Ontario, its businesses, its people and its institutions badly need the professional, managerial and technical skills that many newcomers to Canada

have and want to use;

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

"That the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and the other institutions and agencies of and within the

government of Ontario, undertake specific and proactive measures to work with the bodies regulating access to Ontario's professions, trades and other occupations in order that newcomers to Canada

gain fair, timely and cost-effective access to certification and other measures that facilitate the entry or re-entry of skilled workers and professionals trained outside Canada into the Canadian

workforce."

I'm pleased to submit that, and I have attached my signature to this petition.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On behalf of the constituents of Durham -- specifically, Shirley Cruickshank -- I present a petition to the

Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario's seniors have worked long and hard to build the outstanding quality of life achieved in our province; and

"Whereas seniors' drug benefits enable older persons to live healthier lives and avoid more extensive care in hospitals and nursing homes; and

"Whereas, in addition to their taxes, many seniors already contribute toward their prescription drugs through deductibles and dispensing fees; and

"Whereas many seniors on fixed pensions already face higher costs through property taxes and" the current "electricity charges;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not eliminate or reduce the provincial drug benefits provided to seniors."

I'm pleased to allow page Sarah, from Essex, to carry this to the table on my behalf.

SUDBURY REGIONAL HOSPITAL

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I heard the Minister of Northern Development and Mines say his government is going to keep its promises, so I

hope he's going to keep this one, since he made it to our community. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly and reads as follows:

"I agree it's time. Our community can't afford to pay more for the construction at the Sudbury Regional Hospital. We have already done more than our fair

share. The Liberal government should immediately pay 85% of the cost of construction at the Sudbury Regional Hospital," just like the Minister of Northern Development and Mines promised. "The time

for action is now."

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

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of Canada and Ontario, draw to the attention of this House the following:

"Whereas the Canadian beef, cattle, dairy, goat and sheep industries are in a state of crisis due to the BSE problem;

"Whereas the aid package to the industry is inadequate as it does not deal with the extremely low prices, nor the imminent collapse of key sectors of the rural

economic community;

"We, the undersigned citizens of Canada and Ontario, urge the federal government" and provincial government "to work with their counterparts in the United

States of America, to reopen the border to Canadian cattle now and to develop a long-term solution -- an economic relief package -- that is fair and recognizes the essential nature of these

industries to Canada.

"Furthermore, we urge the provincial agriculture minister to call on the federal government to work with the province to enable this crisis to come to a timely

conclusion."

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present a petition from seniors from Beamsville that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas during the election campaign the Dalton McGuinty Liberals said they would improve the Ontario drug benefit program, but now are considering delisting

drugs and imposing higher user fees; and

"Whereas the Liberal government has increased costs to seniors by taking away the seniors' property tax rebate and increased the price of hydro;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should keep their campaign promise to improve the Ontario drug benefit program and abandon their plan to delist drugs or increase

seniors' drug fees."

Beneath my friends Edith MacLean and Faye Applegarth, I am pleased to affix my signature in support.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): I have a petition here that was forwarded to me by the folks from Campellford-Brighton Community Living in

the east end of my riding, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario introduced public policy in 1973, Community Living for the Mentally Retarded in Ontario: A New Policy Focus, that

recommended that people with intellectual disability be socially integrated within their local communities and with other citizens; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario recommitted itself to that public policy in 1987 and stated that Ontario will phase out institutional placements for all

people with intellectual disabilities; and

"Whereas all three political parties in the province have endorsed this public policy in support of community living for people with intellectual disabilities;

and

"Whereas, between the years 1973 and 2000 there were ongoing initiatives to move people out of the province's directly operated institutions, resulting in a

number of these institutions being reduced from 18 to three, and the number of people who live in these from 6,675 to less than 1,100; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has made no effort since March 31, 2000, to move any people out of these institutions, and moreover it has resisted any

efforts on the part of the individuals and organizations to provide these opportunities,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario" -- it includes about 110 signatures --

"By no later than March 31, 2004, the government of Ontario will introduce a plan to provide community living opportunities for the almost 1,100 people who

continue to reside in the province's institutions for people with intellectual disabilities, and close these three remaining institutions in Ontario -- Huronia Regional Centre, Rideau Regional

Centre and Southwestern Regional Centre -- and accomplish these goals within a three-year time frame, from April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2007."

