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

December 15, 2005

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Dec-15 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 15 December 2005 Jeudi 15 décembre 2005

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT (ASSISTANCE TO

MUNICIPALITIES), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN (AIDE AUX MUNICIPALITÉ

S) LOBBYISTS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT (ASSISTANCE TO

MUNICIPALITIES), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN (AIDE AUX MUNICIPALITÉ

S) LOBBYISTS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT (ASSISTANCE TO

MUNICIPALITIES), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN (AIDE AUX MUNICIPALITÉ

S) LOBBYISTS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DIABETES

CAREFIRST COMMUNITY

BRIAN ADKIN

WATER RESOURCES AGREEMENTS

PREMIER'S ATTENDANCE

LOUISE HARRIS

ALIGHT AT NIGHT

FIREFIGHTERS' MEMORIAL

HOLIDAY MESSAGE

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MOTOR VEHICLE ORIGIN AND COMPONENTS DISCLOSURE ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT L'ORIGINE ET LES PIÈCES DE VÉHICULES AUTOMOBILES

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA GESTION

DES SITUATIONS D'URGENCE

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD /

PROGRÈS DU GOUVERNEMENT

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

DEFERRED VOTES

PRIVATE SECURITY AND

INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES SERVICES PRIVÉS

DE SÉCURITÉ ET D'ENQUÊTE

ORAL QUESTIONS

ECONOMIC POLICY

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

NUCLEAR ENERGY

ECONOMIC POLICY

HEALTH SERVICES

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

WORKPLACE SAFETY

INJURED WORKERS

CANCER TREATMENT

EATING DISORDERS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

PETITIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CURRICULUM

CANCER TREATMENT

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

PROTECTION FOR

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

OPTOMETRISTS

CRIME PREVENTION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DUFFINS ROUGE AGRICULTURAL

PRESERVE ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA RÉSERVE

AGRICOLE DE DUFFINS-ROUGE

SAFE STREETS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT (ASSISTANCE TO

MUNICIPALITIES), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN (AIDE AUX MUNICIPALITÉ

S) Mr. Yakabuski moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 3,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act with respect to the assistance that the Minister provides to municipalities /

Projet de loi 3, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement des voies publiques et des transports en commun à l'égard de l'aide apportée aux municipalités par le ministre.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joseph N. Tascona): Pursuant to standing order 96, the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): It is a pleasure to move second reading of Bill 3. Before I start, I'd like to turn your

attention to the members' gallery, where I have as my guests today my good wife, Vicky, and the warden of Renfrew county, who is also the chair of the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus, His Worship

Bob Sweet.

The reason I introduced this bill is because when the present government brought in a gas tax rebate program, they extended it only to the 105 municipalities,

out of some 445, that have a public or rapid transit system operating in their municipality. We feel this is a fundamental issue of fairness with respect to the way rural Ontario is treated. One of

the great problems in rural Ontario today is the ability to keep in good condition the infrastructure they're responsible for, such as the county roads, the municipal roads, and the bridges, which

in my county is one of the biggest challenges we have. Warden Sweet could certainly let you know that we have over 250 bridges in Renfrew county alone.

As you know, Renfrew county is the largest county in the province of Ontario. But when I speak of this bill, I speak not just of Renfrew county, while that is

the county that I call home; it is in regard to every rural municipality and rural county in this province. As I said, we feel it is a fundamental issue of fairness, because when you go to the gas

pumps in rural Ontario, it doesn't say "Rural: gas tax exempt." No siree. You pay the 14.7 cents a litre tax in rural Ontario the same way they pay it in every municipality in this province,

because that's equal treatment. However, when that tax rebate is divvied out on behalf of rural Ontarians, only those in the province of Ontario that have a public transportation system or a rapid

transit system receive a portion of the rebate.

We understand very clearly that public transportation needs to be supported in this province, and public transportation is supported and subsidized to a great

degree by the taxpayers -- not by the users, but by the taxpayers. Of course the users pay, but the taxpayers also subsidize public transportation systems. Well, we do have a public transportation

system in Ontario's rural communities. It is called Township Road 37 or County Road 58, or a bridge traversing the Bonnechere River or Byers Creek or whatever. That is the public transportation

system. In my county of Renfrew, we have 17 rural municipalities that could benefit greatly from receiving a share of this gas tax.

