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

December 17, 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-17 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 17 December 2003 Mercredi 17 décembre 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FESTIVAL OF NORTHERN LIGHTS

OAKVILLE ASSEMBLY PLANT

YOUNG OFFENDERS

DNA CLUSTER GROUP

EDUCATION FUNDING

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

PLANNING LEGISLATION

OLDER ADULT CENTRE

CITY OF KAWARTHA LAKES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH INFORMATION

PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LA SANTÉ

NO HOG FACTORIES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 INTERDISANT LES PORCHERIES INDUSTRIELLES

IRISH HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE IRLANDAIS

ONTARIO DRINKING WATER SOURCE PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES SOURCES D'EAU POTABLE

DE L'ONTARIO

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

AND FISCAL REVIEW /

PERSPECTIVES ÉCONOMIQUES

ET REVUE FINANCIÈRE

ROBERT STANFIELD

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

ONTARIO BUDGET

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

LONG-TERM CARE

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

YOUNG WORKERS' SAFETY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

HYDRO RATES

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

NUISANCE BEARS

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

AMBULANCE SERVICE

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

VISITOR

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA GESTION

RESPONSABLE DES FINANCES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Just let me say that the bells are still not working properly, so therefore you won't see the flashing lights

either. The only flashing lights we have today is the Sergeant at Arms's hat, which he has put away.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FESTIVAL OF NORTHERN LIGHTS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I rise in the House today to inform members about the 16th annual Festival of Northern Lights, which

held its opening ceremonies on November 14 in Owen Sound. All the members -- and anyone else in Canada, for that matter -- who saw the front cover of December's Municipal World witnessed a small

sample of the exhibit that we in Owen Sound are so lucky to take in each year.

Two years ago, Communities in Bloom, along with the Canadian Tourism Commission, launched the Winter Lights Celebration of Light and Life competition. I am very

proud to say that in 2001 and 2002, Owen Sound was named national champion in the 20,000 to 50,000 population category. Judging has recently been conducted in our area for this year's competition,

where Owen Sound will be competing in the national stars category against previous national champions with populations up to 750,000.

This event was the brainchild of Marie Walpole 16 years ago and it has developed into one of the most extensive and outstanding winter light shows and community

events in the country.

The Festival of Northern Lights attracts over 20,000 people in our area each year. Visitors are treated to over 15 kilometres of lights, which illuminate the

trees and exhibits along the banks of the Sydenham River, Harrison Park and the walkways around the festival's over 200 displays.

Thanks go out to this year's co-chairs, Mitch Childs and Marg Gaviller, and co-ordinator Karen Neerhof. I would also like to congratulate all of the community

members: business owners, sponsors and countless volunteers who were involved in this year's event. I invite anyone who has the opportunity to travel to Owen Sound to take in this year's Festival

of Northern Lights.

Again, Mr Speaker, it's on the front of Municipal World. We would certainly like you to come up and visit us again, as you have in the past, and anyone else here

who would like to come up and see our lights. I hope that we can win this championship again.

OAKVILLE ASSEMBLY PLANT

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I rise today to pay tribute to a proud member of the Oakville business community, Ford of Canada, and its

employees: its management staff and the Canadian Auto Workers Local 707, who represent the bargaining unit in the Oakville assembly plant. Fifty years ago this year the first Ford vehicle rolled

off the assembly line in the Oakville assembly plant. Construction had begun a year earlier in 1952, in a farm field in what was then Trafalgar township.

What many people don't realize is that Ontario is the second-largest automotive jurisdiction in all of North America, second only to Michigan. Each assembly line

job is estimated to result in a spin-off of almost eight jobs in the local economy. That's how important the auto sector is to Ontario, and that's how important it is to my community of

Oakville.

In 1904, Ford of Canada had a workforce of only 17 people and an annual payroll of $12,000. Contrast that with today: The auto sector accounts for close to 20%

of Ontario's manufacturing gross domestic product and directly employs 150,000 men and women.

In its first year of production in 1953 in Oakville, the Oakville assembly plant built 123,000 vehicles and employed 3,000 people. Since that opening year, Ford

has gone on to build almost 10 million vehicles in Oakville. Current employment at the plant is about 3,400 people. Today the Oakville assembly plant sits on a 500-acre site and has close of 4

million square feet of buildings.

Automotive products are Canada's number one export, with exports topping over $97 billion last year alone.

Since 1990, Ford has invested over $9.5 billion in its Canadian vehicle assembly and engine plants.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I want to take this opportunity to raise a public safety issue that should be of concern to all

Ontarians.

Approximately two weeks ago the Minister of Children's Services dropped a little-noticed bombshell when she quietly announced that young offenders' services in

Ontario will be transferred to the children's ministry by the end of the year.

This revelation has been ignored by much of the Queen's Park press gallery, but clearly the general public, especially police and victims' organizations, need to

know what is happening. Transferring responsibility for 16- and 17-year-old sexual predators and murderers to a children's ministry is both naive and dangerous. It is Liberal social engineering of

the worst kind: playing with public safety. The reality is that many of these young offenders are vicious and unconscionable criminals. Treating them as children only re-victimizes the people

who've suffered from their frequently horrific acts.

This initiative was not part of the Liberal election platform, nor in their throne speech. With the apparent acquiescence of the media, they are sneaking this

risky plan through with absolutely no consultation.

I urge the Liberal government to step back and talk to front-line police officers, victims' organizations and others before moving ahead with this

ill-thought-out plan.

DNA CLUSTER GROUP

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Clusters have been lauded as the way of the future in economic regional development. I'd like to share with you an

exciting new development in my riding.

The Peterborough DNA Cluster Project aims to advance the field of DNA and related research. It has been developed through a series of partnerships between the

Greater Peterborough Area Economic Development Corp, Trent University, Sir Sandford Fleming College, the Ministry of Natural Resources and a private sector group. Partnering through these private

and public institutions will create a platform of unique enterprise. The organization is structured to accelerate time to market for inventions and reduce the risk of investment in new products and

services.

The DNA cluster's areas of concentration will include the automation of a DNA sample collection, preparation and analysis; DNA profiling and bio-informatics;

wildlife and commercial stock management through landscape genetics; and forensic science identification services for law enforcement.

A great aspect of this project is its ripple effect. The DNA cluster will benefit not only Peterborough riding, but will have lasting positive commercial

outcomes both for Canada and around the globe.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I just want to respond briefly to the announcement made by the Minister of Education two weeks ago where,

in one of those rare promises, he committed some money to educational purposes. I must admit it was a very good promise, where he said that 112 million bucks will be devoted to literacy programs

students who are at risk, who have serious problems, inner-city kinds of needs, including ESL for many of our immigrant children.

The problem is that in Toronto, they probably will not be getting a cent to create ESL programs or inner-city literacy programs. The minister announced that $46

million can be used to offset their deficit. That's a problem for me. This is a deficit brought upon the Toronto board by the former Conservative government, which created that deficit. We hoped

the Minister of Education would wipe that deficit off and then commit the money, the $46 million, for ESL and literacy, but they won't be spending one cent for desperately needed programs. Parents

are hoping they're going to be able to use that money for that purpose, but they won't be, because it will be used to write down the deficit. We think that's a serious mistake.

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): It's a pleasure to rise in the House today to pay tribute to a young constituent of mine from

Sarnia-Lambton who's truly an inspiration to us all. Kristopher is a 13-year-old Sarnia native who is presently waiting for a liver transplant, and he has a wish: to accomplish a 200-city-and-town

walking tour across Canada to help save nearly 4,000 people who need organ and tissue transplants.

The walking tour begins next month in Sarnia, but before that, I'm proud to tell the House that Kristopher will be here at Queen's Park tomorrow, along with many

supporters, for a pre-kickoff announcement. I want to take this opportunity to invite all the members to join us at this event tomorrow afternoon, and I want to remind all members and all Ontarians

to show their support for this vital health care issue and consider filling out an organ donor card. I had the opportunity to distribute these cards to other members earlier this week, and am happy

to sign one myself.

I'm proud of the amazing leadership that Kristopher is displaying on this issue, and I urge all members to show support for Kristopher's Wish. I'm happy to wear

the special Gift of Life pin, which my office has left in both the east and west lobbies today.

At this time, I'd like to ask for unanimous consent for all members to wear this special pin in support of Kristopher's Wish.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent to wear the Kristopher pin? There seems to be unanimous consent.

PLANNING LEGISLATION

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Just two days ago, the Minister of Municipal Affairs stood in this House and announced changes to the Planning Act

which he claims will give more powers to municipalities.

The people of Ontario deserve to know that this bill does not give more planning power to local councils; it gives the power to the cabinet and the Premier's

office. The Liberals' proposed changes state that the minister can declare a provincial interest in matters before the Ontario Municipal Board. The bill then says that the final decision is made by

cabinet.

They also say that no one can appeal a local decision to deny an amendment outside an urban settlement area to the OMB. However, the bill allows the government,

by regulation, to alter the definition of an urban settlement area at any time. What does this mean? It means that all you have to do to amend an official plan is go to the OMB and then start

lobbying the minister and the Premier's office for the decision you want. If you want to build outside an urban settlement area, all you need to do is lobby the government to alter the meaning of

the words. This bill will trample the powers of local councils and put all decisions in the hands of the Premier's office and Liberal lobbyists.

OLDER ADULT CENTRE

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): Yesterday some of my colleagues and I had the great pleasure of attending the international Christmas

luncheon in Mississauga. The event was hosted by the Older Adult Centre, the largest non-profit centre in Mississauga.

The Older Adult Centre consists of some 125 volunteers who work very hard, organizing daily educational and recreational events for adults 55 and over. Their

hard work and dedication have resulted in a wonderful organization that assists many of our seniors. Over 1,400 individuals use the centre's services.

As I looked around the room, I was reminded of why Ontario is such a wonderful place to call home. The centre's members include people from all over the world:

the Caribbean, China, Goa, Portugal, Poland, Spain and the Philippines, just to name a few. These people all shared something in common: first, they all chose to leave their homelands in search of

a better place to live, a place to build a better life for themselves and their families, and they chose Ontario; second, they all share in the value and belief of multiculturalism. Our diversity

is a tremendous source of strength in this province.

I left that event with a clear sense of what my role is as an MPP. It is up to me and the rest of my colleagues to ensure that their trust and faith in Ontario

was not wrongly placed. We are and will remain a government that is honest, responsible, hard-working, innovative and committed to a bright future for all.