I am pleased to add my signature.

TOBACCO TAX

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition signed by a great number of people in the tobacco producing area of the province, of which I am

proud to represent a large portion.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty has stated that he will increase tobacco taxes by $10 a carton, force store owners to hide tobacco products behind a curtain and

support a smoke-free Ontario; and

"Whereas history has proven that increases in tobacco taxes cause increases in the underground trade for illegal black-market tobacco whose contents are

neither regulated nor inspected; and

"Whereas forcing store owners to hide their tobacco displays unduly punishes both store owners and consumers for the transition of what remains a legal

product;

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

"That the government of Ontario reject tobacco tax hikes, reject a smoke-free Ontario, reject the ban on tobacco displays and protect the rights of consumers

to purchase a legal, regulated product."

I will sign the petition on behalf of my constituents.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition that I agree with and have signed myself as well. It's to the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas former Premier Mike Harris received $18,000 in consulting fees from Ontario Hydro;

"Whereas he did this consulting work less than a year after he resigned his position as Premier of Ontario;

"Whereas this contract is just another" --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order.

Mr Berardinetti: "Whereas this contract is just another example of the Conservative country club created by the previous government at Ontario

Hydro and Ontario Power Generation;

"We, the undersigned, petition" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I didn't realize that petitions could cause all this problem. Let the member complete his petition, please.

Mr Berardinetti: Mr Speaker, should I start from the beginning, or just --

The Speaker: Please.

Mr Berardinetti: "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to order former Premier Mike Harris to pay back the taxpayers of

Ontario by returning the consulting fees he received from Ontario Hydro."

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The previous speaker was giving the people of Ontario false information with

respect to --

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

The member from Simcoe-Grey.

LCBO OUTLET

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): A petition regarding an LCBO agency store in the village of Baxter, in the township of Essa:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the LCBO agency store program is intended to revitalize our small towns and villages, and to provide rural consumers with responsible and convenient

access to LCBO services,

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make available to the village of Baxter an LCBO agency store."

It is signed by several hundred people in my riding, and I too affix my signature, as I agree with the petition.

LANDFILL

Mr Dunlop: "Whereas the county of Simcoe proposes to construct a landfill site at site 41 in the township of Tiny; and

"Whereas the county of Simcoe has received over a period of time the necessary approvals from the Ministry of the Environment to design and construct the

landfill at site 41; and

"Whereas, as part of the landfill planning process, peer reviews of site 41 identified over 200 recommendations for improvements to the design, most of which

are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has on numerous occasions stated her passion for clean and safe water and the need for water source protection;

and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has indicated her intention to introduce legislation on water source protection, which is a final and key

recommendation to be implemented under Justice Dennis O'Connor's report on the Walkerton inquiry; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has announced expert panels that will make recommendations to the minister on water source protection legislation;

and

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment will now be responsible for policing nutrient management; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario will be expecting a standing committee of the Legislature to hold province-wide public hearings on water source protection

legislation;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment to immediately place a moratorium on the development of site 41

until the water source protection legislation is implemented in Ontario. We believe the legislation will definitely affect the design of site 41 and the nearby water sources."

I'll sign my name to that.

TOBACCO TAX

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I also have a number of petitions against tobacco taxes and against a smoke-free Ontario, collected

by downtown Toronto convenience stores at Bay and Wellesley and at Yonge and Wellesley.

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty has stated he will increase tobacco taxes by $10 a carton, force store owners to hide tobacco products behind a curtain and support a

smoke-free Ontario; and

"Whereas history has proven that increases in tobacco taxes cause increases in the underground trade for illegal black-market tobacco whose contents are

neither regulated nor inspected; and

"Whereas forcing store owners to hide their tobacco displays unduly punishes both store owners and consumers for the transition of what remains a legal

product;

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

"That the government of Ontario reject tobacco tax hikes, reject a smoke-free Ontario, reject a ban on tobacco displays and protect the rights of consumers to

purchase a legal, regulated product."