I must point out that while I would be the last one to support and promote the federal Liberal government in this House or anywhere else, that government has

actually recognized that rural communities have a right to share in the gas tax, so the federal gas tax is actually being shared by all municipalities, not just those with public transportation

systems. They recognize that rural communities have significant challenges.

The government will say, "We have the COMRIF program," but that's a three-way split -- federal, provincial and municipal -- and, "We have the Ontario municipal

partnership fund." Well, with the challenges facing rural Ontario communities today, COMRIF simply doesn't cut it. The applications for support and funding far outstrip the ability of the

governments to fund them at this point. If municipalities are going to go ahead with planned projects, whether they get funding or not, they're going to be doing it on the backs of their taxpayers

at home, and that simply is too much for them to bear at this time. Taxpayers across this province feel that the weight of taxation is too severe already. When there is an ability to reduce some of

that load for rural municipalities, I think it behooves this government or any other government to act quickly and fairly and equitably to adjust that load so that the people of rural Ontario share

in that enhanced funding.

We have to realize that the ability of rural people to pay -- for starters, they pay a far greater share per capita of the gas tax here in the province, because

it is not a five-minute bus ride from Barry's Bay to Renfrew. It is not like getting on at Danforth and heading up to Bathurst or wherever. It is a long ride -- an hour -- and you can only

accomplish it by some sort of privately operated mode of transport. It's a 100-kilometre trip, and you know that with gas prices today, it is not cheap. The bus simply doesn't pick up people in

Quadeville and let them off in Palmer Rapids. It doesn't happen.

Those challenges exist for the people of Ontario in such a way that the amount of their discretionary income, which is lower in places like Haliburton county and

my county -- among the lowest in the province -- they have less income to spend on gas, but they must spend more of it because they have only one choice of how they get around for work, for family

activities or for discretionary activities. They can only get there by private vehicle. So they pay a disproportionate share of the gas tax and they have a disproportionately lower income than

people in other parts of the province.

That is being addressed very well, I must say, by the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus. They have addressed that inequity, as we see it in eastern Ontario, with

respect to other areas of the province. My colleague, Norm Sterling, of Lanark-Carleton has introduced a private member's bill to bring in a heritage fund, similar to the northern Ontario heritage

fund, to address the difficulties that people in eastern Ontario face. That is a fundamental challenge that is not being addressed by this government with respect to the way they have treated rural

Ontario. So this is an opportunity. I say to all the members on the opposite side who serve rural constituencies: You feel and sense our pain; you understand what it is like in a rural community

where incomes are not at or above the provincial average, but many times below -- in my particular county, significantly below; one of the lowest three in the province -- and the challenges they

face.

This is an opportunity for you to stand together, as rural members and rural representatives, and say, "We do want to see this kind of support for rural

Ontario." We're not giving them anything but their own money back. They deserve to get back some of the taxes they pay at the pump every day, every week on a continuous basis. I say to members on

all sides of this House that this is an opportunity to stand up and support rural Ontario at a time when your support has never been needed more.

I want to speak again to the fundamental fairness of this bill. We are not asking to you to create a special category, to say, "Let's help out the rural folk;"

we are asking you to do something that is being done today in 105 municipalities across this province. We are only asking for fair treatment so that when people from rural Ontario ask themselves,

"Do we feel engaged? Do we feel as though we are equal partners in this community of Ontario?" they can say, "Yes." And we can, because the government wants to recognize, through a private member's

bill, that they contribute to this province in ways that are immeasurable. They only want to share in the wealth that is being distributed so that people in rural Ontario do not sense there is a

divide in this province between urban and rural. We are one province working toward the same goal. This is a tremendous opportunity today to stand together and say that when it comes to gas tax

rebates, everybody in Ontario will be treated exactly the same.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm glad to get an opportunity to get on the record on this particular issue. Like the member from

Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke -- that's a mouthful -- I also represent a riding that's quite large; in fact, I would argue, quite a bit larger than Nipissing-Renfrew-whatever; Pembroke -- I'm sorry,

but names of ridings elude me. I know my own and that's about all.

