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

December 1, 2003

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Dec-01 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 1 December 2003 Lundi 1 er décembre 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

TRILLIUM GRANTS

SENIORS

HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL

PROJECT TURNAROUND

PROSTATE CANCER

EDUCATION FUNDING

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

WEARING OF RIBBONS

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

HIGHWAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'AUTOROUTE

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

MICHAEL MAXWELL ACT

(HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT), 2003 /

LOI MICHAEL MAXWELL DE 2003

MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MINIMUM WAGE

MEAT INSPECTION

MINIMUM WAGE

MEAT INSPECTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

BALANCED BUDGET LEGISLATION

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

BECK 3 GENERATING FACILITY

BALANCED BUDGET LEGISLATION

OSTEOPOROSIS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

WATER QUALITY

CLASS SIZE

MINIMUM WAGE

HIGHWAY TOLLS

CRIME AGAINST SENIORS

TAXATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

PETITIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

TOBACCO TAX

VISITOR

OPTOMETRISTS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD

AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTRICITY

PRICING), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA COMMISSION DE L'ÉNERGIE

DE L'ONTARIO (ÉTABLISSEMENT

DU COÛT DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I rise today to bring to Ontarians' attention another broken Liberal promise. Last Thursday,

Dalton McGuinty told the Legislature that he would move to amend the Taxpayer Protection and Balanced Budget Act. He said, "This legislation is not having the intended effect." In Daltonland, words

and commitment are simply a ploy to get elected. Dalton voted for the Taxpayer Protection and Balanced Budget Act. He said in his election platform that he would support it and not bend it at his

whim. Dalton even signed a pledge to uphold this legislation just 10 weeks ago. Now the Premier is telling Ontarians that the legislation is not having the intended effect.

Dalton's attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of voters is not having its desired effect, as the Premier would wish. Liberals in Daltonland know that cynical

politics would be their demise, yet they are forging ahead without a thought to keeping their promises. Surely Dalton will claim that he's improving the taxpayer protection act, but can we trust

him? Can we take the Premier at his word? He has already raised our taxes, he is planning new user fees for seniors, he is raising hydro rates for homeowners and businesses and he is killing jobs

and destroying opportunity for the people of Ontario. Dalton is the chief promise-breaker, and the people are starting to realize it.

TRILLIUM GRANTS

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): First let me thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in the House today. I'm pleased to represent the

people of Niagara Falls riding, and I rise today to congratulate the many worthwhile organizations that recently received Trillium grants in my riding. I'm delighted these grants cover a wide

variety of necessary community projects that will benefit even more people in our community.

The Royal Canadian Legion will have the opportunity to repair a roof on their vital community facility. St John Ambulance will receive a new mobile emergency

first-aid post to serve attendees at the many community activities. The Stamford Centre Volunteer Firemen's Association is able to make improvements to an outdoor theatre that attracts thousands of

people to the north end of our community. The disabled will be better served with accessible washrooms at our important community facility the church of St John the Evangelist. Information Niagara

will be able to develop a strategy to use volunteers to effectively disseminate information and referral services to our many diverse communities.

Many valuable services exist in Niagara Falls that rely on volunteers. I'd like to commend the individuals for giving back to their community and making Niagara

Falls a great place to live, to work, to play and of course to visit.

SENIORS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Thanks to this new Liberal government, last week was one of the darkest weeks in Ontario's history for

Ontario's 1.6 million seniors. This has to be some of the worst news they've ever received.

On Monday, seniors learned of the largest single tax increase in Ontario's history, with the loss of the seniors' education tax credit coupled with the loss of

their provincial income tax cuts. The average senior is going to pay $1,000 more.

On Tuesday, seniors learned that effective April 1, their electricity bills will increase by a minimum of 25%. An average senior will pay anywhere from $600 to

$800 more a year.

On Wednesday, seniors learned that all of a sudden the promise of a rollback of auto insurance premiums wasn't going to happen. Seniors with good driving records

would see their recent 30% and 40% increases upheld and, in fact, only see less coverage and maybe the loss of their seniors' discount as a result.

On Friday, seniors learned that this government was planning to eliminate the prescription drug program and begin income-testing it for seniors across our

province.

Seniors have enjoyed the benefit of the lowest-cost drug program in North America. This is a program which does cost the government, along with social assistance

recipients, about $2.4 billion. It is not covered under the Canada Health Act. Yet, in 1997, the federal government promised a national drug program. Why did they not deliver it? Because they could

not meet the standard in Ontario to provide as much coverage.

So the real plan here is yet another sell-out to the federal government to bring in an income-tested drug plan. This will raise the threshold and raise hundreds

of millions of dollars in revenue for a drug plan.

Seniors in Ontario deserve to live with dignity and respect, and this government is taking it away from them with another broken promise.

HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Tomorrow a new Hamilton city council gets sworn into office. I rise today to offer my congratulations to

the candidates for municipal office who were elected on November 10. The voters have demonstrated their faith in them and in the work they do, and I know that faith is well placed.

I would like to recognize the efforts of all the candidates who ran for office but were unsuccessful. It takes a special kind of commitment and dedication to the

community to put your name on the ballot.

I also take the opportunity to offer my special congratulations to Mayor-elect Larry DiIanni. Larry ran on a platform that offered hope and opportunity for the

future of Hamilton, and as well to move past the divisive issues that have plagued our great city. This type of leadership will serve the city well in the months and years ahead. I've known Larry

DiIanni for a long time, since my days on city council, and I know him to be a person of great integrity, great intelligence and great commitment to the people he serves.

I know that under Larry DiIanni's leadership, Hamilton will be well served, and that leadership will reach out to all aspects of our community.

Also, this week the new school boards will be put back in place. Hamilton Board of Education will be sworn in. The powers that were taken away by the previous

government and the supervisor will be returned to the trustees. I know that it's an especially exciting week for trustees on the Hamilton board, because they will finally have the opportunity to

carry out the mandate given to them by the people of Hamilton.

I also want to congratulate the trustees in the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board for their successful re-election. I know they will continue to

serve us well.

Once again, I offer my congratulations to Mayor-elect DiIanni for a victory well deserved, and to a city that's going to be very grateful for that victory.

PROJECT TURNAROUND

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise today on behalf of the operator, parents and youth involved in Project Turnaround, the

strict-discipline facility for young offenders near Midland.

On Friday morning, the young offenders from Project Turnaround were carted away to other facilities, in spite of the fact that Minister Kwinter announced only

two days earlier that the facility was to close when the operator's contract expires on January 31.

I'd like to thank the media for letting us know about this secretive move by the Liberals. I'll bet the Liberals thought no one would find out by executing this

dirty manoeuvre on a Friday, when the House isn't sitting. I'm holding them accountable today with this statement that will become part of Hansard.

Why did the Liberals move so quickly to shut down this successful program? Don't be fooled when they say it is for economic reasons. We know otherwise. The cost

to operate Project Turnaround is 33% less per diem per inmate. Why should we believe them when the minister himself doesn't even know the correct name of the facility and program? On November 27, I

had to correct Minister Kwinter in this House on several facts about Project Turnaround, including the name of the program.

You'd think that Dalton McGuinty would have the common courtesy to let people know before they shut the door in their face. With this spiteful move, the Liberals

have sent a strong message: Dalton McGuinty is not a friend of community safety, nor is he a friend of business.

Closing Project Turnaround, apart from the jobs that will be lost, will end up costing Ontario taxpayers more money to house young offenders as Dalton McGuinty

pays back his union leader buddies.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): On Friday, November 27, I had an opportunity to speak at the third annual Bay Street breakfast to raise

money for prostate cancer research. These successful events have raised over half a million dollars. The monies are important to fund research into the causes, the cure and the prevention of this

disease.

Prostate cancer is the number one cancer for men. It's about as common as breast cancer. One in eight men will develop the disease over their lifetime.

This year there will be a new case every 30 minutes and a death every two hours. It may overtake the combined incidence of the second and third cancers among

men, namely lung and colorectal, by the end of the decade.

There may be one million men with this disease but there are only 200,000 who know they have it. Prostate cancer remains the least understood major cancer. A

diagnosis of cancer will be life-changing news for each and every one of these men who contract the disease.

That's why our government is committed to screening that works. Our government is committed to providing better access to care. The research will help enable

advances in screening, diagnosis and treatment, as well as prevention and ultimately a cure.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to speak about the equity in education tax credit. This weekend I was at the Smithville Santa Claus

parade, and I can't tell you the number of parents who came up to me at the parade and asked me to fight to save the equity in education tax credit. I said, "Of course I will. Of course I will

fight the Liberal decision to take that away," because I, unlike Dalton McGuinty and Gerard Kennedy, believe that parents can make the best choice of where they send their children to school.

Parents can make the best decision for their child's education, more so than politicians or Ministry of Education bureaucrats.

One thing I fear the government benches have forgotten is that the parents in Erie-Lincoln who send their kids to Christian or independent schools pay their full

share of taxes into the public system. On top of that, because they believe in faith-based education, believe in this approach, they pay tuition. They aren't asking us to cover the whole thing but

just to treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve.

These are folks of modest means. You're not going to see any Cadillacs in the parking lot of Wellandport Christian school -- hardworking middle-class and

lower-middle-class families that want choice in education.

What makes it very unfortunate as well is that the government has chosen not only to end the equity in education tax credit but to make it retroactive to January

1, 2003. The other taxes that they're going to raise begin January 1 of next year, but they're making this retroactive. It's not only wrong but mean-spirited, cruel, punitive. It's the wrong thing

to do, and I ask members on that side of the floor to vote with me and vote against this bad idea.

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

Ms Monique Smith (Nipissing): I rise today with great sadness. Last night a tragic accident took place near South River, a community adjacent to

my riding. A father and his four children from my riding were killed when their car hit a tractor-trailer travelling on Highway 11. Two other vehicles were also involved in this accident. It was a

snowy night on Highway 11 last night. It was a tragic night.

My heart and the hearts of all the members here today, I'm sure, go out to this family and their loved ones. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Tragedies like this remind us about what is really important. They remind us how fleeting this life can be and how painful, how complete, a loss like this really

is. After hearing a story like this, we all want to hold our family and friends close. Tragedies like this drive home to us that we must cherish every moment with those we love and make the most of

our time in this world.

As we begin the sometimes dangerous winter driving season, such tragedies also remind us that we must continue to move forward with much-needed safety

improvements to our highways across the province, and especially in the north, to prevent a tragedy like this from ever happening again.

Again, our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of this family at this incredibly difficult time.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Have many of you been to the video store lately? You can't buy original-release movies any more. You now

have to buy special editions called "the director's cut." They are releases that splice in new scenes that didn't make the original and splice out others that shouldn't have been there in the first

place.