I affix my signature to this petition.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I have a very short petition. It was started by Joan Faria of Hamilton, Ontario, and she has gained about a

couple thousand signatures so far.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"To immediately commit to action and funding to ensure the rights and protections for our senior citizens living in nursing homes and retirement homes in the

province of Ontario."

I have affixed my signature in support.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREENBELT PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

Mr Gerretsen moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to establish a greenbelt study area and to amend the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 / Projet de loi 27, Loi établissant une

zone d'étude de la ceinture de verdure et modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur la conservation de la moraine d'Oak Ridges.

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): In my leadoff speech, I will be sharing my

time with the members from Oakville and Lambton-Kent-Middlesex.

I'm very happy to be here today on the occasion of the second reading of this bill, which I think will change the whole way we look at the greenbelt around

Toronto.

Perhaps before starting with some notes that I had prepared for this occasion, I might just read to you the

preamble of the bill, which I think probably

explains better than any other way why this bill is necessary.

When we look at

preamble to Bill 27, it states that, "The government of Ontario recognizes that in order to protect environmentally sensitive land and farmland

and contain urban sprawl, there is an immediate need to study an area in the part of Ontario known as the Golden Horseshoe.

"The government recognizes that clear limits must be set on development in order to protect this valuable resource as a greenbelt for the long term.

"The government recognizes that good planning for environmental and agricultural protection and sustainable development will result in economic benefits to the

residents of the Golden Horseshoe area.

"The government recognizes the environmental and agricultural significance of this area and its importance as a source of food, water, natural heritage

systems, green space and recreation, resulting in an enhanced quality of life.

"The government recognizes that it is important to continue to protect the Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges moraine and to protect a broader greenbelt

area.

"Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, enacts as follows," and that contains the

details of Bill 27.

That's why it's so important to deal with this legislation today, because the McGuinty government is interested in preserving much of the greenbelt area around

the city of Toronto for future generations.

With the introduction of second reading of this bill today, we are one step closer to the realization of one of this government's commitments to the people of

Ontario. We are one step closer to the creation of a permanent greenbelt protection area in the Golden Horseshoe. This government recognized the importance of and made a commitment to protect green

space and contain sprawl.

Ontarians need green space, because it improves their quality of life, and a high quality of life is what we were elected to deliver. We intend to do just that

if this bill should pass.

After eight long years of runaway sprawl under the previous government, we are taking decisive steps toward smart growth by introducing legislation that will

create a permanent Golden Horseshoe greenbelt. By containing sprawl and encouraging growth management, we will enhance our quality of life and that of our children and their children. Creating a

permanent greenbelt is one of the ways we can manage growth responsibly. We are changing the direction of government, and that's real, positive change.

Applause.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: Thank you.

Creating this greenbelt will be a challenge, though; of this we should have absolutely no doubt. But there is a way to achieve our goal, and the proposed

Greenbelt Protection Act now before this House is a prudent and crucial first step.

The lands on the outer edge of the Golden Horseshoe's developed areas are the most threatened in Ontario today. Current population growth trends for the Golden

Horseshoe point to a strong and consistent growth. The greenbelt study area outlined in this legislation encompasses all of the Golden Horseshoe. The communities in this area are currently

experiencing the strong population growth that has been forecast. This strength is expected to continue well into the future. In 2001 the population of central Ontario, much of which is located

within the Golden Horseshoe area, was 7.5 million. It is expected to grow to over 11 million by year 2028. That means we can expect 3.5 million more people to be living in central Ontario in a

little more than 25 years.

We could ask ourselves, "What's the draw to this area? Why do people come here?" Population growth in central Ontario is a reflection of the high quality of

life that most of us enjoy here. It is also due to economic opportunities available to our residents. The region is attractive to those in search of jobs, including international immigrants and

those migrating from across the country. Ontario is a place where people simply want to be. We welcome them and the tremendous diversity they bring, from which we all benefit in this part of the

province.

Population growth can be good when managed responsibly. Growth provides more choice about where to live and work. It also generates investment, income,

innovation, tax revenue and higher property values. But when growth is not properly managed or supported, quality of life is adversely affected. Poorly planned development can result in increased

air and water pollution, loss of green space and agricultural land. It encourage overreliance on the private automobile, traffic congestion and inefficient infrastructure investment.