CITY OF KAWARTHA LAKES

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): Mr Speaker, I rise today to bring forward an issue in this House that is of great concern to my

riding. As I know you are aware, the people of the city of Kawartha Lakes voted on November 10 in a minister-sponsored, non-binding referendum, with a result of 51% to 49% to de-amalgamate the city

of Kawartha Lakes.

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs, minister responsible for seniors): Whose side are you on?

Ms Scott: We're waiting for your answer.

Since the municipal election, the mayor and council have been attempting to communicate with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the ministry as well. I

understand through the media that a meeting has been set up in Toronto between the minister, the mayor and the CEO of the city.

At a council meeting yesterday, a resolution was passed requesting the minister meet with the whole council and that the meeting be held in the city of Kawartha

Lakes. As well, the mayor and council are hoping the minister brings forward a plan at the meeting in January on how to move forward on this important issue.

My constituents and I will be watching closely over the next few weeks to see what course of action the minister recommends.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect to the last statement, I'd be more than willing to meet with the mayor and the

members of council here in Toronto on January 4.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I have something of great interest to you all.

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I have had an opportunity to reflect on the submissions that were made yesterday concerning developments in the

standing committee on finance and economic affairs in respect of its consideration of Bill 5,

An Act to temporarily freeze automobile insurance rates for private passenger vehicles and to provide

for the review and regulation of risk classification systems and automobile insurance rates for private passenger vehicles.

While our practice is that matters that arise in committee should be considered in and disposed of by that committee, I appreciate that the matter before this

particular committee and the committee proceeding itself were the subject of a December 4, 2003, order of the House.

The committee met on the morning of December 15, 2003. It convened again that afternoon, and in the course of that meeting it adjourned for lack of quorum. In

reviewing the December 4, 2003, order of this House, I note that it directs the committee to meet for two days to consider Bill 5. I want to point out here that committee meeting days are

differently defined and not necessarily equivalent to sessional days. In fact, in the next

section of the House order, the permissive form "may" is used in setting out the times for the committee

to meet. Thus, meeting for any amount of time within the time frame established for those two days has the committee acting in compliance with the House order. That it did not meet yesterday

afternoon does not detract from the fact that it met on that day.

Clearly, adjourning for lack of quorum was an unexpected and less than favourable outcome for this committee. It does not, however, in any way abrogate the

motion passed by this House on December 4, 2003.

Having said that, I want to impress upon all members that committee work is a fundamentally important component of our parliamentary process. A working committee

system affords an opportunity for members to become familiar with issues and to understand more fully the impact of proposed policy decisions. Perhaps more importantly, it provides an essential

liaison between us in this place and the people we serve. All members should consider carefully their committee obligations and be vigilant about living up to them.

I wish to thank the members who spoke on this matter for their submissions.

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I beg the Chair's indulgence on a point of order, Mr Speaker: A wonderful announcement took place in Hamilton

today, historic in nature for Hamilton, Ontario and Canada. McMaster University was the recipient of a $105-million --

Interjections.

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

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sure I can talk for 30 seconds about something wonderful in the

riding of Timmins-James Bay, but I wouldn't use the standing orders to that event today.

Interjections.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 5,

An Act to temporarily freeze automobile insurance rates for private passenger vehicles and to provide for the review and regulation of risk

classification systems and automobile insurance rates for private passenger vehicles / Projet de loi 5, Loi visant à geler temporairement les taux d'assurance-automobile dans les cas des

voitures de tourisme et à prévoir l'examen et la réglementation des systèmes de classement des risques et des taux d'assurance-automobile les concernant.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour of the report, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1353 to 1358.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Dunlop, Garfield

Eves, Ernie

Flaherty, Jim

Hampton, Howard

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Yakabuski, John

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 62; the nays are 26.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Thursday, December 4, 2003, the bill is ordered for third reading.

VISITORS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wanted to introduce some very special guests who are

visiting from my riding. In the members' gallery west: Mr Don McArthur, the mayor of the township of Schreiber; Mr Mike King, mayor of the township of Terrace Bay; Mr Richard Beare, the CAO of the

township of Terrace Bay; Mr Kevin Bahm, the chair of the board at McCausland Hospital in Terrace Bay; Ms Susan Lubberdink, chair of fundraising for the long-term-care addition at McCausland

Hospital, and Mr Mario Audet, the CEO of McCausland Hospital. Welcome.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH INFORMATION

PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LA SANTÉ

Mr Smitherman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 31,

An Act to enact and amend various Acts with respect to the protection of health information / Projet de loi 31, Loi édictant et modifiant

diverses lois en ce qui a trait à la protection des renseignements sur la santé.

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

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Today's bill delivers on the principle of accountability. The Health

Information Protection Act puts safeguards in place to protect patient information and make sure it's used properly and only by people who need to know it. With this bill, the people of Ontario

will know how and when their health information is disclosed and when their consent is required to do so. This act would, for the first time ever in Ontario, establish consistent and comprehensive

rules and safeguards.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister is giving a statement without the opposition having an

opportunity to reply.

The Speaker: The member is just indicating a brief statement on his motion.

Hon Mr Smitherman: To conclude, this bill will establish consistent and comprehensive rules, safeguards and legal protectioning, governing the

collection, use and sharing of health information. I've been working with my critics opposite. I've encouraged them that when this bill comes back, we hope they would have all-party support. When I

say it comes back, it's because it will be referred to committee.

NO HOG FACTORIES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 INTERDISANT LES PORCHERIES INDUSTRIELLES

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 32,

An Act to restrict the operation of large hog farms and to amend the Nutrient Management Act, 2002 / Projet de loi 32, Loi visant à

restreindre l'exploitation des grosses fermes porcines et à modifier la Loi de 2002 sur la gestion des éléments nutritifs.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have got it. Carried.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): This is the second time I've introduced this bill. What it does is put a moratorium on large hog farms,

subject to the ability of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make exemptions where it is appropriate to do so. The bill also amends the Nutrient Management Act, 2002, to provide that a

regulation under the act only supersedes a municipal bylaw if the regulation provides greater environmental protection. I hope everybody will support this because we're finding more and more E coli

and contamination of our waters.

IRISH HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE IRLANDAIS

Mr O'Toole moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 33,

An Act proclaiming Irish Heritage Day / Projet de loi 33, Loi proclamant le Jour du patrimoine irlandais.

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

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'd like to thank my legislative intern, Chris Shantz, who has spent countless hours preparing the many bills and

resolutions I've presented in the House. It's very clear that all cultures should be celebrated in Ontario. Irish immigrants were amongst the earliest settlers in Canada. In 1845, Irish immigrants

fleeing the potato famine in Ireland began settling in Ontario in large numbers. They brought to Ontario, and indeed Canada, their values of hard work, devotion to family, service to community and

a perpetual hope for a better future for all. That tradition continues here today.

ONTARIO DRINKING WATER SOURCE PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES SOURCES D'EAU POTABLE

DE L'ONTARIO

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 34,

An Act to protect sources of drinking water in Ontario / Projet de loi 34, Loi visant à protéger les sources d'eau potable en

Ontario.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Last week I introduced a bill that dealt primarily with water taking; in fact, a bill formerly

introduced by the present environment minister. This bill today deals more directly with a comprehensive framework for protecting water at its source. I won't go into the details here because I

don't have time, but suffice it to say it provides the framework that this government is now consulting on. I believe if we pass this bill, we can move forward more quickly on protecting sources of

water in this province, as outlined by Justice O'Connor in the Walkerton inquiry.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): In the east gallery today there is a former Minister of Transportation and member for Scarborough East, Mr Ed

Fulton. Would you all recognize him.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to introduce, in the east gallery, a current member, Mr

Arnott.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

AND FISCAL REVIEW /

PERSPECTIVES ÉCONOMIQUES

ET REVUE FINANCIÈRE

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I rise today to present our government's economic outlook and fiscal review.

On October 2, the people of Ontario chose change. They chose a new government to deliver real, positive change, to grow our economy, deliver excellent public

services and live within our means.

Il a choisi un nouveau gouvernement qui apportera des changements réels et positifs afin de relancer les croissances économiques, d'offrir

d'excellents services publics et de faire en sorte que nous vivions selon nos moyens.

We are honoured by their choice and we will justify their trust.

When we were sworn in on October 23, we found that the financial circumstances of this province were far worse than the people of Ontario had been led to

believe. It is these circumstances and our response to them that I am addressing today.

Immediately after the election, we asked former Provincial Auditor Erik Peters to give us the straight goods. He was asked to compare the province's 2003-04

budget, released in March, with our fiscal situation in October. He confirmed that Ontario could anticipate a deficit of $5.6 billion in the current year, and he listed certain risks that could

cost us another $1 billion or more.

Since his report, two things have happened. On the one hand, some of those additional risks have come to pass. On the other hand, we have taken action to stop

the erosion of our revenues and restrain our spending. These two factors have, frankly, offset one another.

Based on everything we know to this point, our updated fiscal forecast for 2003-04 is a deficit of $5.6 billion. But this is not a one-year problem. We have a

serious long-term problem. It's a problem rooted in a chronic mismatch of revenues and expenditures that has been growing over the past several years.

To be specific, over the past three years, program spending has grown by more than $10 billion while tax revenues have increased by only about $500 million. In

short, we have inherited a situation where the costs of running programs and paying interest on debt has been growing faster than revenues.

Even the positive impact of Bill 2, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2003, will not solve the problem. Without further action, without changing the way we do

business and deliver programs, the province is on track to spend more than it takes in each year, every year.

Nous pourrions nous retrouver avec un déficit d'au moins 4,5 $ milliards par année et chaque année.

We could face future deficits of at least $4.5 billion a year, every year. This is what economists call a "structural deficit." It's what Ontarians call

unacceptable, and it's what we call a challenge that simply must be met.

We have also identified other financial liabilities that have arisen over the past eight years, primarily within the broader public sector. These liabilities

may add to the 2003-04 deficit, but were outside the scope of Erik Peters's mandate. They include: accumulated deficits in our hospitals and our children's aid societies; potential liabilities of

the pension guarantee fund; and additional woes of Ontario Power Generation. These liabilities could reach $2.2 billion. Further details on them are contained in the background document that

accompanies this statement. We are reviewing them to determine how to deal with them responsibly.

Preliminary indications from OPG that have recently come to our attention suggest that there may be a substantial risk to its net revenue in the medium term.

This risk could have a negative impact of $250 million to $900 million a year over our medium-term revenue outlook, between 2004-05 and 2006-07. We will be reviewing these potential impacts as more

information becomes available.