I'm the member for Timmins-James Bay, and I know well what the member talks about when it comes to the entire issue of being able to service one's constituency,

especially in a rural setting. There's a feeling out there, and I think that's what the member is trying to speak to: Many communities in rural and northern Ontario feel as if they're being left

out. They feel they are not getting the attention from this provincial government -- or the federal government, for that matter -- when it comes to properly supporting their communities. We have

seen a move on the part of the federal government and we have seen a move by the provincial government of downloading services on to municipalities. We've transferred ambulance services down to the

municipalities and we've transferred a number of other services down to the municipalities which have become an increasingly greater financial burden for those municipalities, to where now

communities are having to pay for a lot of soft services that quite frankly should be provided by the province and not by municipalities. I know that the warden, who is here today, would agree with

me that the province, rather than doing what it has been doing as far as the downloading exercise and trying to cry to the federal government, "Stop picking on poor Ontario, because we have this

huge gap," should try fixing what is in their own backyard; that is, addressing the gap that they have created with municipalities when it comes to the download.

We have seen a move of services that the province used to provide themselves transferred down to the municipalities; taking ambulance services that used to be

100% paid by the province and transferring ambulance services partly down to the municipalities to where, in some cases, the municipalities are paying as much as 70%. In my particular constituency

of Timmins-James Bay, the province now pays only about 38% of the entire ambulance cost. That's what we mean by downloading. I think what we need to do is figure out ways of re-uploading back to

the province those things that we're best at delivering and allowing the municipalities the room financially to deal with the issues that they are best able to deal with.

Now, on the transportation side, I want to echo what the member says: In many communities across rural and northern Ontario, there are no transit services. I

support the initiative of using the gas tax to create a pool of dollars that will assist municipalities to provide better transit services, but I want to remind members of the government,

especially the Liberal members who are here now for the first time, that there used to be dollars from the province, way before you guys came along, that supported transit services. I remember

being part of the NDP government that gave up to about 70% dollars to municipalities to buy new buses. We used to be able to provide capital dollars to assist them, and we also used to provide

dollars to help them operate their transit systems. That was eliminated, and that's what this gas tax, 1.5%, is all about: trying to find some way of dealing with the huge financial crunch that

that has put on municipalities. I would argue that the province really needs to look at its responsibility of making sure that we properly support those services that we as a province want to

mandate the municipalities to do. If the province is saying, "We believe in public transit," which we should, I think we need to pony up and put the dollars there to make sure that happens and to

develop the policies.

On the issue of roads, this is one of the hugest issues in most of our constituencies. There used to be a time that the province provided capital dollars to

municipalities to repair municipal roads. I remember the roads programs of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the roads program of the Ministry of Transportation. I forget what the

capital budget was, but it was fairly huge. I think it was about $2 billion or $3 billion a year that we used to spend on roads -- I don't quite remember the number now -- as far as capital, not

only supporting provincially owned highways but on assisting municipalities to reconstruct roads. For example, municipalities in my riding -- I can think of Kapuskasing, Hearst, Moosonee, Timmins

and other communities -- applied at one point for dollars from the province, and the feds used to get involved at times too, depending on the programs that were available, in order to fix their own

municipal roads. Now there is almost nothing available in order for municipalities to get provincial dollars to fix roads.

They're in a situation where the province has downloaded a whole bunch of services on to the municipality: We've transferred roads and highways, for example, in

Timmins. We've downloaded I forget how many kilometres of provincial highways on to municipalities and said, "You maintain those roads, snow-clear them, make sure the lines are painted, and fix the

bridges and roads when they've got to be fixed." The municipalities don't have the money. A good example is what is currently happening on Highway 67. The bridge on Highway 67 in between Iroquois

Falls and Timmins is not about to fall, but the city engineers are worried that heavy truck traffic will lessen the life of that bridge and put the municipality in a position of having to replace a

bridge they can ill afford to replace. As a result, they've put a limit on the weight of that bridge. Consequently, all transport trucks that now go between Timmins on the Highway 101 side and

Highway 11 up to Cochrane or Iroquois Falls or wherever it might be are now having to detour back up through Highway 11, up in Matheson, really putting them out of their way.

It seems to me a really stupid thing that the province did in downloading these highways in the first place. That's not a municipal road; it's a highway. It

connects two cities: It connects the city of Timmins with the Highway 11 communities of Iroquois Falls, Matheson, Val Gagné, Cochrane and others. Where the province gets off saying that's a

municipal road is beyond me. I think that's what this member is trying to speak to, saying that municipalities, especially rural and northern municipalities, are feeling left out of the attention

that the province should be giving in supporting their communities. They're saying to themselves, "We're having to pay for more and more services every day," and the province and the feds --

especially the province, because we're the primary funder -- are not there when it comes to helping them.