Studies show disturbing results if current trends persist for central Ontario. If your commute takes an hour today, 30 years from now it could easily be an

hour and a half to two hours. That's another hour every day that a commuter won't have to spend with family, or at work or play. That's not what I and many others call a good quality of life. In

another 30 years, unchecked development could consume another 1,000 added square kilometres of land. That's an area nearly twice the size of the city of Toronto. This area is home to considerable

areas of prime agricultural land, and we know that we have some of best agricultural land in North America within this area. That sacrifices Ontario's food, and that is not what we can call a high

quality of life.

The population trend clearly will be a challenge to balance a wide variety of social needs. The government must guide the future development of the Golden

Horseshoe to ensure it stays a healthy and prosperous region. This government will not ignore this challenge. Our government is taking critical steps to manage that growth and develop it in a

responsible manner. It would be totally irresponsible for a government not to give careful consideration to the potential effects of sprawl without ensuring a plan is in place for careful, managed

growth. There are many factors that need to be examined. These factors are all interrelated and will require careful consideration before we can establish a greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe. When

discussing greenbelt protection, we must talk about permanent environmental protection and our watershed, especially in protecting the watershed.

Ontarians understand, and we understand, that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. Together they mean a high quality of life. We must talk

about the protection and sustainability of agricultural lands. Protecting particularly sensitive areas such as the Niagara tender fruit and grape lands and making them viable over the long term

must be an important consideration.

Just as an aside, today there was a news conference held here at Queen's Park, which I understand was attended by members of all three caucuses, both the

government and the two opposition parties. It was held by the Grape Growers of Ontario. I will read the quote directly from their media release: "The Ontario government has committed to preserve

the green spaces that enhance our quality of life and act as an antidote to urban sprawl. Ontario's growers of grapes have been practising environmental stewardship of their lands for decades. They

are actively preserving these lands, but they are facing a crisis that is seriously threatening the sustainability of the entire industry, and therefore the viability of a permanent greenbelt."

It is nice to get that kind of an endorsement from a group that also believes in the same goals that this government has set for itself in passing this

bill.

Many of us have specific interests in the protection of culture, tourism and recreation opportunities in the region. These things must also be discussed. And

last but certainly not least, providing for infrastructure, transportation and the future resource needs of this region must also be examined.

The greenbelt study area is a foundation for both our provincial and national economies.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): You have 50 minutes to go.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: My friend from Ottawa Centre just indicated that we have 50 minutes to go on this particular bill for now. I know that we

could talk for hours and hours, because this is important, not just for the people who live in this area but for all the people of Ontario.

Our economy is vital not only to Ontarians but to Canada as a whole. We must be able to move through the Golden Horseshoe to ensure our economy stays

healthy.

The proposed Greenbelt Protection Act will allow us the time we need to discuss all of these issues. It will allow us to seek out and find the balance we need.

It will also clarify provisions in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, that deal with lands already in different stages of development when the act was proclaimed. Once we have discussed

and reviewed all of these factors and have worked out a coherent long-term strategy for balancing all these important interests, we have another task: We must discuss how to manage a greenbelt into

the future for generations of Ontarians to come.

The proposed Greenbelt Protection Act, 2003, provides for a time out for the Golden Horseshoe. Included in the bill is a study area to provide a framework for

our discussion. The area includes Toronto; the regions of Durham, York, Peel and Halton; the city of Hamilton; the Oak Ridges moraine plan area; the Niagara tender fruit and grape lands; and the

Niagara Escarpment plan area.

The bill also includes a moratorium. The proposed moratorium would stop new urban development on key rural and agricultural lands within the greenbelt study

area. This is the time out that we need to allow for that discussion and review to take place.

We need to take the time to talk. This moratorium would mean that for a year there would be no urban development on land outside urban settlement areas unless

development has already been approved. Let me make it clear that this does not mean that building in the Golden Horseshoe area will stop. On the contrary, all land previously designated for urban

development will remain available for urban development, subject to the normal municipal planning processes.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: I'm sure that the member from Beaches-Woodbine agrees with that concept as well. I'm sure that she would not want all of the

development to stop at once in this area. We need development in the urban development areas.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Joseph N. Tascona): The member for Toronto-Danforth --

Ms Churley: I just wanted to reply to the member that I'm the member --

The Acting Speaker: The member for Toronto-Danforth, please take your seat. Can you take your seat for a second? OK. Are you ready to speak?