In the background papers to this document we have included projections for each of the next three years. They describe the changes in spending that would be

needed to reach a balanced budget by the end of each of the next three years. They do not represent options so much as the starting point for our consultations. For example, spending would have to

decline in absolute terms by 2.3% from the levels currently projected for this year to balance by the end of the upcoming fiscal year. To get in the black by 2005-06, spending could increase by no

more than 1.3% each year for the next two years. To balance by 2006-07, spending could only grow by an average of 2.3% each year for three years. Even this is far less than the 5% spending growth

that has been the government average over the past five years. Clearly, we face some tough choices.

To be sure, we will not engage in the slash-and-burn, quick-fix approach that could endanger public services and indeed the economy itself. Frankly, Ontarians

have had enough of that. Instead, we must begin the work of transforming government so that we can deliver high-quality public services on a sustainable basis.

While the finances we inherited are weak, our economy remains strong. Our workforce and businesses are performing well. Despite setbacks like SARS, restricted

border crossings, the blackout and mad cow disease, we're poised to achieve economic growth of 1.7% this year. Private sector forecasters agree that Ontario will rebound strongly next year and

beyond. An average of their forecasts shows that real GDP growth accelerates to 3.1% next year and 3.6% the year after. These gains reflect the latest data showing a rapid turnaround in the economy

of the United States, our largest trading partner.

After almost no growth in the current year, our exports are expected to grow by 4.2% next year, and this despite our higher Canadian dollar.

We expect that by the end of this year, Ontario will have created 158,000 net new jobs, seen more than 84,000 new housing starts, and enjoyed a 3.8% rise in

consumer spending.

While the increased value of our Canadian dollar has had an impact on exporters, it will also help our businesses by lowering the cost of investing in imported

equipment and technology. These investments, in turn, will boost our productivity.

Our people and businesses have done their part. What they now need is a government that is willing to do its part, and we will.

Mr Speaker, we've already begun our work. We acted to immediately restore a fair and competitive tax system to Ontario with the introduction of Bill 2. It will

provide very much needed revenues to support services that Ontarians depend on.

We maintained a hiring freeze in the Ontario public service while assuring those who work for this great province that strengthening public services is central

to our mandate.

We raised the cap on electricity rates. It wasn't an easy thing to do, but it was the right thing to do. The subsidized rates will have cost close to $1

billion by the end of the fiscal year.

We're improving transparency and accountability within the public sector. Our proposed changes to the Audit Act will allow --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.

Our proposed changes to the Audit Act would allow value-for-money audits of hospitals, school boards, long-term-care facilities, colleges and universities,

Hydro One, and Ontario Power Generation. In the wake of the Epp report, we will ensure that the new leadership of Ontario Power Generation displays the openness and good governance that Ontarians

have a right to expect.

We provided $112 million in support of children who are struggling with their schoolwork.

We have increased the minimum wage to $7.15 an hour effective February 1, the first increase in almost nine years.

We've moved to lower auto insurance rates and protect Ontario consumers.

We are, sir, fulfilling our commitments to the people of Ontario, and we will continue to do so.

I have described the financial challenges and the actions we have taken so far.

But there is much more to do, and we have a work plan to guide us through that work. Our plan consists of four major components: an unprecedented consultation

with the people of Ontario, a broadly mandated period of restraint, a commitment to build on the new spirit of co-operation among all levels of government, and the redesign of many government

services.

Let me begin with consultation. Our consultation with Ontarians is going to be comprehensive, intensive and inclusive. Only with their help can we ensure that

the tough choices we face turn into the wise decisions that must be made. We believe that front-line workers in the public sector are in a unique position to know what works and what doesn't, both

in their jobs and within their sectors as a whole. We want to hear from them. We know that business people bring an invaluable perspective to the table, from how to grow our economy to how to serve

consumers. We want to hear from them. We want to hear from all Ontarians, from every walk of life, from every corner of the province, for they are the people that we are privileged to serve. On the

Web and through citizens' juries and town halls, people will have their say about their services and the hard-earned dollars they want invested in those services.

The second element of our work is restraint. Restraint must be our watchword as we begin to redesign government. We're already paying more than $10 billion a

year in interest on our debt. That's more than we're spending in operating funding for our primary and secondary schools. So we're asking our partners in health care, in education and in the rest

of the broader public sector to temper their requests for more. We're asking them to bring forward new ideas to ensure the long-term sustainability of public services that they work so hard to

provide. I want to stress that this fiscal challenge is a threat to the services we're providing now, let alone to the improvements that we all want. But I also want to assure all Ontarians that

while the fiscal challenge we face may change our timetable, it has not altered one iota our commitment to improve these public services.

The third element of our work plan is building on greater co-operation among all levels of government in Canada. From the recent Grey Cup summit to the

creation of the Council of the Federation, there are positive signs that governments across the country are listening to each other and are ready to work together. We've already reached new and

constructive agreements with the federal government on SARS relief, highway construction and agriculture. The recent joint greater Toronto area caucus meeting was another watershed where

provincial, federal and municipal elected officials came together to talk about transit and affordable housing, the most urgent needs of Canada's largest urban area. The government will explore

service integration opportunities with the federal and municipal governments in order to enhance service quality and delivery to citizens. Premier McGuinty will soon appoint John Milloy, his

parliamentary assistant for intergovernmental affairs, to a special mandate to foster more constructive relationships between governments, and in particular with the federal government. We believe

that governments work best when they work together.

The fourth element in our work plan is redesigning government. We must develop new ways to deliver better quality public services. This is more than a question

of additional investment. More investment in public services is necessary, but that's not enough. We have to change the way governments work for people. In education, for example, we need stronger

achievement in numeracy and literacy. We need to reduce health care waiting times. We need to improve our air quality. Money alone will not guarantee these outcomes; we need to change the system

itself. We must be relentless in the pursuit of the best ideas, models and practices from around the world for delivering and sustaining high-quality public services.

Let me conclude by telling this House why all of this is so important. The deficit we have inherited threatens all that we want for Ontarians. Without a strong

fiscal foundation, we cannot build a stronger Ontario. We will do what we must do, while always remembering that the people of Ontario didn't send us here to simply crunch numbers and defeat

deficits. They sent us here with a greater mission: to strengthen our schools and our health care system, our cities and towns, the communities in which we build our businesses, celebrate our

friendships and raise our families.

Les Ontariens et Ontariennes savent, et nous aussi, que la responsabilité financière est un moyen de parvenir à nos fins, c'est-à-dire de

renforcer l'économie, bien entendu, mais avant tout d'assurer une bonne qualité de vie.

Together, we will get the numbers right. We will repair this balance sheet.

Nous redresserons le bilan de la province.

We will strengthen our financial position and we will redesign government so that we can deliver the finest education, the best health care, the cleanest

environment and the strongest communities so that we can, as the Premier has said, make Ontario the envy of the world.

The Speaker: Order. Responses?

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): We can now readily see why the government didn't need a lock-up to produce this statement. The

reality is, to the Minister of Finance, you are creating a crisis in the finances of this province. You make John Snobelen look like a piker. This is absolutely ridiculous. What have you been doing

for two months?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could we give the leader of the official opposition a chance to respond?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is not fair. You are not being objective and fair with the

opposition.

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

back on the clock for the Leader of the Opposition.

The Speaker: Do I have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Eves: It raises the question of what the government has been doing for two months. You said, Mr Minister of Finance, after Mr Peters

introduced his report, that you would be taking action upon it immediately. It would appear, quite frankly, that Paul Martin, the Prime Minister, has done more in 60 hours of being in government

than you've done in 60 days of being in government in the province of Ontario.

There are a few problems with the Minister of Finance's numbers. Number one, he doesn't take into account the revenue projections that were in the very own

public accounts of the Ministry of Finance that were adopted by the acting Provincial Auditor in this province and used by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation -- which were not available, quite

frankly, to Mr Peters, with all due respect, when he did his report. That would account for an additional $3 billion in this fiscal year in revenue.

It also doesn't take into account his own party's campaign commitment that they could find $2 billion in savings in an instant to eliminate up to $2 billion

worth of debt. That leaves us with a projected debt, according to Mr Williamson, of no more than $600 million in this fiscal year. If you take into account the $771 million that Mr Manley has given

to you, which even Mr Williamson has spread over three years -- it's not on the PSAB accounting basis. You know the basic public accounting principles that every government in this country follows,

and that is that you take into account the year in which the decision is made. Even Mr Manley agrees with that.

We talk about the amount that revenue has gone up. Revenue, in the province of Ontario, has gone up over $17 billion on an annualized basis in the last eight

years in this province. You don't mention that. There's a reason for that, and the reason is very simple. Because people have been allowed to keep more of their own money, there are more than

1,150,000 more people working in the province today than were working eight years ago. They're paying taxes. They're buying goods, commodities and services, and hence, increased revenue.

The Minister of Finance is complaining about how much the government is spending. I presume that he's aware that 48% of the government's operational budget

this year is being spent on health care. Are you suggesting that we take money away from them? About 25% is being spent on education. Are you suggesting that we take money away from them? Where

wouldn't you spend that $10 billion that you're criticizing? Are you going to take it away from hospitals, schools, universities, community colleges? Where are you going to take it away from?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. When the minister was making his statement, I got a lot of co-operation from this side. I'm getting a lot of heckling on

this side and I'm unable to hear the leader of the official opposition make his presentation.

Mr Eves: The government is going down a very risky road indeed when it starts to look at things like the capital expenditures of OPG and

including the cost in that and operational funding. When it goes down the road of taking into account accumulated hospital debt in this province over many decades -- we're not talking about this

year's deficit, with all due respect; we're talking about the accumulated hospital debt in this province, which has been public knowledge. It isn't a big secret that the government made it out to

be. It is revealed every year in the accounting statements of every single hospital in this province and always has been. So if you're going to start to include those, as well as the capital

expenditures of OPG, as well as the debt of universities, colleges and municipalities, you can get this number up as high as you want. It can be $12 billion, $14 billion, $19 billion, $29 billion a

year.

I say to you, what is that going to do to anybody's accountability in terms of managing their own affairs? What's it going to do to the credit rating of the

province? It's not proper accounting. It may be convenient political accounting, but it's not the proper road to be going down. Why don't we just get to work, roll up our sleeves and manage the

problem and solve it this year?