But, friends, these collector's items aren't just at the movies any more. Broken-promise Premier Dalton McGuinty and the Fiberals are in on the film act too.

Their new film is Choose Change: The Premier's Cut. Gone is McGuinty's election commitment to reinvest in our essential public services. Where McGuinty once said, "The Harris-Eves government tried

to paper over problems by ... cutting public services ... such as education, health care, water and food inspection. It's time for a change," that scene is now on the cutting room floor. There's a

new vision from the Premier, and it is, "Ontario's new Liberal government is preparing to reduce provincial spending by up to $4 billion."

The reviews are in, and everybody has given it two thumbs down. According to TD Economics, making cuts that deep would mean freezing health and education

spending at current levels and cutting all other public services by 20%. The cuts will also mean 407-style toll roads, higher small business taxes and two-tier drug plans for seniors.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today is World AIDS Day. I'd like to seek

unanimous consent for members to wear a red ribbon in solidarity with the 40 million people worldwide with HIV and AIDS.

The Speaker: Could I just ask: We've got one more member's statement, if we can do that.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My statement is about promises. In this case, for this government, that means broken promises, promises made to

get votes and then not kept.

We're fortunate to have the list compiled by Lorrie Goldstein, the editor of the Toronto Sun, of the 231 promises made by the McGuinty government. For those of

you keeping score, have a look at numbers 5, 47, 50, 51, 65, 69, 70, 71, 167, 151 and 154, all of which have been broken.

Then there's the whopper promise -- and yes, it's still on the Web site -- that says, "Ontario workers and their families already pay enough. We will hold the

line on your taxes." They are still saying that. That's the big whopper promise.

This is the old style of politics: You say one thing to try to get elected; you do another after you get elected. But there is nothing new under the sun. There

was a radio show many years ago in which the star was known for his penchant for tall tales. That star was named Fibber McGee. Now in Ontario we have our own teller of tall tales, the Liberals' own

Fibber McGuinty. You're off to a great start, Fibber. We know you can do it; we know you can break most of those promises. Go get `em, Fibber.

The Speaker: May I caution members: We keep using language that is not parliamentary, and I hope that we can refrain from doing that in the

future. Whether it was written in the newspaper or wherever it was written, it is unparliamentary to use some of the comments that I am hearing today.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: December 1 marks World AIDS Day, and I seek

unanimous consent to allow members to wear the red ribbon in solidarity with the 40 million people worldwide suffering from HIV and AIDS.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Again, before I ask unanimous consent, I would also ask members, if you're asking for unanimous consent for

wearing any kind of plaques or ribbons or so, could you not wear them before you ask, but ask and then wear them.

Do we have unanimous consent to wear the red ribbons in the House today? I think we have agreement here.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): We have today in the gallery a parliamentary delegation from the Ukraine. Please join us in welcoming our

distinguished guests.

Also in the Speaker's gallery we have Yuri Shymko, who is a former member for High Park-Swansea, and Leo Jordan, the previous member for Lanark-Renfrew.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I might just offer a suggestion to correct the record, the reference to

people coming from "the Ukraine" is not the kind of imagery we'd like to convey to our special guests. Ukraine is a country. It's the same as saying people come from "the Canada."

It was defined by the Russians as a region --

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: -- you might learn something, Mr Treasurer -- to depersonalize the people of Ukraine. As one who traces his ancestry to Ukraine

and one who's very proud of that, they are a country, and incidentally the first country in the world to recognize the state of Israel. So I would appreciate -- and I apologize, Mr Speaker -- if we

could just change the record.

The Speaker: Thank you very much for the information. Of course I've learned something today, like we all have, I presume.

Mr Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It was reported in the press on Saturday that I did not attend, on

behalf of Mississauga South, the federal-provincial conference on the GTA. I would just like to have that corrected.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

HIGHWAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'AUTOROUTE

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

Mr Lalonde moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 10,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act to name Highway 417 the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Highway / Projet de loi 10, Loi

modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement des voies publiques et des transports en commun afin de nommer l'autoroute 417 Autoroute Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have got it. Carried.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Pierre Elliott Trudeau became a member of Parliament, representing the Montreal riding of

Mont-Royal, in 1965, and in 1967 was appointed Minister of Justice. He was Prime Minister from April 20, 1968, until June 4, 1979, and from March 30, 1980, until June 30, 1984.

The commencement and completion of Highway 417 took place during Pierre Trudeau's tenure as Prime Minister of Canada. During his time in office, Mr Trudeau

spent countless hours on Highway 417, travelling to and from his private residence.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau a été nommé la plus grande vedette de l'actualité du 20 e siècle au Canada en décembre 1999 et

sera toujours reconnu pour l'appui précieux qu'il a apporté à la promotion de la démocratie de ce pays et à l'étranger.

Nommer l'autoroute 417 en l'honneur de Pierre Elliott Trudeau rendrait hommage non seulement à son apport et à son dévouement envers cette

grande autoroute qui relie l'Ontario et le Québec, mais reconnaîtrait également l'effort de développement d'un pays qu'il a légué au Canada.

MICHAEL MAXWELL ACT

(HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT), 2003 /

LOI MICHAEL MAXWELL DE 2003

MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

Ms Martel moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 11,

An Act, in memory of Michael Maxwell, to amend the Health Insurance Act to provide for immunization against meningitis C / Projet de loi 11, Loi

à la mémoire de Michael Maxwell modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé afin de prévoir une immunisation contre la méningite C.

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

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): This is the third time I've introduced this bill in memory of 17-year-old Michael Maxwell, an Ingersoll teen

who died in March 2002, 29 hours after he contracted meningitis C.

If passed, the bill would ensure that vaccinations for meningitis C would be included in the routine immunization program currently available for Ontario

families. It would mean that no Ontario infant, child or youth would be unable to get this vaccination merely because of its prohibitive cost.

The provinces of Alberta and Quebec already have the meningitis C vaccination included in their routine immunization programs. It's time for Ontario to do the

same. No other family like the Maxwell family of Ingersoll or families in Sudbury this fall should ever again have to face the grief and tragedy associated with this disease.

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): May I just take the opportunity to introduce, in the Speaker's gallery, the 2003-04 Ontario legislative

interns. We have Michael Acedo, Sarah Baker, Holly Bondy, Melanie Francis, Amanda Mayer, Kate Mulligan, David Myles and Chris Shantz-Smiley. Would all members please join me in welcoming our

interns.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MINIMUM WAGE

Hon Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): I am very pleased to announce to the members of this Legislature that after almost nine long

years, minimum wage earners in Ontario are finally getting a raise.

Effective February 1, 2004, the general minimum wage for Ontario workers will increase from $6.85 to $7.15 per hour. But that is not all, Mr Speaker. The

minimum wage will increase every year on February 1, until it reaches $8 an hour on February l, 2007.

Today we keep our commitment to deliver positive change to the people of Ontario by announcing that we will raise the minimum wage to $8 an hour over four

years. Today we are taking an important step to help the less fortunate.

Our government is committed to fair, balanced and progressive policies for Ontario workers and employers. These increases mark the end to almost nine years

where the most vulnerable workers in Ontario did not get their fair share of Ontario's economic growth. While Canada and Ontario prospered, minimum wage earners lost ground as they saw the cost of

living rise and average wages rise while their wages remained frozen.

By phasing in this increase over four years, the government is balancing the needs of Ontario's low-income workers who need this most with the needs of

Ontario's businesses to be competitive.

This increase will also apply to Ontario's other minimum wages. For example, the minimum wage for students under 18 who do not work more than 28 hours a week

will rise from $6.40 to $6.70 an hour. The minimum wage for liquor servers will also rise, from $5.95 an hour to $6.20 an hour.

The increase in the minimum wage will give a boost to a large number of low-income workers. In the year 2000, there were an estimated 680,000 wage earners in

Ontario who earned between the liquor server's wage of $5.95 and $8 an hour. They represent approximately 11% of the workers employed in Ontario in the year 2000.

Our government recognizes the challenges faced by business, and in particular small business. Phasing in the minimum wage over a four-year period is a

reasonable, responsible approach. Businesses affected will know their costs in advance and be able to factor these into their business plans. This phase-in will keep Ontario businesses competitive

with other Canadian and American jurisdictions. This approach will help keep vulnerable workers from falling further behind the rest of Ontario workers and give them some share in the benefits of

Ontario's economic growth while balancing the need to keep Ontario businesses financially stable and competitive. And providing minimum wage earners with this additional money will increase

consumer spending and give a boost to local economies. This will contribute to the economic well-being of Ontario.

In conclusion, increasing the minimum wage is another important, positive commitment kept by our government. It is good news for low-income earners who will

finally get a pay increase after almost nine long years of waiting. They will continue to see their wages rise until they reach $8 an hour in February 2007. This is fair, it is reasonable, it is

responsible, and it is the right thing to do.

MEAT INSPECTION

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Today I'd like to inform members of the House of a very important step this government

has taken to enhance food safety in this province. This government is following through on our commitment to real, positive change for Ontario by hiring more full-time meat inspectors.

We will be recruiting experts to the public service who can deliver high-quality inspection services to respond to public concerns over the safety of our meat.

In doing this, we will bolster business confidence in buyers and retailers of Ontario meat products.

We said we would do it, and we are doing it. In November, this government began working with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union to resolve a

long-standing dispute on the delivery of meat inspection services. In less than two weeks, we had an agreement. By the spring of 2004, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food intends to hire 61

full-time and 57 part-time meat inspectors. With 10 full-time inspectors already on board, this means there will be a total of 128 meat inspectors working as ministry employees. I have asked

ministry staff to make the implementation of this settlement a priority. That is a commitment, that is taking action, and that's the right thing to do.

The people of Ontario deserve a safe food supply. Their confidence in our agri-food industry is critical, and we will see that Ontario's food inspection system

becomes one of the world's best.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I want to commend the minister for the announcement that shows they care and want to make sure that the people of

the province of Ontario are confident that we have the safest food. I just wish he had come up with a solution that would have made a difference in that confidence for the people of Ontario.

The announcement the minister is making today is that he is going to change the status of our present meat inspectors. He's indicating that they're going to

hire a lot more qualified people. I would like to say that the people who have been inspecting the meat in this province for the last 10 years are very qualified. That's why I think it's great when

the London Free Press says the minister is going to hire those people as OPS employees to continue inspecting our meat and do a quality job -- the same people who are presently doing it. I want to

commend them for making that choice.

I suppose I could say that's the first time the members opposite are actually keeping a promise they made. I just wish he'd kept the other promise that he was

going to have a public inquiry into the meat inspection system so the people of Ontario would know that the concern that exists in our meat system is not the inspection of the meat abattoirs that

are operating under licence from the provincial ministry, but in fact it's to do with the people who are slaughtering cattle and not having them inspected. We need more enforcement to make sure

that no one is putting meat on our market that shouldn't be there. The minister doesn't even speak to that. He implies with his announcement today that somehow, by paying more for the same service,

it will make the meat safer. I totally disagree with that premise.