For example, the town of Moosonee up on the James Bay -- do you know what they would like to have, just a very simple little thing? A little bit of asphalt on

the roads, or pavement, as other people would call it. In the summer months, the dust that comes off the roads in the town of Moosonee is just atrocious. It makes the grass turn grey from the dust

from the vehicles driving up and down Bay Road and other roads up in Moosonee. The community there, the residents, along with their municipal council -- Wayne Taipale, who's the mayor, and the

council have been asking the province for dollars in order to pave the roads. The province has been very slow in responding to any kind of request that the town of Moosonee has put forward. They're

saying, "What about us, what about a little bit of pavement on our roads so that we can cut the dust down?" It has become a health issue. We know there's a bigger issue nowadays with children who

are asthmatic, and we're finding there's a health effect of all of the dust in that community because of the conditions of the municipal roads not being paved. Why don't we have dollars to be able

to assist the town of Moosonee to do something very basic?

I look at Hearst. Hearst has applications currently before the province in order to assist with the reconstruction of some of their municipal roads, because they

are aging as well. I've got to say, the town of Hearst has done quite well on their own, trying to upgrade the roads in their community, but there's only so much that they can do. Mayor Siguoin,

along with his councillors, Rheaume and others, have been out lobbying the provincial government to get dollars to fix their roads, and there's no money coming forward.

The resentment that Mr. Yakabuski brings forward in regard to his bill today, I think, is one that is felt by a lot of rural and northern municipalities. They're

saying, "Listen, we want the provincial government to help us deal with the issues that face our community. We are tired of being picked on as communities. We are tired of the province saying,

`Here's another soft service that we're going to transfer over to the municipalities so you can pay,'" and at the end of the day be in a position where the municipality is having to pay for more

and more services that used to be provided by the province. The province is taking it off their own backs and throwing it onto the backs of municipalities and feeling they really have the

squeeze.

Yesterday was quite interesting. The province introduced

an act in this Legislature with regard to the city of Toronto. I have to say, here's the biggest

exercise in instituting downloading in the history of the province of Ontario. The Liberals, in opposition, used to go apoplectic -- I remember Sandra Pupatello, George Smitherman, Dalton McGuinty

and others, and the now Finance Minister, getting up in the House, totally appalled by the downloading exercises that were going on at that time by the government of the day. They were just

absolutely beside themselves. They were saying, "Oh, my God, you've got to stop transferring all those services on to the municipalities." And they were saying, "If we're government, we're going to

be different. We're going to create partnerships with the municipalities and re-upload those services back on to the province. What did they do yesterday? They introduced

an act that said that the

city of Toronto will now be able to levy its own taxes on a whole bunch of things that they never used to be able to tax before. For example, the city of Toronto could collect a tax on cigarettes,

they'd be able to collect a tax on sports tickets, they would be able to put up tolls on municipal roads -- a whole range of taxing powers given to the municipality of Toronto as a way of dealing

with their financial crunch.

First of all, this is a bad idea, because what it does, in my view, is institutionalize the downloading. It basically says to cities that are now going to look

at Toronto, which is sort of the pilot project of this new genre of institutionalizing the whole issue of downloading -- and they're wondering what that is going to mean for them. If you are the

town of Hearst, I'll tell you that there are not a lot of taxes you can get by way of new taxing powers for municipalities. First of all, they're never going to get the money they need, and more

importantly, it will take the province off the hook when it comes to their uploading services back on to the province, where they rightfully belong.

I think what Mr. McGuinty did yesterday to the city of Toronto is, in the long run, somewhat of a disservice. The issue for Toronto is a very simple one. Yes,

there are things in that bill that are probably OK for Toronto in regard to some of the powers -- I would argue that the taxing power is not a very good one -- but the real issue for Toronto is

that they have a $500-million deficit to deal with, and this ain't going to do it. The province is more or less saying that they might look at doing something very short-term, but they're not going

to do anything long-term to fix the financial problem that the city of Toronto has. I would expect that they may give some money to Toronto to help them address their $500-million deficit this

year, but I wonder what would happen after that. I think that this government, in introducing this bill, is going to hurt the cause of the city of Toronto and others in the longer run by saying,

"Don't look at us to re-upload services, because you now have taxing powers. If you have a revenue problem, go raise the money." That's basically what they're going to say. The problem with that is

that it's the province's responsibility to maintain a lot of those soft services that have been transferred to the municipalities.