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A group of grade 10 students from Markville Secondary School in Markham have just

arrived. They are supervised --

The Speaker: Order. Would the member be seated, please? I have warned members before that this is not the way we do things, on a point of

order, recognizing visitors in the gallery. We're just in the middle of a response from the third party. I'm going to recognize that, and not recognize this as a point of order.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to recognize a budget formula which seems to have become the style now, certainly of the

Liberal Party in Ottawa and now of the Liberal Party in Ontario. The now Prime Minister made this budget style famous. You overestimate your expenditures. You underestimate your revenues. You say,

"Oh, surprise, we've got a deficit," and then you use, "Oh, surprise, deficit," to justify breaking all your election promises. But because you've overestimated your expenditures and underestimated

your revenues, two years down the line you suddenly move them closer together and say, "What a miracle. We've balance the budget."

This Minister of Finance and this government complain that the former government engaged in some budgetary sleight of hand. That may be true, but it is equally

true that there is some budgetary sleight of hand in this budget. What this government has done, if you look at the debt costs, at the interest on debt costs, is they've taken all the interest

costs on Hydro's stranded debt, which used to be counted separately, and they've now suddenly brought it in and, hocus-pocus, their expenditure has gone up by $3 billion.

What they haven't done at the same time is they haven't acknowledged that by now raising hydro rates from 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour to 5.5 cents a kilowatt

hour, that is going to bring in all kinds of new revenue. It's going to bring in new revenue that will enable OPG to pay its own debt servicing costs. So almost overnight they'll be able to say,

"Look at that, $3 billion has been paid down like that." All of a sudden a budget that was dressed up to look like an overwhelming deficit -- the deficit disappears.

I want to say this is quite an amazing political exercise. It now allows the Minister of Finance to go to the colleges and say, "Oh, sorry, there's no money."

It now allows them to go to the hospitals and say, "Nope, no money." It allows them to go to school boards and say, "No money." It allows them to go to cities you promised were going to get two

cents of the gas tax and say, "No money."

How is this all being done behind the curtain? By, without announcing it, bringing in the interest costs and Hydro's stranded debt and for the first time

counting it as public account debt cost, and at the same time, not giving recognition to the fact that by increasing hydro rates from 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour to 5.5 cents a kilowatt hour, that's

going to allow OPG to bring in all kinds of new revenue.

I wondered why over the last two weeks you went back and pounded away on OPG, pounded away on Ontario Power Generation. There should have been no surprise

about Ontario Power Generation's current problems. We told you last spring the rate cap would cost OPG money. We told you last spring the debacle at Pickering would cost OPG money. So there should

be no surprise at OPG's difficulties. What you've done is you've included hydro costs in your budget, but you haven't included hydro revenues, which are going to come from increasing the rates on

hydro power. That is the sleight of hand that's going to happen here.

I know the member for Beaches-East York has some more points to make.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): They went from door to door promising a new deal for our cities, a new era for our cities. They promised

to start sharing revenue with our cities. They promised two cents on the gas tax for every municipality in Ontario. They promised to start rebuilding the infrastructure of cities that are in decay,

and many of them are very much in decay in this province. They promised money for transit. They promised to stop the downloading.

All that is happening today, in today's budget statement, is that all that is going to continue and we are going to see deficits rise, not only in the province

but in all of the urban infrastructure of this province. There is nothing in this statement that offers any hope to our cities or to the people who live in them.

ROBERT STANFIELD

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent for comments from each of the parties

with respect to the passing of Robert Stanfield. Up to five minutes, please?

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent for a five-minute tribute with respect to the passing of the former leader of

the Conservative Party? Agreed.

Mr Jackson: We thought, out of courtesy, we'd let the government go first, if you'd like to.

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): On behalf of the government, and on a personal basis, I would like to pay tribute

to Robert Stanfield, who was described by many as the best Prime Minister Canada never had, and the reason was that he was a highly intelligent, very compassionate, very bright, progressive

individual who, in an era when television became increasingly important in the field of politics, was not able to communicate his message as well as I'm sure he or his party would have liked. But

behind his speaking style, behind his personal style was, as I say, a highly intelligent and compassionate individual.

When I heard the news on the radio, it was interesting -- I just listened to my colleague the Minister of Energy, and he said, "You know, when I heard that Bob

Stanfield died, I really felt bad about it," because he was a very distinguished Canadian, a very well-respected, a very loved Canadian, particularly in his native province of Nova Scotia and

amongst members of the Progressive Conservative Party. What I recalled immediately when I heard it was a speech he had made on the final day, for him, of the Progressive Conservative convention,

when they were choosing a new leader. It was an extremely compelling speech. I wish I had a copy of it today to share excerpts with members of this assembly. I remember being in a car at the time,

listening to it and not turning the station, listening with a great deal of interest to the message he had for the Progressive Conservative Party at that time, and not only for the party, although

it was primarily aimed at them, but for the nation. I'll tell you, his views were far-reaching. He knew where Canada was going. He had a love for his native Nova Scotia and for this country.

He was a highly intelligent man. When you hear a person speak slowly, sometimes you have a different impression. He said that himself. He said, "You know, when

I was in Nova Scotia, nobody complained about it. I came to Ottawa, and they wanted me to speak so quickly." And yet his message was very good for this country.

He was a man of immense loyalty to his party and to his country. He was a man of immense integrity. What was said of him in terms of being a politician should

be a compliment and should not denigrate his contribution to public life. It was said that he didn't have the thrust that you had to have in politics, that "going for the jugular" that it is said

is required in politics, because on a number of occasions when he could have taken some very drastic action against the government in power to further his own political ends, he didn't do so,

because he was very much the gentleman and very much a person who believed in the integrity of politics.

It's most unfortunate that a person with those qualities is not a person who is recognized for the kind of leadership he could have provided for this country.

It was a contrast, you will remember. I remember a photograph, that all of us remember, of Bob Stanfield stumbling when he was trying to catch a football. He fumbled the football. He had a grimace

on his face. It looked as though he was completely a person who could not handle public life, because in those days, Pierre Trudeau was coming on the scene. He was seen as a dashing, athletic,

bright new person on the scene, a charismatic person. And yet Bob Stanfield was every bit as capable an individual as any of the political leaders had been in that day. But the image did not

necessarily fit the reality in that case.

So when we have a person of that kind passing on, I think we should reflect upon his life in a way which is extremely sympathetic.

I want to choose one, because we are limited in what we can do. I want to choose what was said of him by an individual whose name is Jerome Barnum, a New York

management consultant, who said Mr Stanfield was "perhaps the world's most well-rounded chief executive, exhibiting all of the behaviour characteristics leading to excellence in management. Mr

Stanfield has the intellectual flexibility of an Adlai Stevenson, the human warmth of a John F. Kennedy and the organized preciseness of a Herbert Hoover."

All of those were Americans, but it was an American making a pronouncement about a Canadian who not only to Canada, but on an international basis, made a

wonderful contribution. Our country is better because of Robert Stanfield and his contribution to Canadians from coast to coast.

Mr Jackson: It's a great honour for me to rise on this solemn occasion to say a few words on behalf of the life of Robert Stanfield.

As my colleague from St Catharines has indicated, it has been oft times stated that Bob Stanfield was probably the finest Prime Minister Canada never had. He

will indeed be remembered for that, and there is much about this man's long and distinguished career that needs to be briefly annotated today.

I have not only had the privilege of supporting Bob Stanfield, but I had the privilege of working for Bob Stanfield. Like my colleague from St Catharines, we

began our political involvement as very, very young teenagers, and I was there when Bob Stanfield produced the glass of milk and the banana on television. My colleague opposite will remember that,

not to be outdone, a very close friend of his, the late Mr Greene, produced an apple and orange juice for national television in the hopes that he could emulate Bob's success on television.

As has been stated, it was a momentary success, because with the flood that was produced with Trudeaumania, poor Bob's intellect and compassion were

overshadowed by the excitement that the media had engaged in having a truly media-savvy leader of a political party in Pierre Trudeau. That juxtaposing of two styles and two approaches to politics

seemed to have not only haunted Bob Stanfield all of his life, but it also underscored the depth and quality of this man.

There is something that I didn't find when I was reading today, but it's a piece of his personal history that I'm aware of that many people are not. Bob

Stanfield was the first and only non-American to be the editor of the Harvard Law Review. This was a distinguished -- he was very modest about it, but the Americans were so overwhelmed by the man's

capacity and his intellect and his legal mind that he was awarded this great honour, which has not been replicated since. I think that's a tribute to our nation that we produce the Ramsay Clarks

and the Bob Stanfields of the world by whom the Americans are continually impressed.

I may be one of the few people who can say that in 1968, I had a Bob Stanfield sign for my parents' lawn and I refused to come into the house until they let me

put it up. That was the only lawn sign for Bob Stanfield on our street at the time, but I will say this: I remember occasion after occasion when my neighbours who had Trudeau signs would come up to

me and say, "You know, Cam, we wish we had taken the sign when you knocked on our door," because, as we know, in 1974, Bob spoke about wage and price controls and he was mocked by Trudeau, and

Trudeau then came in and implemented them. Bob was and will be remembered as someone who said it as it would be. He was very straightforward with the public in these matters.

Again, I can say, I remember -- mind you, at the time, I was working for him on the national executive -- he phoned me up. He wanted to visit Burlington and he

asked me if I would introduce him to my student council during an assembly. It was a great honour for me as a young high school student. That was the kind of detail that Bob Stanfield felt about

people.

I will remember an episode -- I'm sure every member of this House will -- when Bob was tested. It was quite common for the Liberals of the day, whenever their

popularity got low, to pick one or two subjects off the shelf and throw them out there on to the table for the media to play with. One of those, of course, was official bilingualism and the Leonard

Jones affair. That was a test for Bob Stanfield. It put him at odds with a large number of people at that time in our party. Yet Bob had a very deep conviction about what it meant to be a Canadian

and how inclusive his political party was going to be under his leadership. He paid a political price for that, but he was able to be at peace with himself his whole life that he never let his

country down as a true Canadian.

Ladies and gentlemen and members of the House, we all share in the loss of this great Canadian. Our condolences and our hearts go out to his four children, and

to his wife, Anne, who was from Toronto, and many of us know her. This is a difficult time for Nova Scotians as well, who are mourning a great leader and a great Nova Scotian.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On behalf of New Democrats, I want to extend our condolences to the Stanfield family and also to the

extended family, all of those many people who came into contact with Mr Stanfield over his many years in politics.

There are few Canadians who can actually be attributed to as being one of those Canadians who served in politics who can be best remembered as a person like

Robert Stanfield. We think of certain members of the opposition as leaders, we think of certain Prime Ministers at the federal level and the provincial level, who were able to rise to the occasion,

who at a time in their political career decided to run for office to become leaders of their party and, once there, served with distinction and really carved a special place for themselves in our

hearts and minds, no matter what side of the issue you happened to find yourself on.