I just wish the minister was as forthcoming with some of the other things on behalf of our agriculture community, such as ensuring that hydro rates would stay

capped until 2006 so they can afford to produce the safe food that is going to the abattoirs; such as saying that the first point of contact for nutrient management would stay with the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food, where our farmers have assured us and the minister it should stay. I just wish he had kept some of the commitments he made in his election promises and some of the commitments

he made publicly to the farmers when he was first appointed, as opposed to working out a deal with our OPS services and just putting our contract workers back into the union fold.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): With regard to the minimum wage, over the past eight years the taxes people have paid in this province have

continued to fall, giving low-income Ontarians more take-home pay in their pocket. That has also resulted in taking over 870,000 people off the tax rolls in Ontario -- people who no longer paid

taxes in Ontario. Even though they were on minimum wage, they were not paying taxes.

Bill 2, the infamous tax bill being introduced to this House, the Fiscal Responsibility Act -- anything but responsible -- is the largest tax hike in Ontario's

history, adding $4.4 billion to the taxes this government will bring in over the next few years. Those people who were taken off the tax rolls will be added back on, so minimum wage earners who

were once off the tax rolls will now be back on. The net result will be that they will pay about $100 a year more in taxes than they did last year, because of the increase in the minimum wage and

because of the increase in taxes that the Fiscal Responsibility Act is going to introduce in this province.

It is typical Liberal policy, where Mr Bentley giveth and Mr Sorbara taketh away.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): As finance critic, I am equally concerned about this. What Chris giveth, Greg taketh away. While they will

increase the minimum wage and give some money with one hand, Mr Sorbara will be in their pockets with the other. He'll probably make money on this regime.

One of the big accomplishments of the previous government was that we took literally hundreds of thousands of low-income and working families off the tax

rolls. Thousands of them continued to pay federal tax but paid no provincial income tax whatsoever.

The most outrageous thing is that in Bill 2, in that bill specifically, the Liberals have singled out low-income earners to be hit as taxpayers. Their bill

specifically highlights the lowest income tax bracket, which is outrageous, and it's wrong.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent to respond to the government's

announcements today.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The member for Kenora-Rainy River asks for unanimous consent for up to five minutes. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Hampton: First of all, with respect to the minimum wage, it's important to note that what we're really seeing here today is about a 4%

increase in the minimum wage, if you compound it. If the minimum wage had been increased by 2% in 1996 and 2% in 1997, this is the level that it would have been at. A very modest 2% increase in

1996 and 1997 would have put the minimum wage at about $7.15 an hour. Liberals want you to celebrate that they have now increased the minimum wage to the level that it would have been at in 1997.

What this means for the lowest-paid workers, what this means for all those workers who have had their wages frozen, is not very much.

In contrast, let me point out that in the year 2000 StatsCan set the poverty line at $18,371 for a single person living in a big city. Earning $7.15 an hour, a

person working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year will get $14,872. They'll be $3,000 below the poverty line. Liberals want you to celebrate that.

Since 1995, inflation has soared 20%; water, fuel and electricity costs are up by 30%; food prices by 14%; and Ontario rents rose, on average, 26%. Liberals

want the lowest-paid workers to be happy with a 4% increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage should be increased to $8 an hour now, with annual increments to follow. That would be a fair

minimum wage.

I want to point out to the Minister of Labour that I've heard some of your backbenchers already saying that it's only students who work for the minimum wage.

Nonsense. Some 63% of the people who work for minimum wage are women: women who are trying to pay their rent, put food on the table and keep clothes on the backs of their children. And you tell

them, after all these increases in costs, that they should be happy with a 4% increase in the minimum wage.

Your government would have received this report from the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses. What does it say? It says that poverty traps

women and children. This is not going to do anything for them.

I want you to note that it's not often that I acknowledge that the Conservatives are right, but at the same time that you're giving this minuscule increase in

the minimum wage, your colleague the Minister of Finance is in fact increasing taxes on those very lowest-paid workers, and your colleague the Minister of Energy, despite all your promises, is

going to increase electricity rates by over 10% for those same people. You're not going to provide any more money. You made an announcement today, but the Minister of Finance and the Minister of

Energy are going to make sure that all of that money is taken very quickly, either through the tax bill or through the hydro bill. Eight dollars an hour now, not 1997 minimum wage levels.

MEAT INSPECTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: I listened during the election to Liberals who said there

needed to be a public inquiry into Ontario's tainted meat scandal to assure the public that this was not going on in other places or that it was not happening on an ongoing basis. What happened to

that promise? What happened to the promise of a public inquiry?

What we're getting instead is an internal review by some of the officials who in fact stood by as tainted meat episode after tainted meat episode happened at

Aylmer Meat Packers in your own riding. So the very people who stood there and gave Aylmer Meat Packers a tentative slap on the wrist as they processed tainted meat, as they processed dead stock,

are now going to conduct an internal review, and you're going to tell the people of Ontario that that's acceptable.

It goes to the fundamentals of living in a healthy and safe society that people are able to depend upon the meat that is processed and that they eat. Already

you're breaking another promise. Where is the public inquiry? Where is the independence that is going to take the review out of the hands of the very officials who watched while this went

wrong?

ORAL QUESTIONS

BALANCED BUDGET LEGISLATION

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Premier, on September 11 during the recent election campaign, you signed a pledge, witnessed by

John Williamson, promising to abide by and respect the current taxpayer protection and balanced budget law. Do you intend to keep that promise?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question and I want

to remind the Leader of the Opposition that he heads a party that maintained throughout the course of one entire election that there was no deficit. He maintained that he was not in contravention

of the balanced budget legislation. The fact of the matter is you were hiding a $5.6-billion deficit. If anybody has made the case for us to have a stronger piece of balanced budget legislation in

Ontario, it is the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjection: Just say you're sorry

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The question was asked. I'd like quiet when the response is being given. Give the same respect.

Mr Eves: Perhaps the Premier would like to try to actually respond to the question being asked.

Interjection.

Mr Eves: I was quite popular with him when he was on this side of the House, as I recall.

Your quote is, "We will live by the balanced budget law." Yet in Ottawa on Friday, November 21, you said with reference to the same balanced budget law that

you committed to during the campaign, "It's having at present in its existing form a perverse effect upon government." You indicated that you'd instruct your Minister of Finance to come up with the

"next generation of balanced budget legislation" -- it tied the hands of your government and you couldn't do what you wanted to do. "That thinking doesn't quite jibe with what we're told on the

election campaign trail," Mr Williamson said. Mr Premier, which Dalton McGuinty should we listen to, the one on November 21 in Ottawa or the one who signed the pledge and led the voters to believe

you would actually comply with balanced budget and taxpayer legislation?

Hon Mr McGuinty: We think it's important to be truthful with Ontarians when it comes to the state of the accounts. You maintained that there

was zero deficit. You maintained that the books were balanced. Mr Peters produced an independent report, and he tells us that you were hiding a $5.6-billion deficit. He tells us that revenues were

in fact $4.4 billion lower than you claimed they were. He said that expenditures were $1.5 billion higher than you claimed they were. We intend to bring forward a new generation of balanced budget

legislation that makes it clear to the people of Ontario exactly what the state of the books is.

Mr Eves: I know it's difficult for you to answer a question, but try to answer the question being asked. That's the whole purpose of question

period.

Laughter.

Mr Eves: I see they haven't lost their supply of sardines over there.

Another quote from John Williamson this past Friday -- he was on CFRB in Toronto: "I mean, the people of Ontario expect the Premier and his government to

balance the books. He promised them. He put it in writing. So you know, we're happy to have his signature, because if he breaks it, it's a clear indication that he misled voters." Mr Williamson's

words, not mine.

On the other hand, on your Web site today, as we speak, it says, "We will live by the balanced budget law. We support and voted for Ontario's balanced budget

law."

Which Premier are we to believe -- the one on November 22 or the one today, who right now, as of this moment in time, still says on his Web site he's going to

balance the books of the province?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, our legislation is going to put a stop to the kind of games that he and the former

government played for eight long years.

I want to commend to the Leader of the Opposition the report produced by Mr Peters. Among other things, he says, "Although the March 2003 budget" -- that is

the auto parts budget -- "provided for a gain, for example, on asset sales and rentals of $2.2 billion, there has been only one major" asset "sale to date ... at an estimated gain of $132

million."

You talked about $2.2 billion. He said there's only $132 million.

He goes on to say that the March 2003 budget included unspecified savings of $500 million from program review and evaluation and $300 million from a year-end

savings target, again without identifying those particular savings.

What we're trying to do, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, is put an end to these --

The Speaker: Thank you.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): To the Premier of the province: Premier, you indicated throughout the course of the campaign as well

that you were going to move as aggressively as you possibly could on all of your commitments, that you had a fully costed four-year plan independently verified and certified. Part of that plan was

to deal immediately with a $2-billion deficit and that you could, the next morning at 9 o'clock, cut $2 billion worth of spending. Could you please identify what that $2 billion, fully costed and

independently audited, contains and how quickly you're moving on it?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I say to the Leader of the Opposition, he missed Bill 2. It is moving

forward in a very aggressive and progressive way to deal with your $5.6-billion deficit.

There's no doubt about it, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, that we're bringing a different approach to dealing with the Tory deficit than the Tories did

with respect to the NDP deficit.

Let me give you a few examples. You cut water inspectors; you cut welfare rates; you even went so far as to cut out a nutrition allowance for expectant mothers

on welfare. What we've decided to do is to roll back your irresponsible corporate tax cut. You took $2 billion out of our children's schools. What we've decided to do is cancel the private school

tax credit. So there's no doubt about it whatsoever, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: We are bringing a different approach, a progressive approach, a responsible approach to dealing with his

deficit.

Mr Eves: As a supplementary, you were quoted as saying, "What we are going to do is we're going to engage the people of Ontario in a very

important discussion and we are going to consider some ideas, which to this point in time might have been on the list of unmentionables, the things that might be unthinkable."

Could you tell us exactly what those unmentionable and unthinkable things are, and do they happen to include raising taxes?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Let me tell you what we're not going to do. We're not going to open the door wide to sweeping privatization of health care in

the province of Ontario. What we've done in the face of creeping privatization is slam that door shut with our Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act.

I can also tell the Leader of the Opposition that while he allowed tuition fees to skyrocket by as much as 300% in some cases, we are freezing tuition in the

province of Ontario. That's a good idea, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, of how we intend to proceed in the face of your deficit.