Now I can hear you. Speak up. Stand and speak.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I'm trying to hear you. You were talking while I was trying to direct you.

Ms Churley: I just wanted to make a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to point out to the member that I'm the member for

Toronto-Danforth, not Beaches-East York.

The Acting Speaker: Noted.

Minister?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: I do apologize to the member for giving her credit for the wrong riding, but if that's the most she can come up with against

this particular bill, which all Ontarians are looking forward to, then I would say she's certainly got very slim pickings there.

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): She got very excited with all the good news. Please forgive her.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: That's right. Maybe she got too excited with all the good news about the TTC, which is also going to help contain the urban

sprawl that's been taking place.

Let me continue. Again, I want to repeat that this does not mean that building in the Golden Horseshoe area will stop. On the contrary, all land previously

designated for urban development will remain available for urban development subject to the normal municipal planning processes. In the greater Toronto area, the supply of urban lands will already

accommodate the demand for single detached dwellings for the next 10 to 15 years. For more intensive developments, such as apartment buildings and condominiums, the land available will accommodate

demand for the next 20 years. This information is based on forecasts prepared by the province and by the municipalities in which these developments will occur. These time frames could be extended

if municipalities undertake work to encourage more compact types of urban development during this process.

The proposed Greenbelt Protection Act creates opportunities to do just that by giving municipalities the time to promote compact urban development in their

communities. In doing this, communities will encourage the preservation of green space, and land in the agricultural and rural areas would still be able to be developed for rural and agricultural

uses. Normal municipal planning processes will ensure appropriate development in these areas. During this time, while we are maintaining the status quo on new urban development, we will be working

on a plan for the future, a plan for permanent greenbelt protection. The proposed moratorium will protect the status quo only until the consultation phase is complete and permanent greenbelt

protection is in place.

The government is committed to consulting with stakeholders and the public in the establishment of a permanent greenbelt. We have recently appointed a

greenbelt task force to help us define the scope, content and function of a greenbelt. As a matter of fact, this was done about six or seven weeks ago, and the task force has been meeting on at

least a once-a-week basis since then to come up with the guiding principles that it will recommend to us with respect to the greenbelt. They will work together toward sustaining and improving the

overall quality of life for present and future residents. The task force will oversee stakeholder and public consultations on the scope, content and implementation of the proposed greenbelt. It

will gather the information it needs this spring to formulate recommendations for action. After receiving recommendations from the task force, the government will consider the most effective way to

establish and permanently protect the proposed greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe. The members of the greenbelt task force were chosen to represent a wide variety of interests and different

viewpoints on greenbelt protection. Some of the interests represented are the development industry, municipal governments, environmental protection, agriculture and the aggregate industry.

The task force, as I indicated before, has been hard at work. They were asked to develop a clear and transparent process for dealing with requests relating to

lands affected by the minister's zoning order that I made in December to preserve the status quo and lands that would be affected by the moratorium in the proposed Greenbelt Protection Act, 2003,

if passed. We need the views of these experts to be sure all of the factors we know are important are considered as we plan for the greenbelt, because we are consulting on the best way to create a

greenbelt that would ensure the long-term protection of a number of different resources within the area. Natural heritage systems, water resources and agriculture simply must be protected, but we

must also provide for resource management, recreation and tourism in the Golden Horseshoe.

Municipal planning plays a large role in the successful protection of the greenbelt. Clear limits set on development can ensure the greenbelt is protected for

a long time. Housing, for example, can be constructed in areas where services already exist and in the areas that do not put important natural resources at risk. Growth also provides the

opportunity to revitalize underused lands and achieve objectives such as the redevelopment of brownfields.

In addition to maintaining green space, other benefits are also easily recognized. By focusing growth in existing built-up areas, the escalating public costs

for roads, garbage pickup, policing, transit and other services in urban sprawl areas can be controlled. This can reduce pressures on the municipal tax base and the taxpayer. As I said before,

through containing sprawl and encouraging growth management, we will enhance our quality of life. Creating a permanent greenbelt is one of the ways we can manage growth responsibly. We are building

strong communities, and that's real, positive change.