I remember in the 1970s -- I don't remember exactly which election, but in the mid or early 1970s -- there was a campaign on when we were in the midst of a

very tough economic situation in Canada, with inflation running out of control. Mr Stanfield, if we all remember well, was the one who put forward the whole idea of wage and price controls. In that

whole campaign, as I remember it, as a young person first being involved in politics, that was the issue we were out campaigning on. I, as a New Democrat for Mr Tommy Douglas, and others in this

House for various leaders of parties campaigned against the very idea of wage and price controls.

The point I want to make this: It took a lot of guts for a Canadian leader of a party such as the Tories, who were contending for government, to say to

Canadians, "We need to deal with some tough medicine and we've got to deal with that now or else our economy is not going to flourish the way it needs to." Mr Stanfield, with a lot of courage, went

through that whole campaign on the issue of wage and prices controls and, if you remember, on the issue of raising the gas tax we pay for our cars. I remember well the debate on CBC Radio -- oh,

the CBC radio of the past -- with Monsieur Stanfield and Monsieur Caouette. It was quite a debate. I remember at the time that his idea was rejected.

Interestingly enough, the idea had its day because even though the Liberals at the time, under Mr Trudeau, campaigned in opposition to wage and price controls,

the Liberals, as they are, adopted the idea of wage and price controls, including the gas tax, and called it their own, which was an idea Mr Stanfield had put forward.

It's not a partisan comment. I'm just saying that every now and then in politics people bring forward ideas and those ideas are adopted by others, and I think

to a certain extent that can attest to the thoughtfulness and creativity of Mr Stanfield.

I also want to say that Mr Stanfield suffered, as some of us in politics and as leaders suffer, in that he really had a bit of a difficult time dealing with

the media. I remember a number of occasions where he didn't have his best day in pictures that were taken of him, at football games -- Mr Bradley earlier talked about the picture of him stumbling

with the football, but many people remember the picture of the banana. A picture had been taken of Mr Stanfield while eating a banana at a football game, and the connotation was that he wasn't up

to the job.

It was quite unfortunate, because even though I never voted for Mr Stanfield, I think that he, as a leader, emulated what all leaders should be able to strive

for, and that is to have the courage of your convictions; even though at times you may be in a position where you might feel as if you're pushing forward a minority view, to stick to those issues

and push them as far as you can in order to be able to have those ideas go forward and be adopted.

I know that the family is obviously going to miss him. I also want to say, as Canadians there are few people who go through politics whom we can all claim to

have known at one time. I just say that Canada was made a much better place because of the participation of Mr Stanfield in his many years in federal politics. He will not only be missed by his

family, he will not only be missed by the extended family of Nova Scotians, but by all Canadians who truly benefited from his time in federal politics and the contributions he made.

The Speaker: Of course, those comments and words of tribute on the passing of this great Canadian will be made available to the family.

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): With us today in the Speakers' gallery are the 2003-04 interns of the parliamentary internship program in

Ottawa. They are Simon Bailey, Shantona Chaudhury, Clare Demerse, Jeremy Geddert, Andrew MacDonald, Chi Nguyen, Cloë Rowbotham, David Sandomierski, Adam Waiser and Eli Walker. Would all

members join me in welcoming our interns.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Premier, you were quoted on your way into cabinet this morning, when asked by one Graham

Richardson, "Is cancelling a tax credit a tax hike -- yes or no?" and you responded by saying, "I'm going to be doing that this afternoon." Could you now tell us whether cancelling a tax credit is

a tax hike or not?

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

What we're conveying to the public today by means of this economic statement is that while we find ourselves in difficult economic circumstances, we have done

three things which I think give expression to very strong leadership. First, we're giving people the straight goods. We're telling them exactly about the situation as we find it. Second, we have

taken immediate steps to address the mess left to us by the previous government, and I fully expect we'll have the support with respect to Bill 2, which will be coming up shortly in this House.

Finally, we insist on moving forward together with Ontarians. We're going to enlist them in the cause to address this deficit, to redesign government and to restore faith in much better-quality

public services.

Mr Eves: I don't believe we received an answer as to whether the Premier now considers cancelling a tax credit to be a tax hike or not.

I also understand that you are now not delivering on your gasoline tax commitment to public transit. Will you stand in your place and admit there was no way

you could deliver on that commitment in the first place?

Hon Mr McGuinty: We look forward to delivering on that commitment.

As I said in a scrum earlier today, I would love today, in the spirit of the season, to be able to run around the province and hand out cheques, but that would

be irresponsible. We believe we have to bring a responsible approach to the financial disaster that was left to the people of Ontario by the previous government. We look forward to working with our

communities. We look forward to putting them on a sustainable footing.

I had yet another very good meeting with another representative of a city yesterday: I met with the mayor of Hamilton. I will continue to meet with mayors

across the province. We will work together to improve their lot as we improve our lot.

Mr Eves: Speaking about a responsible approach, I say to the Premier, in the Minister of Finance's statement this afternoon he talks about

your work plan, and he talks about going around and putting in this year's fiscal deficit of the province the accumulated debt of hospitals and, I presume, other public institutions in the province

for decades.

I believe I heard the Minister of Finance say in his statement today that the Provincial Auditor thought this was the right thing to do. How come the

Provincial Auditor has not done that in every single set of public accounts that he has introduced in the province's history?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I say again, notwithstanding what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, I don't believe ordinary Ontarians understand that

we have an accumulated deficit in our hospitals to the tune of some $1 billion. I don't think they know that. We feel a responsibility to share that with them. We feel a responsibility to tackle

that and to tackle it head-on.

They may not feel the people of Ontario can cope with that kind of information. We believe the people of Ontario are smart and resourceful. We intend to call

upon the best they have to offer, and we intend to work together to tackle this deficit and improve their public services.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, this type of fiscal gymnastics is an embarrassment to

you and it's an embarrassment to your government. You've set aside the professionalism that was known around North America as the hallmark of the Ontario Ministry of Finance. You had your spin

doctors take over the ministry. Let's be very clear. This document was not written by you. It was written by your spin doctors, your negative campaigners, people like Warren Kinsella. Can you name

me one single person who is neither employed by the Liberal Party nor has a Liberal membership card who would honestly say you're making an honest effort to even try and balance the budget this

year? Can you name me one single person?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): It's clear to me that my friend from Nepean-Carleton hasn't had the benefit of reviewing the material

and didn't give us the courtesy of listening to the speech. The work in that speech and the numbers we presented with it are the result of the work of officials in the Ministry of Finance who have

been working with this problem for years and years. The good news, and they should be celebrating it, is that for the first time in a long time we are casting back the curtains and letting the full

light of day shine on the real circumstances this province finds itself in. I'll tell you, sir, that's the only way we can get on with the very tough job of building a strong financial foundation

and, in doing so, repairing public services.

Mr Baird: I do underline the fact that you couldn't stand in your place and name a single person who believes you're making an honest effort

to balance the budget, and I think that's quite telling.

You promised to balance the budget, you promised not to raise taxes and you and your government have broken that promise. Page 60 of your report is perhaps the

most outrageous. Major changes from the Peters report: $300 million of SARS costs, which was booked by cabinet in July from the contingency fund, and just to make the former government look bad,

you put it again. Again, in this budget, just to get to the $5.6-billion deficit, you've established yet another contingency fund. That's in addition to the $1 billion you set aside as your Liberal

economic plan. That's in addition to the $2 billion you set aside to help balance the budget this year. You've gone further. You've set up a $600-million slush fund.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question.

Mr Baird: When are you going to stop vilifying the former government, go to work and at least make an honest attempt to balance the budget in

Ontario this year, just as you promised to do?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I don't need to spend any time vilifying the former government. Your record stands as your record, and that record was

considered and rejected on October 2.

Within days of being sworn in, we introduced a bill, Bill 2, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, to start to repair some of the revenue damage. My friend from

Nepean-Carleton has not had the courtesy to stand up and vote for that bill and say it's a good idea; it is. We've started our work. We're going to continue our work. We're going to get this

province on a strong financial footing.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): To the Minister of Finance: I have a note here. It's from Santa Claus. He's presenting you with a lump of coal

for the work you've just presented.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will you allow the member to ask his question, please.

Mr Klees: From Santa Claus to the Minister of Finance: "You'll be getting a lump of coal for the work you've just done."

Can the Minister of Finance tell us, now that he has this economic statement out, whether he has in fact given instructions to his ministers to now go to work

and bring in, by the end of this fiscal year, a balanced budget? Can he tell me if he at least has asked them to make an effort to do that?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I look forward, sir, to the lump of coal. I thought perhaps my friend from Oak Ridges was going to send one over. I get the

same questions from my friend from Oak Ridges every day about what I have told my colleague ministers. Every day I give the same answer: I do not discuss in this Parliament or publicly the

discussions that my colleagues and I have in cabinet. I simply say that we have now taken a very important step with this economic statement. We've set out the starting point. We've set out a work

plan. We are determined to get this province back to a sound and strong balance sheet.

If my friend wants to send over a lump of coal to help in that regard, I'd be delighted to accept it.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Before the election, your then finance critic referred to the risk of

a $5-billion deficit. In August, Mr Kwinter and other of your members referred to the risk of a $5-billion deficit. You knew there was a deficit. Despite your knowledge of that, you made a promise

to cities that they were going to get two cents a litre of the gas tax. You said, "We will give two cents per litre of the gasoline tax to municipalities for public transit." Now you and your

government pretend you're surprised that there's a $5-billion deficit, and you use your surprise to say, "Oh, I guess we can't keep our commitment to the municipalities." You knew about the risk of

a $5-billion deficit when you made the promise. What's changed?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm pleased to receive a question from the leader of the NDP. Let me say

that we look forward to delivering on that promise, as on many other of our promises. We've already delivered on so many of them within a short period of some 55 days.

Let me put it in a different light. I am not going to do what the NDP did when they formed the government. I'm not going to try to spend my way out of this

problem. We're going to bring a responsible approach to dealing with the government's finances. We're going to sit down with our municipal partners and work together. We're bringing something to

the table that has been lacking for eight and a half years, and that is goodwill. We're not going to pretend that we can sprinkle the province with gifts. We're not going to do that. The fact of

the matter is, we've been saddled, all of us, with a $5.6-billion deficit. It's time for the members opposite to get real. We have a serious matter before us. We're going to treat it seriously.