Mr Eves: Late last week, senior officials in your government indicated to various members of the media that they're preparing to reduce

spending by up to $4 billion a year -- a task, they say, that includes eliminating free drugs for seniors, allowing more privately built toll roads and cancelling of tax incentives. Could you

confirm that that is, in fact, what you are considering?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'm going to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I'm not going to indulge in speculation, but I will tell the people of

Ontario that we are not going to approach this deficit, the Tory deficit, the way that you approached the NDP deficit. We will not be cutting back on welfare rates in the province of Ontario. We

will not be cutting out the nutrition allowance for expectant mothers in the province of Ontario.

What we will do instead is roll back your irresponsible corporate tax cut. We will not go ahead with the private school tax credit. What we're going to do is

bring about real, positive, lasting change for the people of Ontario. We'll do it in a progressive way. We'll be up front with the people of Ontario. We will not, as you did, hide that $5.6-billion

deficit.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is, again, to the Premier. It's a serious question and an important one. I think you should

put aside the notes from your spin doctors, listen to the question and provide an answer.

During and after the election campaign, you said, "We've accounted for a $2-billion deficit." You also said, "We've also built in a $1-billion reserve and

we've been given very clear instructions from the people of Ontario and we will abide by those instructions." Your words.

Will you stand in your place and tell us: What have you done with this $3 billion, or is this just another billion-dollar Liberal boondoggle?

Hon Mr McGuinty: This is just too rich. We're being cross-examined by the members of the official opposition, who, throughout an entire

campaign period, maintained straight-faced to the people of Ontario that the books were balanced when, at the end of the day, we discovered a $5.6-billion deficit. They have no legitimacy, no

grounds whatsoever, to ask these kinds of questions when they themselves hid from full view of the people of Ontario a $5.6-billion deficit.

Mr Baird: This is the man who said to Paula Todd on TVO, "Don't worry. We've accounted for a $2-billion deficit." This is a Premier whose own

Minister of Energy said just last week, "In fact our campaign document provided for a $2-billion ... deficit, which we felt was manageable." Now is the time for this Premier to manage.

Let's look at his own economist, who certified and verified the Liberal plan: "What I did was enough to turn a $2-billion deficit into a zero. Arguably, it

could turn a five [billion-dollar deficit] into a three."

Again, on behalf of the people in Nepean-Carleton, on behalf of taxpayers across Ontario, would you stand in your place and tell us what happened to this $3

billion that you said was manageable, that you said you could handle?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again, I say to the member opposite, if he missed it, I'd commend to his reading Bill 2. Bill 2 is aggressive, it is

progressive, it will get the job done, in terms of getting us about halfway to dealing with your $5.6-billion deficit.

As we move forward, we're going to do something which you and the members of your party refused to do: We're going to be up front with the people of Ontario.

We're not going to play games when it comes to dealing with the numbers. We will not saddle them with a $5.6-billion deficit.

BECK 3 GENERATING FACILITY

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): First, I want to say that not only is Niagara Falls one of the most popular tourist attractions in the world,

but Niagara Falls is also the centre of hydroelectricity generation for all of Ontario and a large part of the United States.

I'm pleased to be part of the Liberal government. It has taken a keen interest in hydro issues we are currently facing in Ontario.

My question is directed to the Minister of Energy. Minister, the Liberal platform contained expanding the hydroelectric generation in Niagara Falls. Would you

please give this House an update on the planned expansion for Beck 3?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): To my colleague from Niagara Falls, I want first to congratulate him on

raising this issue with me within two days of being elected and being on top of it.

We believe that Beck 3 poses a huge opportunity for increased supply. I say to the member opposite, this will be among the first new energy supply in 13 long

and painful years, something that was ignored by two previous governments. I say to the member and to his community, thanks to your efforts and the efforts of your community, be assured that Dalton

McGuinty and this government are going to proceed with that grid.

Mr Craitor: My supplementary question to the minister is that Beck 3 means not only expanding the generation of hydro to energy consumers in

Ontario, but also hundreds of jobs in Niagara Falls and a boost to our local economy. Minister, will you give the residents of my riding in Niagara Falls a timeline on how this government will

proceed with the expansion of Beck 3?

Hon Mr Duncan: To the member for Niagara Falls, thank you for a very pertinent and important question. I will be receiving, early in 2004, a

report on moving forward with this. I expect that after reviewing the results of the study, we will act both responsibly and, I can say to your community, swiftly.

Make no mistake: We are going to do more than just talk about supply, like the previous government did, a government that left our energy sector in tatters

when it left office: no new supply, artificially low rates, no plan for dealing with OPG, no plan for correcting its own problems, a government whose record was 11 flip-flops on the energy

file.

The member for Niagara Falls has been fighting valiantly for this. He has the undertaking of this government and Premier McGuinty that Beck 3 will proceed in

2004, after receipt of the report we're going to get next month.

BALANCED BUDGET LEGISLATION

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Premier. During this election campaign, you ran on a platform of wanting to do government

differently. You speak about introducing character legislation. Premier, there are students here listening. The public has been watching you for the last two weeks in this Legislature. You have not

answered one question in a straightforward way. I'm going to give you another opportunity.

Last Monday, your finance minister introduced legislation in this House called the Fiscal Responsibility Act. You're proposing to do two things through that

act: one is that you're imposing, retroactively, a financial burden on the hard-working families of some 110,000 students in this province who attend independent schools; second, you are breaking a

promise to the people of this province that you will not raise taxes for working families. Will you do one honourable thing today? Will you admit that you broke a major promise to the people of

this province and that you are contravening the Taxpayer Protection Act by introducing this legislation?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The people of Ontario know that we ran on those very commitments and

we're honouring those commitments.

Let me tell them something else. Let me draw what we did just a few moments ago in this House to the member's attention, because I'm very proud of that as

well. We are increasing the minimum wage from $6.85 an hour to $8 an hour. There are close to 700,000 minimum wage workers in the province of Ontario, people who get up in the morning and do their

very best to cobble together some kind of living. What we've said is that we're going to help them; we're going to raise the minimum wage from $6.85 to $8 an hour. We are proud of that commitment

and that's why we're moving ahead with it.

Mr Klees: Well, it appears clear that the Premier is incapable of answering a straightforward question. He did not answer the question. I want

to give the Premier one more opportunity to actually answer the question.

Speaker, you will be aware that an application was brought to the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice seeking an injunction against Bill 2. I want to quote to you

from the words of the justice who rendered his comments on this: "Even if the facts upon which the charter breach is alleged....

"I have no hesitation in saying that there are clearly issues raised by application. Not only is the proper

interpretation of the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999

engaged, so also is the issue whether the election platform exception ought to have applied and, if so, whether the letter which Mr McGuinty sent to the Chief Election Officer complied with the

requirements for that exception."

Will the Premier today admit that his commitment to the people of this province not to raise taxes for working families was breached and that Bill 2 breaches

the Taxpayer Protection Act?

Hon Mr McGuinty: My understanding, to the member, is that that application for an injunction was in fact dismissed today. I also want to

remind the member opposite that the only government that has ever violated the Ontario Taxpayer Protection Act was his government.

I want to remind the members opposite and the people of Ontario that we have an unwavering commitment to improving the quality of public education for all

Ontario children. That's where that money's going to go from the private school tax credit: into our public schools.

OSTEOPOROSIS

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): My question is for the Minister of Health. I have some serious concerns about

osteoporosis. It's a serious problem for many Ontarians, especially our seniors. It causes bone fractures. In fact, the disease affects one in four women and one in eight men over the age of 50,

and 80% of those who have an initial bone fracture aren't checked out for osteoporosis -- shamefully.

Given that hip fractures cost our health care system over a half-billion dollars a year and hospital stays are four times longer than normal hospital stays,

what can you tell us today, Minister, that your ministry is prepared to do to assist our seniors to combat this dreadful circumstance?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to thank the member for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot for his

excellent question. Last week, many members from all parties had the opportunity to join the osteoporosis society of Ontario for breakfast, where we learned more about the potential benefits of

investing in an osteoporosis strategy in Ontario. I'll note that the party opposite, when they were in government, reviewed, planned, considered, talked about and actually promised in their budget

of 2003 that they would fund such a study, and yet when I look in the budget of the Ministry of Health, I see no such funds.

I commit to the honourable member that I will have a meeting with the osteoporosis society early in the new year and we'll get started on the work of putting

in place a plan that will see preventive health in place and prevent hardship to many Ontarians as well as, obviously, saving our health care system precious dollars.

Mr McMeekin: Minister, I know the osteoporosis association was really pleased that you took the time to come out to the breakfast and hear the

concerns. I also know that a detailed plan, prepared in consultation with stakeholders and outlining some 18 different strategies, has been sitting on a shelf for some time. Some important actions

are outlined there, including a cost-benefit analysis of the various options.

I appreciate the fact that you've covenanted to meet with this group. When do you think we might hear something specific about when we'll move forward with the

plan that's been outlined?

Hon Mr Smitherman: Thank you very much again to the member. I'm happy to acknowledge that a lot of work has been done on this. We have one of

those opportunities to seize upon work that has been done and begin to make a difference in the lives of Ontarians.

I commit to the member, as I said earlier, that I'll be working with this group early in the new year. With our fiscal circumstances in mind, I'll be fighting

hard to try to make sure that a preventive investment like this is the kind of high-priority investment that we'd make as we move forward.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Premier. You promised in your election platform that you were going to

improve the Ontario drug benefit program for seniors. It now appears that you're getting set to break yet another promise and raise taxes for seniors. Imagine the shock on Friday when seniors woke

up to find that you were considering imposing an income test or deleting some of the drugs for coverage or putting in place user fees. Can you guarantee seniors that you will not be reducing their

access to drugs or putting in place an income test?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the member for her question. The Minister of Finance has

something to say on this file.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I tell my friend from Kitchener-Waterloo that we are determined to come to grips with the fiscal mess

that they left in the previous budget. It was under her watch as Minister of Health that a significant deficit in hospital financing began to emerge. It now stands, as the Minister of Health will

confirm, at $800 million. But with all of that context, I want to tell her that while the National Post may indulge in speculation about seniors' health care, I certainly am not going to do

that.

Mrs Witmer: You made a commitment to the people that you were going to improve the Ontario drug benefit program for seniors. Can you today

guarantee that you will not impose income testing for seniors, decrease the number of drugs available or introduce user fees? It's simple: yes or no?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Within six weeks of taking office, we've reversed the Conservatives' plan for private hospitals, both in Ottawa and Brampton.

We're dealing with their private health care clinics and MRI machines. We are determined and committed to ensure that the seniors of this province are treated fairly and equitably and get the

health care they deserve. They did not get that under the previous administration.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I ask unanimous consent of all New Democrats to ask a question.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is there unanimous consent from all members of the House? Agreed.