I look forward to the debate on this particular bill. I look forward to the constructive points brought forward, particularly by the members of the opposition.

We always look forward to hearing from the opposition, because any bill that comes before this House can always be improved with constructive criticism, and we look forward to that.

I now turn the floor over to the member from Oakville.

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): It certainly is a pleasure to follow my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, especially on an issue

that is of great importance to my own community in Oakville. My own community was starting to understand the impacts upon it of some of the growth that has taken place in the past, around the same

time, I think, that other people around Ontario were starting to take a very serious look at the environment. So today I am speaking on the occasion of second reading of the proposed Greenbelt

Protection Act, 2003. That will be a permanently protected greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe that would provide real protection for the environment and is a key step in meeting the challenges of

urban sprawl that face us today.

This is what we need for strong communities in the Golden Horseshoe. It is what we need to protect and improve the quality of life that the people of central

Ontario enjoy today and would like to continue to enjoy. The proposed greenbelt would protect hundreds of thousands of acres of environmentally sensitive land and farmland in this region in which

many of us reside.

I want to tell you a little story about how growth changed my own community. Some time ago -- 12 to 15 years ago, I think it was -- we were a community of

about 100,000 people. We looked forward as a province and we said, "At some point in the future, we are going to grow," and we were going to grow by a projected population increase that we could

actually put our minds around. The town of Oakville said, "We'll be responsible here. We'll take responsibility for another 50,000."

Interjection.

Mr Flynn: Ann Mulvale agreed with us. Council was unanimous on this, as I recall. They came forward and said, "We'll take another 50,000

people in the town of Oakville." But at the time, we didn't know we were doing things the wrong way. We picked the number of people who were going to live here and then we decided how we were going

to adjust the land, how we were going to change things to squeeze these people in.

I think this legislation that is forthcoming and that I am speaking to today is an example of what people want us to do, and that is to put the environment

first. Where in the past we put the population first and tried to figure a way we were going to jam them on to the land, this takes a look at the land first. This takes a look at the capability.

This takes a look at what the limits to urban growth in this area should be and how they should be bounded by a protected green space linking the Niagara Escarpment to the Oak Ridges moraine and

beyond.

Protecting the environment used to be an issue for extremists, and I often joke about this: You could spot the environmentalists in the crowd. They'd have the

hemp shirts on, they'd have the sandals, they'd have the long hair -- in fact, I used to look like that myself.

Interjection: Oh, no. Did you eat granola bars?

Mr Flynn: That's right: granola bars. What I noticed when I was on council and we were dealing with the growth issues, was that people started

to come forward to express concerns about the environment, but they weren't typical of any one stratum of society. They were housewives, they were working men and women and they were youngsters and

seniors and librarians and tradesmen. You could not pick them out. They were normal people who were coming forward to their level of government to express dissatisfaction with the way that growth

was being handled in the area. The name they applied to it was urban sprawl. People have all sorts of names for it, but they name they used was urban sprawl.

Mainstream western thinking in the past was that the air we breathe and the water we drink and the land we live on were somehow indestructible, that they would

just keep coming and we could do anything we wanted with them and everything would work out just fine. These resources were used -- not used properly, but I think with the best of intent -- to try

to make our society progress, to try to move ahead as a society in the lifestyle we enjoy, and there is nothing wrong with that.

We know that sometimes, when humankind tampers with the environment without proper forethought, the results can be disastrous. We know that far more harm has

been done in this regard than good. That harm has been done not only to the environment but also to ourselves. Think about the number of smog days we have. When you think about the rise in

childhood asthma and about the allergies your children have that were just unheard of before, it makes you wonder about the air shed, what we have done to the air shed in southern Ontario and why

we need the legislation that is being proposed here to start to turn this around.

We need to be aware of the needs of our environment and realize that these are our needs as well. We need clean and abundant water, we need clean air and we

need biodiversity, realizing that we are only part of an intrinsically connected natural world. A clean and healthy environment is not only essential for our collective physical health, it is good

for our soul. It's good for the way you feel about yourself as a community. It's good for the way you feel about yourself as a family. We need places for ourselves and for our children to enjoy and

learn about nature in the outdoors. We need them where we can feel a connection to the natural environment in and around the communities in which we live.