We're going to sit down with our municipal partners, and we're going to work out a plan to put them on a sustainable footing.

Mr Hampton: You knew there was a $5-billion risk before the election. That didn't stop you from sprinkling all kinds of goodies. That didn't

stop you from going to municipalities and saying, "Public transit can't wait. Public transit is too important to getting rid of gridlock. It's too important to improving the quality of our air."

Now, all we've had confirmed is, yes, there's a $5-billion deficit, the same $5 billion you referred to before the election. But suddenly public transit can wait. Suddenly it's not important any

more. Tell us, what's changed? Your finance critic knew there was a deficit; the Fraser Institute knew there was a $5-billion deficit. What's changed, or is it just that you never intended to keep

those promises in the first place?

Hon Mr McGuinty: What's changed is that there's a responsible government on the job. We have a $5.6-billion deficit. We're not going to

pretend it doesn't exist. I again say to the leader of the NDP that we're not going to bring the approach in government that he brought as part of his government. We're not going to try to spend

our way out of a deficit. I want to remind the members that this former government quadrupled the deficit to over $12 billion. They doubled the accumulated debt. There was an average of 1,000

people joining the ranks of the unemployed each and every week over the five years that they, the NDP, were in power. We do not want to revisit those dark and desperate times. We're going to take

the tough decisions. We're going to deal with this deficit in a responsible way.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

Mr Hampton: I swear I heard Ernie Eves give that same speech here in the Legislature eight years ago. I think, Ernie, you should claim

copyright here, because it's the same speech the Conservatives used to give. Premier, what you're doing is this: You're defending all the tax cuts the Conservatives put in place. You're telling

people that it's more important for your government to keep all those tax cuts that the Conservatives put in place that we know are not sustainable. Before the election, you were singing a

different tune. Before the election, you said that you were going to hire 8,000 nurses. You said that health care can't wait. Now all of a sudden it seems to be that health care can wait because

it's more important to recite Ernie Eves's speeches. Can you tell me how this magical change happened, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I think one of the most shocking changes in this Legislature has been the fact that the NDP now stands in support of public

funding for private schools. I think that's the most shocking change that we've experienced in this Legislature. I want to remind them. They voted against our Bill 2, and I want to give the members

opposite and the public at large another opportunity to understand exactly the aggressive steps that we have taken. With respect to Bill 2, we have rolled back the latest portion of the tax

giveaway to large corporations. We've eliminated the seniors' education property tax credit. We are trying to eliminate the tax giveaway to private schools. We do that and many other things inside

Bill 2, and I ask the member opposite to lend us his support so that we can begin to crack down on this deficit.

Mr Hampton: The Premier wants people to pat him on the back for not implementing tax cuts that the Conservatives were going to implement.

Meanwhile, you keep in place 90% of the unsustainable tax cuts that the Conservatives already put in place. You know and I know that that is what is putting health care in a desperate situation.

That is what is putting education in a desperate situation. That's why you say you can't come up with the money for protecting the environment. I'm simply saying to you, Premier, that before the

election you said health care was too important. You said health care couldn't wait. You said educating our children couldn't wait. Why is it that now, after the election, you sound so much like

Ernie Eves?

Hon Mr McGuinty: You know, some things just never change. The NDP believe that we should either -- in fact they believe both. They believe

that we should be trying to spend our way out of this $5.6-billion deficit and/or that we should try to tax our way out of this $5.6-billion deficit. I just don't believe that Ontario families

should have to pay the price for the irresponsibility shown to us by the former Tory government. I'm not prepared to encumber them with further taxes.

What I can say is that we are treating this matter very seriously. There is a $5.6-billion deficit that is now saddling Ontario families as a result of the

irresponsible approach brought by the Tories. I can tell you this, Speaker: We look forward to addressing this challenge. We look forward to redesigning government. We look forward to improving

public services, and I'm talking about better schools for our children, better health care for all our families, cleaner air, safer drinking water and stronger communities. That's what we stand

for.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is to the Minister of Finance. With great fanfare last week, your government introduced

legislation that said you were going to be holier than thou and you would not engage in partisan political advertising with taxpayers' dollars. Today you've had your spin doctors work with

professional public servants at the Ministry of Finance, and you've conscripted them into partisan activities.

You recently released this red, taxpayer-funded, taxpayer-supported CD to the press gallery -- I know the Sergeant at Arms will want to look at it and take it

as exhibit A. You've used partisan advertising to spoon-feed the press gallery, using professional public servants.

I want you to stand in your place and tell us how you can justify this outrageous partisan activity --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question.

Mr Baird: -- where you are seeking to vilify the former government, and tell us how much money was spent on the production and distribution of

this partisan piece.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I can't believe the member from Nepean-Carleton. I can't believe that.

Interjection: It was $400 million.

The Speaker: I'm willing to allow them to ask you questions, because it seems I keep getting interruptions from this side. Please.

The Minister of Finance.

Hon Mr Sorbara: He was part of a government that spent $400 million on those glossy things that used to come in the mail with the Premier's

picture and the minister's picture and a little statement about how wonderful education was in Ontario as school budgets were being cut, as health care was being cut, as water inspectors were being

fired. And now he has the audacity to suggest that CD-ROM technology -- have him look in the book. There's no picture. There's nothing. There's my name on the bottom of the document, and I stand by

it. For him to suggest that a CD-ROM communicating this material is somehow partisan just goes to show how deeply rooted they were in all that muck.

Mr Baird: The minister may be interested to know that the CD-ROM doesn't contain information on the financial statement he presented in the

House. What it does seek to do is use taxpayer dollars in a partisan way to conscript the public service into your political dirty tricks and to vilify the former government. That's what the CD

does. Had that CD and that electronic advertisement been brought in by the previous government, you and your party would have stood and cried bloody murder.

Paul Martin, in just four days in office, has done more to bring in line the budgetary situation in Ottawa than you've done in more than nine weeks. Would you

stand in your place and tell us you will stop these negative ads, that you will stop this negative conscription of the public service into demonizing the former government? Will you do that,

Minister?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Somebody send him over a Valium.

Let's be serious about this for a minute. The Ontario public service, including the thousands of officials who work in the Ministry of Finance, have been

slandered by the remarks of my friend, and I invite him to withdraw those remarks. They served you professionally, and they serve us professionally.

There's only one thing that's negative. It's the negative number. It's the deficit number that party left when they left government. That's what we are going

to fix, and that was the subject of my statement today.

Mr Baird: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under the standing orders, I register my disapproval of the response and ask for a late show. But I

haven't got a response from this minister in more than four weeks.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm sure you'll supply us with the necessary paperwork for that late show.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is to the Minister of Health. There are currently over 60

alternate-level-of-care patients at Thunder Bay Regional Hospital, many of whom should be receiving care in long-term-care facilities. As a result of this, patients looking for acute care are often

being shuffled around the health care system, as beds that would be regularly meant for acute care are being used for long-term-care patients who cannot be accommodated anywhere else. I know you'd

agree that this is wrong. Not only is it bad for the patients getting turned away due to a lack of available beds, but it's also distinctly unfair to those who should be in long-term-care

facilities who require other levels of care, such as rehabilitation or home care.

This situation will only get worse when Thunder Bay Regional opens its new hospital with even fewer acute care beds available. My constituents are looking for

an immediate solution to this problem. My question to you is, what are your plans to improve patient care in our community, and when can we expect to see some action?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The issue that the member from Thunder Bay raises is an important one all

around our province. We're suffering particular challenges at the moment in the Thunder Bay community, where a shortage of long-term-care beds is meaning that there are a lot of

alternate-level-of-care patients who are blocking beds in acute care settings, which is causing a series of concerns and havoc around surgeries and the like.

My ministry is working aggressively on a plan that will have short-, medium- and long-term solutions to address the challenges in Thunder Bay and other

communities in the north and around our province. I expect to be in a position shortly to offer some hope to the community of Thunder Bay, again both on a short-term and a long-term basis.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary.

Mr Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): It's important to remember that this is just an interim solution to a much bigger and far-reaching

problem. There's no question that more beds are helpful, but moving people from one place to another does not guarantee them the care they need. What we really need in the Thunder Bay district is a

long-term plan to deal with this issue. How do we intend to address this in the longer term?

Hon Mr Smitherman: To the other member from Thunder Bay, I acknowledged in my first response that we've got a challenge here which is both

short-term and long-term in nature. One of the opportunities that we have, and that I've asked my deputy to pursue on a hurry-up basis, is to find beds that might be available in some areas of the

province that are overserviced, with a look toward distributing those to the areas and regions in our province which are suffering from the most acute problems.

I offer to the members from Thunder Bay my word that I'll be working with them to address this problem and that they should expect to see action from the

government on this matter in the very short term, recognizing, of course, that with the opening of the new hospital in Thunder Bay in February, which is the consolidation of two hospitals, we'll

have even fewer beds in Thunder Bay, making the need to deal with this quickly even more urgent. It will get the kind of urgent attention that it deserves.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Health. Your finance minister today and your Premier have both

indicated how important it is for you to provide the straight goods. I would say to you, Minister, you have not provided the straight goods when it comes to Bill 8. You introduced the bill with a

headline on a news release that said, "McGuinty government moves to outlaw two-tier health care in Ontario. New bill would stop creeping privatization of health care."

Applause.

Mrs Witmer: You can applaud all you want, because that convinces me that just like the minister, you have no idea what is contained within

this bill.

What you failed to tell the people and how you failed to deliver the straight goods is the fact that this Bill 8 made fundamental changes to the privacy rights

of patients. It put you above the law. It gave you unfettered access to privacy information. Will you acknowledge today that the bill was poorly drafted? It gave you an unprecedented right to

collect, use and disclose the personal information of any patient in this province, and you've acknowledged that today by introducing another privacy bill.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the honourable member. The

fact of the matter is that a bill like this is necessary for the fear that a government like yours should ever be the government in Ontario again. This is a bill that is designed to protect and

respect the principles that Ontarians believe in, which is public health care.

On the matter of privacy, today I introduced a piece of privacy legislation, long overdue because you didn't get it done; let's face that fact. I'm very

pleased to report to that member and to all members of the House that the piece of health privacy legislation that I introduced today, and that I recommend to them for their consideration and for

their input, states in unequivocal terms that the supremacy of the law with respect to privacy of information is to be found in that bill. Furthermore, Madame member --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Smitherman: It was a long time.