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Premier. During the election, you promised to stop the Conservative cuts to health care and education. Four

days before the election you said, "The Harris-Eves government tried to paper over problems ... by taking the easy route of cutting public services in vital areas, such as education, health care,

water and food inspection. It's time for a change." But on Friday, your staff told CanWest news you're going to slash public investment by $4 million, and that will mean cuts to health care and

education on the front line.

Premier, I don't believe the people of Ontario got the version of the Liberal election platform that included cuts to health and education. Are your underlings

misinformed or are you going to break yet another election promise?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The leader of the third party raises a very serious matter. We intend to

bring a different approach with respect to how to deal with the Tory deficit. We're going to be very upfront in terms of the kinds of options we're going to place before the people of Ontario.

We're not going to do what this government did when they hid the real state of financial affairs from the people of Ontario, and I am not going to engage in speculation and guessing games with

respect to the contents of the next budget here in this Legislature.

Mr Hampton: Well, your staff didn't mind speculating with CanWest Global News, and some of your officials didn't mind speculating on cuts to

health and education. And you didn't mind speculating during the election campaign about promises for health and education when your then finance critic said in June that there was a $5-billion

deficit and your now Minister of Public Security said in August that there was a $5-billion deficit.

You knew there was a $5-billion deficit, yet you went out and made 231 election promises. You promised $1.6 billion for schools; you promised $2.7 billion for

health care. Tell Ontarians today: Will you deliver the money you promised to our schools, our hospitals and our environment, like you promised? Or are you going to break that promise, like you've

broken several others?

Hon Mr McGuinty: To the leader of the third party, I'm not going to bring the approach that he brought, either when he was in government or

during the course of the campaign. We are not going to engage in trying to nail Jell-O to the wall, and we're not going to spend our way out of this deficit in Ontario. We intend to bring a

balanced, responsible approach to dealing with this matter. We're not going to pretend that the $5.6-billion deficit does not exist. We intend to proceed in a responsible manner and address the

matter of the deficit and, at the same time, to bring about measurable improvement in our schools, in our health care, in the strength of our communities and the protections that we provide to our

environment.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. The people in my riding of Huron-Bruce want to know when

they will be able to enjoy their lake again. This fall, public beaches were posted along a 40-kilometre

section of Lake Huron. They were permanently unsafe for swimming because of 10 years of

chronically high E coli bacteria levels.

Lake Huron is the world's third-largest lake and a major tourist destination. Its beaches, wildlife, nature and picturesque communities are the jewels of the

Lake Huron shoreline in Huron and Bruce county. Lake Huron is also a source of drinking water for the people of Huron-Bruce. What will you do to reassure the people of Huron-Bruce that they will be

able to once again enjoy their lake?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I would like to thank the member of Huron-Bruce for her very good question. I'm happy to

stand in the House today and say that ensuring clean, safe water is a top priority for this government. We agreed with Justice O'Connor that proper management of our drinking water must be a

priority. This government will provide stronger, clearer and comprehensive rules to ensure a safe water supply. I am aware that representatives from the Ministry of the Environment did attend the

meeting in Huron county, along with members of the health unit, to discuss the water quality issues, including the beaches. Ministry staff will continue to work with the health unit to address

water quality issues in the area.

Mrs Mitchell: I am sure that the people of Huron-Bruce will be glad to hear that you are keeping a close eye on the situation. Let me remind

you that Lake Huron is a natural resource, unique in the world as a source of fresh water. We have a responsibility to keep Lake Huron clean and safe for future generations. We have seen what an

increase in E coli levels can do to a population. Neglect can only contaminate water bodies. How quickly will you act to fix this problem?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: It is indeed unfortunate that members of the opposition are not interested in this answer, but I would suggest it reflects

the same kind of interest they paid to this very important matter when they were government. This government's efforts to address water quality on Lake Huron are underway as we speak.

On November 26, my colleague Steve Peters and I announced that the Ministry of the Environment has assumed responsibility for compliance and enforcement of the

Nutrient Management Act. This fulfills recommendation number 11 of the O'Connor report; that was a commitment we made during the campaign.

Also, on November 14, 2003, I announced that the government was taking the first step in its strategy on source protection through the formation of two expert

committees: a technical experts advisory committee and an implementation advisory committee. The work of these committees is critical to forming the development of a source protection program,

including legislation needed in this province to ensure that our source water is protected.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Premier. This is a handy reference document that I commend to the members opposite, from

the Toronto Sun. The 231 election promises includes promise number 5: "We will put in place a real cap of 20 students per class in the all-important early grades, kindergarten to grade 3."

Experienced educators in Ontario have said that this is bad public policy. In fact, Joseph Carnavale, the superintendent of the Toronto Catholic board --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I can't hear the member from Whitby-Ajax.

Mr Flaherty: Experienced educators have indicated that this is very bad public policy, particularly Joseph Carnavale, for example, the chair

of the Toronto Catholic school board, who said, "The honest truth is that when you put it in practice, it means your child is going to be in a portable, going to have an uncertified teacher and,

more likely than not, is going to be in a split-grade class."

Indeed, principals have told us that this takes away the discretion they need in operating our schools in Ontario. The Minister of Education has already

started to move away from this promise. He's paved the way for you, Premier. Go ahead, Fibber, tell us when you're going to break this promise.

Interjections.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would remind you of your reminder earlier in the House about using unparliamentary

language, and I would ask the member to withdraw that statement.

The Speaker: I didn't hear the member because of the noise that is going on, but if the member said anything unparliamentary, I'd ask him to

withdraw.

Mr Flaherty: If I said something unparliamentary, I would do so.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the Minister of Education is anxious to speak to this matter.

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I hear from the member opposite his interest in stopping kids in this province from having the

advantage of being in smaller class sizes. While he was in government and while he chaired an education policy committee, they did increase class size. They did make it easier for kids to get lost

in the classroom, to not get the individual attention. We see that we don't have the literacy and numeracy results we should have, partly as a result.

In BC, they've moved ahead. In Quebec, they've moved ahead. In all kinds of jurisdictions, in no less than 22 states in the US, they've moved ahead. In this

province, we've allowed ourselves to fall behind. We will be moving ahead on class size. We hear the advice from the member opposite as the kind that would hold children in this jurisdiction back,

not move them forward the way they're supposed to.

Mr Flaherty: This is not about the children in our schools. What do you do with the 21st child? Put him out in a portable? Put her in another

school? This is what it means in practice. It is about satisfying the commitments made to unions by the members opposite during the election.

Today's Minister of Education said this about promise number 5: "We've costed it very carefully. We have money allocated. It's very doable, but even more

important, it's necessary" -- from the Minister of Education. So I ask him in this House, "We've costed it very carefully," you say? How much? Produce the costing for the members of this House to

see. Second, "We have money allocated." How much have you allocated? Thirdly, how much are you going to raise taxes, and which taxes in the province of Ontario, to pay for this dumb promise?

Hon Mr Kennedy: Had we not seen the behaviour of this government, people would wonder, "What has he got against the kids of this province

doing well in public schools?" The only students the member opposite has stood up to defend are those in exclusive private schools. We cannot hear, on his behalf, what the principals of this

province have agreed, what the parents of this province have agreed, what the school boards of this province have agreed and in fact what several of the business associations of this province have

agreed, which is that we need to advantage our kids in this province. We have to stop falling behind. We have to have the best public education in the world.

I would advise the member opposite to look at our platform, where it's all carefully costed. There in black and white are not just the results we want to

achieve but the cost of them. For the member opposite to say that $500 million should be diverted from those kids into private schools shows us again why he is sitting in the seat he has today.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): My question is for the Minister of Labour. For nearly nine years the minimum wage workers of this

province have been waiting for a raise. During that period, inflation increased by approximately 15%. Most other workers in this province saw their wages increase by that amount. During that same

period, however, minimum wage workers saw their incomes stagnate during some of the most robust economic years of the 20th century. Minister, you have announced the first step toward addressing

this injustice: On February 1, our workers will finally get a raise.

There is a concern, however, that businesses will not be able to afford the minimum wage increase and that this will lead to job losses and higher

unemployment. What do you plan to do to ensure that this does not happen?

Hon Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): I'd like to thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin for his very important question and for his

concern about businesses in the province and the need to remain competitive.

Today we've announced real, positive change for the people of Ontario. For the first time in nine years, the minimum wage is being increased, and it will

continue to increase to fulfill our campaign commitment of $8 an hour. Today we are going to help. We have announced a program to help the lowest-paid, most vulnerable workers in the province. We

are going to deliver on the commitment we made during the campaign, and we are going to do it in a fair, responsible and balanced way by phasing in the increases to make sure that businesses have

time to adjust. That's our commitment: a fair, reasonable and responsible program.

Mr Brown: Minister, I'm pleased to hear you are committed to justice for minimum wage earners while keeping the needs of industry and the

economy in mind.

Raising the minimum wage from $6.85 to $7.15 is an excellent first step. However, we must not forget that other minimum wage earners besides those earning

$6.85 per hour exist. Liquor servers currently earn $5.95 an hour, while students earn only $6.40 an hour. Many people also work as hunting and fishing guides, and they are currently paid a minimum

of $34.25 for up to five hours of work and $68.50 for five hours or more. They too need a raise. It would be unfair to increase one group's wages while leaving the others behind. Can you tell us

what you will do for those other minimum wage earners?

Hon Mr Bentley: Of course the member is absolutely right: It has been nine long years that all those groups of workers have been neglected by

the previous government, and we're going to fix that.

There are not just hunting and fishing guides that we're concerned about; there are home workers and liquor servers, who are more prevalent in my riding of

London West. Let me tell you what we're going to be doing to fix the injustice that has been effected. First of all, the student rate will rise from $6.40 an hour to $6.70, effective February 1,

and it will continue to rise until it reaches $7.50 an hour on February 1, 2007. And that's not all. The other rates will also rise: The liquor server rate from $5.95 an hour to $6.20 on February

1, 2004, and then it continues to rise to $6.95 per hour on February 1, 2007. But that's not all.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

Hon Mr Bentley: Hunting and fishing guides will go up until it's $35.75, and $40 on February 1, 2004, and finally --

The Speaker: Thank you.

HIGHWAY TOLLS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): My question is to the Premier. During the election, your party made very specific promises to the motorists

of Ontario. You said you had a platform to deal with gridlock and that you felt that "no new toll roads" was the way to go. Frankly, your Liberal candidates spoke at length in every corner of this

province, but in particular in Hamilton and the Halton region, about the fact that you were opposed to the mid-peninsula highway ever becoming a toll road. Last Friday, the National Post, quoting a

senior Liberal in your government, indicated that you were considering allowing the private sector to build new roads and to charge tolls on those new roads.