The greater Toronto bioregion provides an environmental context for the Golden Horseshoe. The bioregion I'm talking about is bounded by the Niagara Escarpment

to the west, the Oak Ridges moraine to the north, the Ganaraska River to the east and Lake Ontario to the south. It is home to scores of significant natural heritage features, a multitude of

wildlife, features such as wetlands and kettle lakes, and these features are all part of the habitats of rare, sensitive and threatened animals and plants.

The province has the means, and we have the means within our grasp: the Oak Ridges moraine conservation plan, for example, and the Niagara Escarpment plan. We

can protect the environment in parts of the Golden Horseshoe. These plans are explicitly directed toward the protection and enhancement of these significant natural features.

The Oak Ridges moraine is an essential source of Ontario's drinking water. It needs to be protected. It provides a recharge zone for groundwater and its

aquifers that provide clean drinking water for over a quarter of a million residents in central Ontario. Source protection is a critical element of our government's comprehensive strategy to

protect Ontario's drinking water. Our government is moving forward quickly to protect our sources of drinking water.

The Niagara Escarpment is considered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, as a world biosphere reserve. This

designation recognizes the natural features and ecological importance of the escarpment. In addition, UNESCO has also endorsed the Niagara Escarpment plan.

I was talking about Oakville before and my own personal experience with growth in an urban area as an elected official. I think back to the way we used to plan

communities: Communities were built with no idea of how schools would be built, where your kids would go to school or how such simple things as ice hockey rinks would be built.

People in Oakville watched as highways and streets became clogged. Homes were still built, but the transit didn't follow. Homes were still built, but the

highways weren't enlarged. Green space was eaten up, trees were felled, environmentally sensitive land was cleared and wildlife was displaced. Viable and valuable green space and forests were

replaced with postage-stamp parks and little lollipop trees.

People started to wake up to that. They started to realize, "We want a government at all levels that is going to protect our environment," because it's one of

the most basic needs. If you don't have a clean and healthy environment, it doesn't matter how much money you make. If you don't have a clean and healthy environment, it doesn't matter how many

jobs you have. You need clean air, and you need clean water. They are the basics of our life. If we don't protect them, we put everything else, including our economy, at risk. That would be

foolhardy.

We held a public process on growth in Oakville, as municipalities are supposed to do. As I recall, the first meeting drew about 10 people. Those 10 people got

talking to each other, and those 10 people eventually grew into a group, which some of you may have heard of, called Oakville Green.

These people were capable of drawing a crowd far larger than any government I know. When they held a meeting, it wasn't unusual for 700 to 1,000 people to come

out. I don't know exactly what I would do as a politician to get a crowd of 700 people. Presumably, if I did something bad, I'd get a crowd of 700 angry people.

These people were angry to some extent. They came out and told their government, "We've seen what you've done so far. We can live off the experience, or we can

learn from the experience of areas in the greater Toronto area that have grown so far. We don't like what's happening; in fact, it scares us. What these people were telling us was, "We don't want

you to go any further until you've got this figured out. Once you figure it out, we're not opposed to growth. We're not opposed to expanding our communities for jobs. We know our kids have to have

somewhere to live. We know the men and women who build our homes in the residential neighbourhoods. They're our fathers, our brothers, our sisters; they're people we know. They're not bad people

because they build homes."

In fact, they're great people because they provide jobs and pay taxes. Nobody was trying to stop growth. Nobody was trying to bring our economic engine to a

halt. What they were trying to do was make sure that it was properly managed and that it moved ahead in a responsible manner.

As I said, these people came out to the point that at one council meeting we couldn't have the meeting; there were too many people there. Those who were there

refused to leave, and we exceeded the fire regulations. I've never been at any other political event where that has happened; perhaps it has, but I've been in politics for almost 20 years now, and

that was a first for me. But it showed to me how important this issue was. It also showed that municipalities that wanted to do the right thing had no clear direction from the province at that

time. They were afraid of the OMB. Many of the decisions were made in fear that the d