Furthermore, I give you this undertaking. It's one I've delivered to you personally. It is that with respect to both these pieces of legislation, I've asked

very personally for your input. I'm awaiting it, and I will endeavour to work with you to improve these bills in ways that you find satisfactory as well.

Mrs Witmer: The acknowledgement of the minister today is an admission that he recognized that Bill 8 was poorly drafted, that it did

constitute fundamental breaches of privacy rights and that it should be withdrawn. I'm glad you've done the right thing, but I would say to you now, will you commit to immediately withdrawing the

privacy provisions within Bill 8, now that you've acknowledged that you didn't understand what was in that bill?

Hon Mr Smitherman: The member tries a little hard to impugn what I just said in my earlier answer. I made no such acknowledgement that you

speak of. What I very clearly said, and what I'll repeat even more slowly this time for your benefit, is that of the two pieces of legislation, the privacy legislation that I introduced today has

supremacy, and unlike your Bill 159, which starts a very long

section under the title "Disclosure to Minister," you'll find no such references in the pieces of legislation that are before the

House. So the piece of legislation that I introduced today clearly sends the message to Ontarians that the privacy of their personal health information is of paramountcy to this government. We

offer further protection to them by making sure that the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who works for this Legislature and its members and the people of Ontario, will play the role of making

sure that Ontarians have confidence that their health privacy is being protected. That's our guarantee.

YOUNG WORKERS' SAFETY

Mr David Zimmer (Willowdale): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Too many younger workers in Ontario are injured or killed in the

workplace. Workers under the age of 25 are at the highest risk of workplace injury. In one year alone, 14 young workers were killed, 12 of them at small employers with less than 20 employees. In

that same year, 254 young workers had a body part torn or cut off. This tragedy needs special attention. What action is your ministry taking to protect younger workers from injury or death at the

workplace?

Hon Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): I'd like to thank the member for Willowdale for his question and for his concern about young

worker safety. It's too bad some of the members opposite aren't as concerned, because it's a matter of great concern to this government.

I'd like to tell the honourable member of one of the initiatives we're taking. Young workers are particularly vulnerable to workplace accidents because of

their inexperience and their lack of training. The passport to safety program is an initiative designed to address the vulnerability of young workers. What it is, is a program designed to give

young workers basic awareness in health and safety issues, basic training, so that they will be more amenable to the job-specific workplace training provided by their employers. This will help to

address the vulnerability of those workers to workplace accidents.

Mr Zimmer: Minister, too many people starting out in a workplace, particularly younger workers, just don't know their rights. They don't know

that they can in fact refuse a job if the site is unsafe. They don't know that they have a right to know what hazards are at the work site. They don't know that they have a right to participate in

worker safety programs.

The passport to safety program will help younger people to know their rights and obligations at the earliest time on the job site, but when will this program

be available? When will the program be up and running?

Hon Mr Bentley: Once again, I thank the member for his question. It's an excellent question and a timely one, because this past summer, I am

pleased to announce, the Ministry of Labour, together with the Ministry of Natural Resources and WSIB, had all summer students and all those under 25 years of age take the passport to safety

certification program.

The certification they received over the past summer will stand them in good stead throughout their working lives. But it doesn't end there. Because of the

success of the program, because of the agreement of all those involved on how valuable it is, that program is now being made available with their other partners throughout the country so that we

can make sure, in short order, that all young workers receive this very important training. This government is delighted to participate in this basic awareness protection for young workers.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is for the Minister of Education. During the election campaign, Dalton McGuinty, the now

Premier, promised millions in funding to keep small schools open even though you all knew there was a $5-billion deficit -- pardon, risk, as some of you call it. Mr McGuinty at the time said, "We

will put our money where our mouth is."

Last week, Minister, you sent a letter asking school boards not to close schools. So I say to you, I see your mouth moving, but I don't see the money flowing.

Minister, how can school boards keep schools open if you're not giving them any money?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): The House has marvelled today at the closeness of the opposition parties on fiscal situations, and

now to see today the member opposite stand up and talk as if he's against keeping rural schools open, as if he somehow doesn't want to see other schools that have value be looked after -- it's

funny to see that he wouldn't be in favour of that fundamental policy. He, as a knowledgeable person in this field, realizes that there are no implications for boards this year. There are no

financial implications for not closing schools in the next fiscal year.

He might know as well that we've been out there now, in four out of five sessions, speaking individually and as a group with all the trustees in the province.

I can tell you, they are being very positive. They know that we've changed the channel here, that education is not going to be about square footage and buildings, but it's actually going to be, for

once, about how well students are doing. I can assure you that this government sees its obligations in response to education as its number one priority, as we said in the throne speech. We invite

the member opposite to get behind the mission of this government to see students improve in schools all across the province.

Mr Marchese: I'll tell the minister that Marchese and New Democrats like the idea of keeping small schools open. We do. We've got a problem,

though, and he has a bigger problem. Without money, schools such as Newington Public School in Cornwall, which, as their Web site says, is "the heart of our community," will close. In fact, the

board said two days ago that they will. Your promise not to close schools is grossly deceptive. Parents actually believe you won't close schools when boards know they can't keep them open without

money.

My question to you, Minister, is this: Give them the money or take back your empty promise.

Hon Mr Kennedy: Empty? But when I hear "empty," it's rhetoric, because all across this province, the Halton school board, the school board in

Thunder Bay and Superior, the school board in Greater Essex have decided not to close down schools, and they've done that because we took an initiative in the interest of students, not standing up

and playing politics.

To this member opposite, we found $112 million for the neediest students in this province, and all I've heard from the member opposite and the party opposite

is non-support for that. They didn't support cancelling the private school tax credit, which is one of the resources that, if this Legislature finally agrees, will be available to make some of

these things happen. Put your focus, I would say to the member opposite, on the needs of students. Stop grandstanding around things. We'll keep good schools open in this province, but they won't

happen any easier with the way you're addressing your responsibilities. I look forward to working with you.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): My question is to the Premier. Premier, prior to the election, you told CFRB about hydro rate relief. You

said, "We have to maintain rate relief for consumers. I have had the terrible responsibility to raise horror stories in the Legislature -- people who have been put in a desperate position because

they simply can't afford to pay their hydro. So we've got to maintain rate relief for our ratepayers."

Premier, I wish to bring to your attention the situation of a single parent and their son in Alliston who had their hydro cut off 12 days ago. The first six

days of that period, on most evenings the temperature dropped to minus 16 degrees. Your office was called by local church leaders 15 times and four e-mails were sent, with no response. If you truly

and honestly meant what you said on CFRB before the election, will you approve a no-winter-disconnect amendment in order to protect low-income citizens in Ontario this winter?

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

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I will ask the member in this particular instance to forward it to me. I have

not been made aware of that circumstance. You raised another case in the House several days ago. I wrote you a letter and asked you to provide me with the details. I haven't checked as of today,

but we still haven't received the details from the case.

This government is committed to ensuring that nobody is adversely affected by the decisions of the previous government that undermined the viability of our

electricity system, and we are moving forward in a positive way to ensure that these problems don't happen again in the future.

Mr Jackson: Sir, you're undermining the life chances of certain Ontarians with your comment. If you don't know about it, your staff certainly

do, because they're quoted in the paper. Now Premier, I asked you this question, and I asked you because it's you who broke your word to the people of Ontario. It is the fact that people trusted

you that they would have protection from growing hydro rates. Poor people put their faith in you, not their Minister of Energy, because he's increasing their rates. He's giving a billion-dollar

increase to the very utilities that are cutting off the electricity of persons on welfare in this province. They didn't put their faith in the Treasurer, who has increased taxes for the low-income

groups; they put their faith in you, Premier.

Will you demonstrate today to this House and to this province that you are a man of your word, that you carried your compassion from this side of the House to

your seat as Premier, and that you will now stand in your place and promise that your government will bring in the no-winter-closure amendment that I tabled in this House last week so that

Ontarians are protected this winter? Will you do it, yes or no?

Hon Mr Duncan: In the case of Alliston, I can say to the member that Hydro One makes several attempts to contact customers before disconnect

occurs. In this type of situation a customer would have received several notices. During freezing weather, residential service interruption is phased in over a number of days. The onus is on the

customer to contact Hydro One to work out an arrangement.

That being said, coming from a government that cut welfare, didn't raise the minimum wage, didn't raise ODSP, didn't deal with the problems of those living in

poverty, that is the height of -- I can't use an unparliamentary term, but it makes no sense. You spent the last eight years hurting these people. We're fixing the mess you created. We have more

compassion in our little finger than your entire government had in eight long, painful years. Thank goodness those days are long since gone.

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

Ms Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, a report has been

released in my riding of London called Voices for Change. The report finds that, as is the trend across the province, the city of London is underutilizing the skills of immigrants.

We all know that foreign-trained professionals and skilled workers are vital to the economic prosperity of our province. To compete nationally and

internationally we need to take full advantage of the skills of all Ontarians. Is it not a gift to have individuals from around the world enter our province already equipped with most, if not all,

of the tools they need to succeed? Are we not wasting valuable human resources by not allowing foreign-trained workers to do what they are trained to do?

The Voices for Change report calls on the provincial government to demonstrate increased leadership toward removing barriers to professions and trades for

internationally educated persons.

Minister, what is our government going to do to address this issue of vital importance to my community and across the province?

Interjections.

Hon Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I want to thank the member from London North Centre for that

question. I'm not surprised our colleagues across the floor would not consider this to be an important matter. That's too bad, because we believe it is a very important matter, and I can speak from

personal experience about the demands that are placed on people aspiring to move to this beautiful country to step up to the plate in terms of what they bring to this country.

Every year, Ontario becomes home to 120,000 new immigrants, and more than 70% of these people come with a post-secondary education. So it is absolutely

critical that we should want to give them access to the professions in which they are trained. My ministry, and I want to thank my public servants, is working really hard to make that happen for

them.

Ms Matthews: Minister, there is a specific recommendation in this report to strengthen and enhance the provincial bridge training programs for

skilled immigrants. These programs assess the individual's skills, provide the skilled worker with training and Canadian workplace experience, and help qualified individuals move quickly into the

labour market without duplicating what they have already learned. Is our government willing to consider this recommendation for strengthened bridge training programs?

Hon Mrs Chambers: Thanks again to the member for London North Centre. Not only are we considering it, but we have actually moved ahead,

because we think this is an opportunity for some really early wins in terms of our ability to engage these individuals more successfully.

I can tell you that there are bridging programs on the way. I can also tell you that we are working with 38 regulatory bodies across the province and with

other organizations that are not under these kinds of regulations, because we think it's really easy to help these new immigrants bring their skills to bear to make our province of Ontario the

province it can be, the province the Premier has promised it can be, the province our government is committed to making it.