My question to the Premier is simply this: Is it now your plan to change this election promise and to begin charging for tolls on roads? And specifically, are

you planning to charge a toll on the mid-peninsula highway, which all of your candidates campaigned against?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I'll refer the matter to the Minister of Transportation.

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I would like to thank the member for his question. My objective is to ensure that

Ontario's roads and highways are maintained to the highest standard. We are not going to do what they did with the 407. I am not going to speculate about what is going to happen in the future. We

have absolutely no plans at this point for the tolls.

Mr Jackson: The honourable minister across the floor has clearly indicated to this House that it is now back on the table that we can have a

toll road on the 407. All he has indicated is that he's not prepared to consider leasing or selling some arrangement for the land. What he is confirming today is that he has kept his option open

for a toll road.

There was a second promise made by every member of the Liberal Party and those who got elected in the Halton, Hamilton and Niagara regions. In fact, your

Liberal candidate in Erie-Lincoln campaigned on how fast they would build the mid-peninsula highway.

I'm going to ask you, Minister, is it your intention to honour the promise made by your Premier, to honour the promise made by every candidate who ran for the

Liberal Party in our region, that you will subject the mid-peninsula highway to a full environmental hearing? We want you to put it on the record today that you're that kind of minister, that

you'll make that commitment. We want to know today, will you commit to a full environmental hearing for the mid-peninsula highway?

Hon Mr Takhar: We will commit ourselves to putting the mid-peninsula highway to a full environmental assessment.

CRIME AGAINST SENIORS

Mrs Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. Today is December 1. It is the kickoff

to the holiday shopping season. At this time of year we often hear horror stories about seniors in Ontario falling victim to fraud. No one wants their parents or grandparents to fall prey to

criminals. Your ministry is responsible for protecting consumers, including seniors. What will you be doing to help protect the thousands of seniors in my riding of Guelph-Wellington and seniors

across Ontario from fraud during the holiday season? In particular, what will you be doing to combat the problem of phony charities scamming seniors?

Hon Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I want to thank the honourable member for Guelph-Wellington and congratulate her

on her first question and for all of the work and concern that she has shown to the senior citizens in her community.

The Dalton McGuinty government is committed to protecting all consumers in the marketplace, in particular senior citizens. We're concerned, as the holiday

season approaches, that some unscrupulous business people are going to try to take advantage of particularly vulnerable people in our society: senior citizens. My ministry is working very

diligently with the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee to explore ways to increase seniors' awareness and how they can protect themselves in the marketplace.

In the coming days, I'm also going to be releasing the 2004 Fraud Free Calendar. It's a public-private partnership that gives practical consumer advice to

seniors. Copies of those calendars will be available in the 61 government information centres. As well, they'll be sent to all MPPs so they can distribute them as they see fit.

Mrs Sandals: Thank you, Minister, and congratulations on your first answer. Our seniors will be happy to hear you're taking action to protect

them. However, seniors whom I know don't want to be thought of as victims. Many want to be participants in cracking down on fraud and scams. What can seniors do if they think they maybe have

encountered fraud?

Hon Mr Watson: Again, thank you to the member for Guelph-Wellington --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Watson: -- and I want to thank the junior member for Nepean for his support here today.

I know members opposite are concerned about this issue as well. Our ministry, in co-operation with the Ontario Provincial Police, works with a program called

Phone Busters and Senior Busters. Phone Busters is a national deceptive marketing call centre, and Senior Busters is a very important program. I want to pay tribute to the senior citizens who help

staff the phone line. It can be reached at 1-888-495-8501. Also, the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services operates a consumer complaint hotline. If seniors do find themselves in difficulty,

they can contact us toll-free at 1-800-889-9768. I would encourage individuals --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I would encourage you to sit down.

TAXATION

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): My question is to the Premier. Premier, the people of Erie-Lincoln are becoming increasingly concerned about your

string of broken promises and what it means to their pocketbooks. Your first two bills in the Legislature brought in the biggest tax hike in the history of the province of Ontario, and it is

significantly increasing hydro rates paid by consumers across the province. Will you be good to your word and guarantee to the Legislative Assembly today that you'll not be increasing personal

income tax rates any more, that you'll not be increasing the gas tax rate, and you'll not increase the tax on wine, spirits or beer?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Let me take the opportunity to disabuse the member opposite of the

notion that he has about our commitment to our promises. I'll just remind him of some of those that we've already delivered on.

We've stopped approving auto insurance rate increases; we did that 15 minutes after forming the government.

We have announced that we will freeze tuition.

We've established a Ministry of Children's Services.

We've introduced legislation to eliminate the private school tax credit.

Yesterday we delivered on our commitment to raise the minimum wage to $8 an hour.

Another thing we're doing for our families: We're going to make sure their meat is safe by having enough full-time inspectors on the job working in the

interests, not of the private sector and private profits, but rather the public interest and the safety of our families.

Interjections.

Mr Hudak: While the Liberal benches are cheering, I think the heartbeat of taxpayers in Ontario has gone a lot faster with that answer.

A very simple yes or no question -- I remember the TV commercials: Looking straight into the camera, Dalton McGuinty says, "I will not raise your taxes." Maybe

I didn't have a high-definition TV and didn't see the asterisk. Maybe the TV screen wasn't long enough and I didn't see that your fingers were crossed. It's a simple yes or no question.

You were the man who was the Boy Scout. You're walking down a trail of broken promises. You were going to do things differently. You were the man who was going

to starve cynicism. You're feeding them an all-you-can-eat buffet of broken promises.

Answer the question directly: Are you raising the gas tax, are you raising taxes on alcohol and are you going to raise the personal income tax rate any more

than you've already done?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I think the member opposite just broke some kind of record. Never has one individual inserted so many clichés into one

question in the history of this Legislature.

I'll tell the member opposite what does quicken the pulse of the people of Ontario. It's the fact that they have been saddled with a $5.6-billion deficit that

compromises their ability to improve their schools, their health care, the protection of their environment and their communities. They're not going to forget that, I can assure you, for a long,

long time.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): My question is for the Minister of Finance. On October 23, within an hour of being sworn

in, you announced a freeze on auto insurance renewals, and last week you introduced a bill that would protect Ontario drivers from substantial increases. However, I've had a number of phone calls

to my constituency office from people who are concerned about their auto insurance premium renewals. The calls I'm getting are that their auto insurance rates have gone up since October 23.

If we froze auto insurance premiums as of October 23, how can these rates continue to climb?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): Thanks to the member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell; it's a very important question. However, the

answer is pretty simple.

What insurance policy holders are experiencing is the residue, tail end Tory auto insurance approvals that have gone on for the past four years: rate increases

in 2002 of 9.2%; 2003, 7.3%; in the second quarter of 2003, 8.5%; and I could go on.

I tell my friend that what we did was take steps, as the Premier said, and within 15 minutes of being sworn in we froze rates. No further rate increases would

be approved.

Mr Lalonde: I am extremely happy to hear that we kept our promise to drivers. Dalton McGuinty and his government are committed to following up

on our promises. It is unfortunate that the previous government allowed this to happen. But it doesn't matter who did it. The drivers in my riding want to know what we are doing to protect them

from these increases they are facing.

Several drivers in my riding have reported being hit by heavy rate increases of 20%, 30% and even more. Some constituents of mine are getting renewals

backdated as early as October, even though their policies are not up for renewal until December. This doesn't seem to be fair for drivers who have had clean driving records.

What action will you take to protect the drivers of my riding and those across the province from these hefty increases?

Hon Mr Sorbara: My friend raises a very important issue. What drivers should know is that in some instances there will be increases in rates

based on rate approvals that were approved before we came into office.

The important part of the question is, where are we going from here? Our bill, which is going to be debated today in the House, provides for a 90-day period of

freeze, within which time we will be bringing forward a set of reforms that will have the effect of reducing insurance rates by, on average, 10%. That will begin to take effect shortly after

January 23, when the freeze is lifted. Thereafter, we're not going to stop there. We're going to continue reforming the system until it is a system that is competitive and rates are ones that are

affordable by the drivers of this province. They expect nothing less and they're going to get nothing less, I tell my friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'm going to ask the Premier one more time about the Ontario drug benefit program. He refused to

respond to the speculation about the fact that they were considering removing some drugs from coverage, introducing user fees and income testing -- in other words, two-tier health care.

Yet, in June 2001, this same Premier said to the then Premier, Mike Harris, "I just gave you the opportunity to provide every possible reassurance to our

seniors that you will not introduce income testing for their drugs or user fees for their drugs, and you refused to provide that assurance. I'll give you one more chance. Prove you're on the side

of seniors now."

I say to you, Premier, prove that you're on the side of seniors, that you won't break another promise and you're not going to raise taxes. Give them the

assurance that you won't do that and are not considering it.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I thank the member opposite for the same question again. I want to

remind her that one of the most important things that has ever been done for seniors with respect to their health care, and it's the same in terms of being one of the most important things we've

done for all Ontarians in terms of their health care, is to slam the door tight on this government's creeping privatization of our health care. We've introduced the Commitment to the Future of

Medicare Act, which is all about standing up for seniors and all other Ontarians who are entitled to a high-quality system of universal, public medicare.

PETITIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and I'm just going to read it.

"Whereas the previous government left the current government of Ontario with a $5.6-billion deficit. As a result, the residents of Scarborough Southwest demand

immediate action to eliminate the deficit and bring Ontario's fiscal house in order.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to move as quickly as possible to eliminate the $5.6-billion deficit."

I'd like to table this with the Clerk.

TOBACCO TAX

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition here signed by a great number of my residents and the residents from the riding south of Oxford.

It's 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 cigarette and tobacco displays behind a

curtain, and support a smoke-free Ontario; and

"Whereas history has proven that increases in tobacco taxes cause increases in the smuggling 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 purchase and marketing of what remains a

legal product;

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

"That the government of Ontario reject the increase in tobacco taxes and the ban on the display of tobacco products, and protect the rights of consumers to

purchase a legal, regulated product -- tobacco."

I present it on behalf of all the people who signed this.

VISITOR

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sure all members of the Legislature will want to join me

in welcoming the mother of one of our pages. Her name is Linda Brett and she was in the audience -- I don't know if she's still here at this point in time. Her son, Daniel Brett, is an acting page.

I will be having lunch with him tomorrow. I wanted to thank the mother for coming and for allowing her son to work in the Legislature.

OPTOMETRISTS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly. It comes from Fort Frances and it reads as

follows:

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario will be considering a private member's bill that aims to amend the Optometry Act to give

optometrists the authority to prescribe therapeutic pharmaceutical agents for the treatment of certain eye diseases; and

"Whereas optometrists are highly trained and equipped with the knowledge and specialized instrumentation needed to effectively diagnose and treat certain eye

problems; and

"Whereas extending the authority to prescribe TPAs to optometrists will help relieve the demands on ophthalmologists and physicians who currently have the

exclusive domain for prescribing TPAs to optometry patients; and

"Whereas the bill introduced by New Democrat Peter Kormos (MPP, Niagara Centre) will ensure that patients receive prompt, timely, one-stop care where

appropriate;

"Therefore, I do support the bill proposing an amendment to the Optometry Act to give optometrists the authority to prescribe therapeutic pharmaceutical agents

for the treatment of certain eye diseases, and I urge the government of Ontario to ensure speedy passage of the bill."

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD

AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTRICITY

PRICING), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA COMMISSION DE L'ÉNERGIE

DE L'ONTARIO (ÉTABLISSEMENT

DU COÛT DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 27, 2003, on the motion for second reading of Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 with respect

to electricity pricing / Projet de loi 4, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l'énergie de l'Ontario à l'égard de l'établissement du coût de

l'électricité.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): We're at questions and comments now. The last time we were at the third party. We had completed the third

party. We are now over at the government side for questions and comments for two minutes.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I need clarification on the rotation as to whether or not we had a member with minutes

left to complete, as in eight minutes. That's not the case?

The Speaker: No. My understanding is that the last time the third party had finished their questions and comments for two minutes. Let me just

check.

It is my understanding that the member for Toronto-Danforth had finished her two minutes of questions and comments and that it's now in the rotation of the

government. I asked for further questions and comments. It seems to me that it's on the government side. Is there someone from the government side?

Mr Levac: Within the two minutes, just to put on the record again, we're talking about Bill 4. It's the energy bill that has been proposed

before the House. We want to be very clear that we're being realistic about electricity prices. The previous statements by the members on the other side of the House have made it quite clear that

they've got one way or the highway, and it's the only way to do this. What we're trying to do is find the balance. With this proposed legislation, our government is taking a responsible approach to

try to have electricity pricing that better reflects the true cost of electricity.

Some of my own words were used against me by a member of the north in the NDP. They basically tried to say that I was against this all along. Quite frankly, I

had indicated that this bill proposes where we should have been right from the very beginning. The municipality I represent would have been hit with a $1-million debt, when the municipality itself

chose to be debt-free. They actually got themselves out of debt as a whole municipality because of good budgeting, good financial restrictions that they put on themselves and spending that was

tailored to their needs. When this bill came in from the previous government, it was going to foist upon them a $1-million debt. Quite frankly, we can't do business that way, where we just shift

the debt around, which is exactly what's happening with this cap. It was pointed out quite clearly that the cap of 4.3 was matched just because Toronto had it and they didn't have any rationale for

why 4.3 should have been used as a cap in the first place.

In terms of the speakers in this House, I want to make it quite clear that a responsible way to deal with this is to remove that cap. We're getting responses

from across the province on this issue. They're talking to us and saying, "Now we're headed in the right direction so we're going to finally pay the value of what we generate." We've also added

into that the conservation issue, which is very important.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm sorry about the confusion a little earlier.

I want to take a moment to thank the member from Don Valley West and the member from Stoney Creek for their comments in the House on this particular piece of

legislation. I'm not in favour of this legislation, of course, mainly because there was an agreement in this House just a year ago now to leave this cap on until 2006. Certainly we believe on this

side of the House that 2006 would have given the government of the day, the citizens of Ontario and industry in Ontario the opportunity to use that time to have further generation come on stream,

as well as the fact of being able to allow good, strong economic growth in the province, which, of course, is what we need to pay the bills in this province, to pay for the different kinds of

promises that all provincial parties in governments need, and that's the $28 billion or $29 billion we spend in health care and the $14 billion or $15 billion we spend on education.

My concern with lifting the cap is strictly the loss of job creation in Ontario. As well, I'm hearing -- and I don't know what the members opposite are

hearing. That's certainly not what the member from Brant has heard. In my municipality and in the riding I represent, people are very concerned about the broken promise. I was at probably 15 events

on the weekend and the voices from the citizens I represent were continuing to say that Dalton McGuinty had broken yet another promise.

I look forward to more comments this afternoon and hearing our members say a few words on this bill as well.

Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank you again for the opportunity to say a few words.

The Speaker: There's a wrap-up of two minutes from the member for Don Valley East.

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): West.

The Speaker: West. Sorry.

Ms Wynne: Not to be confused with "East." Very close.

The bottom line, because of the financial situation confronting Ontario, is that it would be irresponsible for the province and taxpayers to continue to

subsidize electricity consumption. This bill outlines our plan for taking responsible action. This subsidy jeopardizes our ability to invest in health care and education. It jeopardizes our ability

to follow through on the things that we know need to be done. What we're doing right now is playing catch-up. We're having to clean up a mess that was created, and one of the ways we're going to do

that is, we're going to lift this cap on electricity so that we can start to address the deficit that's confronting us.

On October 2, the people of Ontario elected a government capable and willing to make decisions based on the best interests of all Ontarians, and that includes

dealing with our issues of conservation. We can't keep doing what we've been doing in this province. We can't keep over-consuming. We have to start dealing with the fact that energy is not an

infinite resource. We have to find ways to conserve what we have and build local solutions, build supply, while conserving what we have.

That's why I am confident that the citizens of this province understand that we have to make a change in the cap that was put in place by the Tory government.

It was an irresponsible, time-sensitive cap in the first place. It was never going to be in place permanently. It was always the intention of our government to remove the cap. The current deficit

has accelerated our agenda. It hasn't changed our plan, it hasn't done anything but force us to move more quickly in the direction we had already intended to move in. That's why we are lifting the

cap. It's the responsible thing to do.

The Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Thanks for the opportunity to speak on the energy bill this afternoon. First of all, I'd like to say I've got

some relatives visiting from Manitoba. To my nephews Matthew and Addison, it's great to have you here in Ontario.

I also sat on the alternative fuels committee, which dealt with a lot of energy issues. It was a great pleasure to sit on that committee. We had a number of

members -- Mr Bradley, Ms Churley was there, Ms Bountrogianni, Mr O'Toole -- who worked very hard, did a lot of great work there and heard a lot of comments from various presenters on energy and

efficiency, whether it was electricity, electricity pricing or electricity generation. It was great to see.

I remember Collingwood, for example, coming forward with an energy-reduction program that saved them, I believe, in the area of 22% of electricity generating

costs simply by monitoring and regulating water heaters through a computer program that was centrally set up so that those individuals who used water at certain times would have it when they needed

it. When they wanted to shower in the morning, a family of two would be able to do that, but they wouldn't reheat that after they had gone to work until later on in the day when those peak periods

in the generation costs were a lot less.

There were so many things that we heard. I certainly hope the new government of the day -- first of all, I should congratulate them, as this is the first

opportunity I've had to speak in the House, on winning the recent election. It takes a lot of time and energy, and the province has certainly spoken on what they feel is the new government and how

it's going to unfold for us. Also, I hope the new government does look forward to other multi-party committees such as the alternative fuels committee, because it was very interesting and

informative for all of us to work together.

As I mentioned, on that committee we had Collingwood express the fact that they could have a 22% reduction in their peak load costs simply by monitoring and

regulating the way the hot water heat was done in that community. People didn't realize that at the time, when cost pricing was done on peak loads. As the demand reached here, the cost for the day

was set at that. They reduced it by about 22%, taking the cost down to here, so their cost across the board was substantially less, just by taking care of the hot water heaters in that area.

Since the introduction of this bill, I've had a number of concerns come forward from the seniors in my riding, for example, who are concerned about being on a

fixed income, and other individuals on fixed incomes as well, such as those on disability. What is the cost going to be for those individuals who have electric heat? How are they going to be able

to afford the cost of that? I know one individual spoke very clearly and asked about the possibility of two meters, one for the electric heat and one for the generation. The possibility to regulate

or monitor the amount of electricity used outside that area was a potential opportunity because of the impact on fixed-income individuals and how we'd be able to deal with that. This individual's

suggestion was two meters, one for the electric heat and one outside that, so you got outside that margin of 750 kilowatt hours per month.

Also, what is the impact on small businesses? The function of a government is to create an environment that attracts business and brings it into its

jurisdiction. What is the impact on those small mom-and-pop operations and how they're going to unfold and how it's going to work for them?

Governments try to create an environment, and when you add the other aspects, whether it's the increase in minimum wage that was brought forward and mentioned

today or the small business taxes, when a company looks to locate in an area, electricity is one of the key components for that, and that is because it is one of the major costs. Being from Oshawa,

I'm sure people would associate General Motors as being one of the key employers -- and it quite definitely is. When they look at that, they look at what the cost is to generate electricity so they

can produce their product or their goods.

When I had the opportunity and privilege to work in the Ministry of Natural Resources, we had a number of lumber producers, for example. The difficulty with

that was that a lot of them were deciding whether they were selling energy or producing lumber. When they sold energy, because a lot have their own mills and generating plants -- I would imagine

that the new minister would be invited up for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at Iroquois Falls for the lumber mill there where they did a $50-million upgrade to produce more electricity. The difficulty

there is that when they're producing electricity, they're not running the mill. So the people who work in the mill are not employed cutting lumber, whether it's in the forest, transporting it,

whether it's the trucks that bring it in, or actually in the mill making the paper or the chips and by-products that go with it.

So companies have to decide where they are going to produce and what the impact of this change is going to be on those companies. How are they going to

determine if they're selling on the spot market -- and that's one of the difficulties that I hope the new government is going to contend with. They have to give notification of a two-hour period

before they can sell in that market. In that two-hour time frame the cost of electricity could substantially change. Not only does the electricity cost change, and the sale of it, but also the

employment criteria for the people who supply the mill, work in the mill and transport the goods back and forth. These are some of the things that the new government of the day has to decide the

impact of.

Quite frankly, I would hope a lot of people know that in northern Ontario the mining and lumber industries are the lifeblood of employment and opportunities.

So those companies have to best determine how it is going to unfold for them.

I can remember back when we were first elected in 1995. One of the family members from the Mackey group who was a race car driver as well was in Michigan at

the time and he said, "Ontario used to be our number one supplier for employment here in Michigan, but since you came along," referring to us winning in 1995, "we're concerned with the amount of

jobs that are not going to locate in Michigan but are now locating back in Ontario."

I'm a bit concerned about the impact of that environment I spoke of, whether it's the increased cost of electricity on businesses, whether it's the increased

costs in minimum wage, plus the taxes, for businesses that locate here. Certainly we have a great province and there is a great deal of benefit for companies locating here; whether it's workers'

safety and insurance or the OHIP costs that help attract businesses to the province of Ontario, they all factor that in. Before we came to power in 1995, a lot of those locations were in Michigan.

We brought them back. What's the new impact going to be?