NUISANCE BEARS

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question today is for the Minister of Natural Resources. On November 10, your ministry

released the Nuisance Bear Review Committee's report. At that time, you were quoted in the Pembroke Daily Observer stating you would have an answer on this issue within two weeks.

The people in my riding would like to know if you are going to reinstate the spring bear hunt, as nuisance bears have become a major source of worry for my

constituents. Human contact with bears has increased dramatically over the last two years, and something needs to be done now. The report revealed that the review committee supports and recommends

the reinstatement of this hunt, as do I. Minister, my constituents are waiting for an answer. Will you tell them today what that answer is?

Hon David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): I really do thank the member very much for asking that question today, because 50 minutes

ago I released that the Ministry of Natural Resources is going to upload the responsibility back from municipalities to the ministry to take care of nuisance bears in Ontario.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. This kind of demonstration -- please allow the other members to ask their questions. I don't like your

taking away the time with this grandstanding applause.

Mr Yakabuski: Well, 50 minutes ago I was in this House and I didn't have any ministry staff putting out press releases. Actually, that issue

was part of my --

Interjection: Say thank you.

Mr Yakabuski: I do thank the minister, because actually part of my supplementary question was about the offloading of responsibility for

nuisance bears, and people in my riding will be happy to hear that. But what he hasn't answered is my original question, which is: Will you, as the committee recommended, reinstate the spring bear

hunt?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I'd like to thank the member, in his first question, for giving me that lob ball question from the opposition. I would say to

the member that in my statement today we are also stating that it is not our intention to reinstate the spring bear hunt.

We are moving forward with a comprehensive bear management program. This is going to include a hotline number so that police departments and citizens who feel

there is a nuisance bear problem can call that number and get a response from the Ministry of Natural Resources. There is going to be an increased bear education program for the people of Ontario.

But more important, what we're going to do in the next three months is consult with police, municipalities and other stakeholders as to how we can best help them deal with the nuisance bear problem

that is plaguing Ontario.

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): Speaker, through you to the people of Ontario, it's a privilege to ask a question of the Minister of

Transportation. With the cold weather upon us, Ontario's motorists have now to contend with snow, ice and often treacherous driving conditions. As physicians, we often see significant injuries,

many disabling. As people travel from mall to mall and from party to party, it's important that government work to make the highways as safe as possible. Minister, how is your ministry working to

reduce winter hazards faced by Ontario motorists?

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the honourable member for his important and very timely question.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): He wants to thank his staff for writing it.

Hon Mr Takhar: I could thank my staff as well.

I want to assure the members of the House and the people of Ontario that our winter maintenance standards are the highest in North America. We use the latest

technology. We have more than 1,000 snowplows and spreaders that are ready to face the winter conditions.

Mr Qaadri: Thank you, Minister, for your response. It's very reassuring to know that Ontario's winter maintenance operations are ready for

winter.

Unfortunately, the first storms of the season often catch many Ontario motorists off guard. Winter driving is often not something we think about until the

situation is upon us, and of course there are steps drivers should take to be prepared for winter before the snow starts falling. Minister, what efforts is your ministry taking to educate motorists

on how to be prepared for bad winter road conditions?

Hon Mr Takhar: The honourable member is right: We know that winter conditions can come at any time and that they can be dangerous for

travellers sometimes.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Takhar: I think the former Minister of Transportation wants to answer this question. He is always willing to do that.

Let me outline some of the measures we have taken. I think it's always important to educate the public to take proactive measures, so we have issued memos with

regard to safe winter driving, emergency survival kits and actions to take if stranded. We also have partnered with McDonald's to distribute safe winter driving tips. We will also encourage the

people to use winter driving brochures and our Web site. In addition, I would like to encourage all Ontario drivers to drive safely during these holidays.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Premier. Your Treasurer implied today that you want people to temper their requests

for more, but there are thousands and thousands of Ontarians who have every right to ask for, and indeed expect, more. In 1995, families on social assistance had their income cut by 22%, and

they've been frozen ever since. After the Kimberly Rogers inquest you promised to review social assistance rates and you led families to believe there would be an increase in their income. Premier,

families who live on social assistance now in Ontario are living in poverty. When will you increase their rates?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm referring this matter to the Minister of Community and Social

Services.

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): Yesterday in answer to a question

in this House, we mentioned that our government is obligated to respond to the Kimberly inquest recommendations. Those answers are expected by February of the new year. What we intend to have in

motion in the government at that point is a series of reforms to Ontario Works so that the system would actually work for people. What we committed to in the campaign was to increase both the

disability and welfare rates to match COLA so that the inflation rate can be taken into account with their assistance. Our decision is when we can do that and how quickly we can do that.

Unfortunately, with this government, we understand that this particular group of people was used as the typical punching bag of the last government for the last eight or nine years. We can't fix

all those programs and problems overnight, but we are looking diligently at our package of reforms to go forward to my colleagues quickly.

Ms Martel: Ten minutes ago your Minister of Energy had a lot to say about people on social assistance. The question I have for you is, when

are you going to do something concrete, something positive, for people who are on social assistance? They can't wait. In the same way, we've got thousands and thousands of Ontarians who have

disabilities and have also had their income frozen for the last 10 years. On April 7, your Premier wrote a letter to David Lepofsky and said, "On forming government, following the election, we will

provide a cost-of-living increase for participants in the Ontario disability support program." People who live with disabilities, who've had their pensions frozen for 10 years, can't wait. When

will you increase the rates for disabled Ontarians?

Hon Ms Pupatello: I will repeat the McGuinty commitment during the last campaign, which is what our party campaigned on and what our party

will deliver on, and that is an increase to the ODSP and welfare rates to match COLA. That's what we will implement. What we know is that this last government left us with a mess. What we know is

that we need to clean up the mess. What are we working on today? We are working on cleaning up the mess. We intend to treat people who are on welfare or disability with dignity. That means a series

of reforms that are necessary to actually help people who really need help -- and those who want to abuse the system, to keep them out. We are moving forward quickly on a series that I believe all

people in this House will support.

AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Minister of Health: Can you confirm that the region of Niagara has won the RFP for ambulance

dispatch in the peninsula?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I want to say that I recognize the issue of land ambulance in Niagara is an

issue of serious concern to the residents of that community. If there was any doubt about it for me, the minister -- the member for St Catharines -- badgers me nearly every day on this issue, and

the member for Niagara Falls is quickly learning the trade as well. I want to say to all members from Niagara that this is at a decision point in my ministry and I'm very pleased to commit to the

member that a decision will be made very, very soon on this matter.

Mr Hudak: I appreciate the answer of the minister. It's not surprising, because it is an issue of great importance, as he knows, in the

peninsula.

I think this minister knows an RFP was issued in May and closed in July. According to press reports, the region of Niagara is the only bidder of record. On

November 22 your own ministry spokesperson told the St Catharines Standard that the RFP was completed and that the winning bid was moving through the final legislative process.

Minister, I think you also know the bid expires in February, which means that all of the hard work to date will be tossed out the window. There is also a

commitment that your party made to the people of Niagara in the run-up to the last election. I'll ask you again to confirm if the winning bid has been chosen, and could you kindly give a time frame

as to when that will become known to the people of Niagara.

Hon Mr Smitherman: I will say that I'm very aware of the time deadline that's there. I can assure the member and the people of Niagara that

all of the effort that has been made to date won't go to waste. I would restate my earlier commitment, which is to make sure that we get a decision out for the people of Niagara very early in the

new year at the latest.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Pursuant to standing order 30(b), I am now required to call orders of the day.

Ms Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to present a petition on behalf of a group of people who've

travelled quite a distance from my riding. I know it's late in the day, but they have come a very long way and I seek unanimous consent to present a petition on their behalf.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Do I have unanimous consent? Did I hear a no? Let me ask again when the place is quiet. Order.

Do we have unanimous consent for the member to present one petition? Agreed.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): My gratitude to you all. Thank you so much for your indulgence. We realize it's a little late, but as I

said, we have two groups here. A group for the Freedom Train from Glanbrook and the Battle for Stoney Creek have travelled quite a distance to see this petition presented on their behalf.

Petition to the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas

an act of the provincial Legislature led to the amalgamation of the six historic municipalities of Hamilton-Wentworth into one `new' city of Hamilton;

and

"Whereas this amalgamation not only proceeded without majority consent of the residents within the six former independent communities and in fact over the

rejection by more than 90% of those casting ballots in the citizens' referendum held on February 8, 1997 in five of the six former constituent municipalities; and

"Whereas the rationale expressed by the provincial government of the day for proceeding with the amalgamation was to promote good government by ensuring the

provision of more accessible, accountable and streamlined local government, enhancing and improving the provision of quality municipal services, and achieving both of the above while lowering

overall costs and taxes; and

"Whereas any provincial government must never be afraid to be held accountable for and/or take such initiatives as may be necessary to correct the actions of a

previous government; and

"Whereas many citizens believe that their democratic right is to be consulted on the form, style and structure of their municipal government and to directly

participate in democratically determining if a proposed change is desirable;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act to cause the following question to be put to the voters within the city of

Hamilton at the first available opportunity:

"`Do you favour a return to the previous municipal model of government with an upper-tier municipality and six lower-tier municipalities, being the towns of

Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough, the township of Glanbrook and the cities of Hamilton and Stoney Creek?'"

Attached are 3,765 names.

Also from Glanbrook:

"The citizens of Glanbrook petition the Legislature of Ontario to undo the injustice that was forced on us by the Conservative Party with amalgamation of

Glanbrook into the city of Hamilton against the wishes of the citizens who voted in a referendum on February 8, 1997, by a 98% margin not to be forced into the city of Hamilton.

"In 1999 the government moved and forced the amalgamation, ignoring our clear-cut `no' vote, but promised tax decreases, streamlined services and more

efficient and accountable local government.

"Over the past three years, Glanbrook has seen an average 30% tax increase, not decrease, and services have consistently deteriorated and we have non-existent

accountability.

"Today the citizens of Glanbrook present this petition, signed by more than 55% of eligible voters that we were able to contact, with less than 1% of citizens

refusing to sign.

"We sincerely request the Liberal government of Ontario give this matter the due and serious consideration it warrants and use this opportunity to ensure that

the democratic rights of the voting public are maintained," and another nearly 4,000 signatures.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): May I ask the House's indulgence to introduce -- I see he's just leaving now -- John Sola, the former member