I had the opportunity as well to sit with the Durham home builders on the weekend. They were celebrating their 50th anniversary, and I certainly congratulate

them for 50 years of contributing to the economy, to the community and to the jobs in my region -- in Durham region and Oshawa. The amount of growth has been phenomenal. We're growing in leaps and

bounds. We're seeing new developments come forward. Hopefully, as things progress, once the expansion of the 407 gets through the region of Durham, you're going to see one of the largest economic

stimuli for future growth in the region of Durham.

Again, they're concerned with some of those aspects, and electricity cost is one of the concerns. It's not so much the cost of the production of the house, but

it's the cost to get there; as I mentioned earlier, the increased costs for mills and lumber mills. And lumber is obviously one of the key commodities in producing, as is brick. Bricks are

fire-formed and a lot of electricity is utilized in that process as well to build those houses. Those costs will slowly start go to up again. What is the impact going to be on those businesses when

they're not selling houses, and the jobs aren't locating in the area, because of increased costs?

But 50 years is certainly a long time for the Durham home builders and I certainly congratulate them on 50 years of dedicated commitment to the region of

Durham.

Ontario is still listed as one of the fastest-growing jurisdictions in the G8 countries and this is because of the environment that was in that area. You have

to make sure you have an environment that attracts businesses and takes care of its individuals. So long as we had that and the businesses were locating here, we certainly grew in leaps and bounds

in Ontario, because quite frankly for a significant period of time we didn't have that ability to grow and prosper for businesses to locate here. Then they came forward. What is that impact going

to be? I think businesses will be the key ones who will be deciding on what and where they should be locating.

I mentioned the alternative fuels committee. There are some other aspects there that I think should be integrated, hopefully through the committee process. Net

metering is one of the key components. There are individuals who have self-generation, whether it's through solar power or wind power. They produce enough electricity that they have the ability to

sell on the grid. So when their solar power is generating more electricity than they utilize in the house at that time, they sell that back on the grid. A bill is required for what is called net

metering, to give those individuals the opportunity to sell back on the grid. Also, the time of day or demand management is very key as well.

The net metering was very interesting. I can remember Mattawa. I know there appears to be a question about net metering, but in Mattawa there were some

individuals who had been off grid for a number of years. Actually, while campaigning, I happened across a couple of houses that we found very interesting because their entire roofs were covered in

solar panels. Those would be the individuals who would be very concerned about the ability to sell back on the grid, so that their meters go in reverse when they're contributing back into the grid.

Demand management is very key -- I know Mr O'Toole mentioned it during his speech last week -- and the time-of-day costs.

Those are some of the things that could be looked at as well. But it's very difficult to monitor and regulate that, because how do you assess when the meter

goes around? It doesn't say, "It went around at this time." How much electricity is used at what time of the day? If individuals want to run the dryer, the washer or the dishwasher at certain times

of the day, at peak periods there should be an additional cost to use those services because it would be a deterrent for individuals to run the appliances at that time.

One of the suggestions that we had on the alternative fuels committee that was very effective was the use of timers on appliances. They could set them for the

middle of the night so the dryer would go off in the basement, as it is in our house anyway, at 2 o'clock in the morning when there was no peak load and the cost for electricity production was very

low. That would assist, in a much more friendly environment, in generating electricity.

One of the other things was the amount of electricity used. If you charged more at certain periods of the day, people would be more reluctant to use it at that

time.

One of the areas I had a real concern with was schools. There was no incentive in schools. When I was a kid, it was always the same thing. "Turn the something

something light off," Dad used to say. Now that I've got a couple of young boys -- Josh and Garrett, who are six and eight -- I say the same thing. They walk out of the room and they leave the

light on all the time.

People think in the microcosm, and there is difficulty with that. I can remember walking into one house and they had the TV and the lights on for the dog when

they went out. I said, "Do you understand what that costs?" because we were dealing with electricity at that time. They said, "What does it cost? I don't know -- maybe 50 cents an hour to do that?"

I said, "Yes, but you don't understand. You're thinking in the micro; you have to think in the macro. We've got 60,000 houses in Oshawa. If every house had a TV and a light left on, that would be

60,000 lights and 60,000 TVs that are causing the production of electricity."

When you get into those summer months, when all those appliances are on and the air conditioning is going and everything else is happening, that certainly adds

to the generation costs where the coal-fired plants fire up to supply those peak demands. If we can reduce those and get people understanding -- and it has to start right in the schools. If the

schools had an educational program whereby the kids understand -- I ask my kids about it all the time and they don't really get a good sense of energy savings and the cost. I know that in our house

in excess of 50% of all the lighting cost is with energy-efficient bulbs. Quite frankly, my wife, Dianne, was a bit concerned: "What are you spending all this money for on these bulbs?" I said,

"It's going to be a saving in the long term, not only for us but for the environment, for the future generation of our kids."

I think people need to look at those things, such as tax incentives on energy-efficient appliances. I remember during the campaign that the big thing the NDP

had was the fridges; they were going to replace refrigerators. The difficulty with that was -- and it didn't come up during our campaign -- what are you going to do with all these fridges when

they're done? Where is all the Freon that was used to cool those fridges going to go when they've taken them to a landfill site somewhere? You try to regenerate them but most of the time they just

go into a site. Those weren't taken into consideration.

I think incentives are very key and very necessary for a lot of individuals so they can see the added benefit not only in the short term but in the long term.

Give the gift of savings for the future. I know my mother will probably receive some energy-efficient bulbs for Christmas this time around just to help out with the energy costs in the household,

as an incentive to help reduce the cost of electricity, as well as the cost to the environment.

There are a lot of opportunities. I think it's right back at where it starts. The youth of today are the ones who are going to inherit our environment. I think

there are a lot of things that we are able to do. I certainly hope with the impact of the legislation coming forward -- when you add the cost of minimum wage, the cost of the business taxes --

business will still see Ontario as a key place to locate. The future opportunity for multi-party committees is very key in developing policy that would be helpful. I know the alternative fuels

committee was one. I think that going right back to the base of educating our youth about the impact on tomorrow is so key.

With that, I'll close my remarks as I appreciate and forward to some comments to see how the other members speak here today.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The member, I'm surprised, didn't use up all his time. I was preparing my two-minute

question-and-answers and I don't have them ready. I request unanimous consent that the member use up his time.

I listened carefully, actually, to the member for Oshawa because we did both serve on the alternative energy committee. It was a committee that actually

worked. It was the only one I experienced in this place that overall was fairly non-partisan. We all worked really hard. I was the only New Democrat there, working along with many Tories and some

Liberals. We came up with an amazing document that I urge everybody who has an interest in alternative fuels and efficiency and conservation to read, because it got shelved by the previous

government. To be fair, they didn't have a whole lot of time to deal with it, but I urge the new Liberal government to remove that report from the shelves and start implementing the recommendations

because there are some very far-reaching, excellent recommendations as to how we can save energy.

On this bill before us today, which in a few minutes I will have an opportunity to talk about in more detail, I will talk to people a bit about ways that we

can conserve energy and become more efficient, but what I also will want to talk about is what's wrong with this bill before us today and why it's not about energy conservation and efficiency, but

it's simply about a hike in the hydro rates in this province. It's another broken promise by the Liberals who promised over and over again during the election campaign that they would keep these

rates on until 2006. That promise has been broken. So people were prepared to not have rate increases; now they're going to see them.

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I'm pleased to rise and make some comments to the member opposite. The persons whom I think we all share a

concern for are those who are least able to pay. So I was pleased today to hear the Minister of Labour stand in his place and tell Ontarians that we are going to raise the minimum wage.

Back some time before April of this current year, I met with what I would call caregivers who came to my office. They were deeply concerned about the poor and

the working poor. They were also concerned about the lack of volunteers who would come and assist them as they tried to assist others to make their commitments in day-to-day life, and issues such

as heat, clothing and food -- many items that we take for granted. I mentioned to them that it was a commitment of ours to raise the minimum wage, albeit over time, but we would raise the minimum

wage. I have to tell you that they were gratified to know that we were going to, after almost nine years, raise the minimum wage for these persons so that they can afford the utilities, food,

clothing, shelter and the basics that we all take for granted.

In regards to this energy bill, we're taking a realistic approach to energy usage and pricing here in Ontario. Small business people, during the blackout that

happened some time ago over all of Ontario and the eastern seaboard, came to me and said, "My product was destroyed because of the hydro being out." I think the people of Ontario want to know that

when they flip the switch or put the plug into the wall, they are going to be secure in knowing that the product they have in their stores and their businesses -- I'm talking about refrigeration,

for one example -- is going to be safe, that it's going to be available to the public on the next day. That's what we're about: the security of our hydro.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe North.

Mr Dunlop: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm looking forward to helping you light the trees downstairs this evening, or something. I think

I'm involved in that a little later on.

Interjection.

Mr Dunlop: Yes, we're going to cut the usage.

Again it's a pleasure to make a few comments on those of my colleague from Oshawa, Jerry Ouellette, former Minister of Natural Resources, and a very well

respected member of Parliament in this Legislature.

I couldn't help but take notice of Mr Hoy's comments, particularly around minimum wage. It's kind of like, as was mentioned a couple of times today, Chris

giveth and Greg taketh away. Those were a couple of comments we heard earlier today. There's no question that the minimum wage will help a little bit, that there are some people it will help out in

our province.

However, my concern about that, and I've mentioned this a number of times in other comments here, is that it will have an impact on very small business people

who are trying to hire students for the first time. I know some of those businesses, and already they're very concerned about it, particularly when they're seeing the rate being lifted on their

hydro. We know right now that Bill 2, the largest-tax-increase-in-history bill, will have a very negative effect on small business people, and wage earners as well. We'll now see the 700,000 whom

we've been able to get off the minimum provincial income tax rates go back on. I think we've got some strong concerns around that area.

I'm not really making a lot of comments right now on my colleague's comments because he will be wrapping up here in a couple of minutes. I do want to thank the

Speaker once again for the opportunity to address you this afternoon.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): This is a bit of an odd debate. We find ourselves in a situation where we're actually listening to the

previous government, by way of the speech by Mr Ouellette, whom I also respect as a member of this assembly -- a person of integrity; I have no question about that. But the member is in a position

of debating a bill about a government that's now saying it wants to remove a rate cap on electricity that was installed by the Tories. I find that a little bit ironic because the Conservative

government had tried to deregulate and privatize hydro, and it didn't work. The net effect of it was that electricity prices in this province went through the roof. We said at the time, and the

Liberals said at times, depending on what day it was -- one day they were in favour of deregulation and the next day they were opposed. I think they flipped about five times. Finally, before the

election, they were squarely behind Howard Hampton and said, "We shouldn't privatize. We shouldn't deregulate." They even went so far as to say, "We shouldn't remove the rate cap