The other issue for smaller communities is that even if you gave them taxing powers, what is there to tax? If you are in the community of Hearst or in a small

community in my good friend Mr. Wilson's riding of Simcoe-Grey -- if you give the municipalities in your riding taxing power, how much is that going to raise? Is that going to fix the problem?

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): Dogs and cats.

Mr. Bisson: Exactly. Are you going to tax the dogs and cats? That's about where we're at, right? There is not a lot. I look at the town of

Hearst. There are three hotels. You can put a hotel tax on the three hotels in Hearst, but that is not going to raise a lot of money. It's going to make citizens pretty mad, those people who have

to go out and rent the hotel rooms. Sports tickets: We sell a $5 ticket to watch the hockey game in the arena in Hearst, and what is the municipality going to do: raise it again? That's going to

make them very popular. First of all, there is a downside politically for the local councils, but second, you're not going to raise a lot of money for those smaller communities.

I applaud the member for bringing this legislation into the House today because I think it really speaks to the problem that exists: that the province has to

start addressing the financial problems of all communities but, I would argue specifically in this case, of small rural and northern communities. They are increasingly in a very tough spot

financially as a result of the province's transferring on to the backs of municipalities services that used to be paid by the province. The government needs to do something to address that. For the

province to say, "You can go out and tax something else" -- I'm not sure that's really the way of doing it; not by transferring tax powers on to municipalities. The province has to look at what it

is best suited to do when it comes to properly delivering services and what the municipalities can properly do, and make sure we re-upload those services that belong to us.

The last point I want to make: It flies in the face of the argument the Premier makes against the federal government in regard to the gap. I would say that, yes,

there is a gap between Ottawa and Canada. There is no argument about that; we've been saying that for years. But how can you go to the federal government and argue, "Treat me fairly," when you

don't treat your own municipalities fairly? I think there is a double standard and a little bit of hypocrisy -- I don't think it's unparliamentary to say that -- in regard to the position the

government and the Premier are taking. I would urge that government members look at this legislation for what it is and understand that the member is trying to say, "Small communities need help. We

are asking the province to do so. You haven't done it. Please listen to us." That's what this legislation is all about.

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I'm pleased to speak to Mr. Yakabuski's Bill 3,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway

Improvement Act. This bill, proposed by the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, would require the minister to make provisions for portions of the gas tax funding to go toward maintenance and

operation of public highways in Ontario municipalities. This is purely and simply grandstanding and hypocritical. He well understands how this legislation came forward. All the legislation, all the

funding came forward fairly for the municipalities in Ontario.

In response to his proposal, I'd like to remind the honourable member that the McGuinty government has created a variety of supports for municipal funding and

also to suggest that the gas tax was implemented for the sole purpose of maintaining and encouraging the use of public transit in municipalities. In 1998, his government, as we all know, took that

75% funding that was there for public transit and reduced it to zero. They were going back to the Stone Age, the one-passenger vehicle on our highways, and they were going to build us out of

congestion that way. As we know, congestion has increased a great deal. I was looking at some of the figures for the 401. These increases show that roads cannot solve the transportation problem in

Ontario. We have to get the public transit dollars.

This money was specifically allocated to public transit. That two cents per litre, which it will be at the end of the period, will help 83 transit systems

benefit from this funding, and their services will extend to 110 municipalities. The funding provided by the gas tax is significant. It amounts to $234 million between 2005 and 2006, and over the

five years, it will be over $1 billion -- a real commitment to public transit, a real commitment to sustainable cities in our province. Those dollars were allocated for that purpose. To make this

investment in our public transit, in our air quality, in our sustainable cities -- to take those dollars and use them for another purpose is just not what should happen.

The improvements to transit that stem from this funding were intended to relieve congestion and gridlock on our highways, to decrease the greenhouse gas

emissions caused by this congestion and provide quicker, easier forms of transit for commuters. Bill 3 would undermine the goal of this funding and limit the province's ability to meet these

important provincial priorities.

Bill 3 aims at improving the public highways in municipalities. However, we have already allocated funding to municipal roads and bridges through the COMRIF

program. COMRIF allows for $900 million over five years to municipalities that apply. In the first round, 57 road projects and 123 bridge projects were approved for funding, and that funding was

dedicated to those exact municipalities for that purpose. It was done at the same time as the funding was considered for public transit.

The municipalities that require most assistance are usually smaller rural and northern communities. To this end, we introduced the Ontario municipal partnership

fund, which gives priority to such communities. I'd just like to read where some of the funds went. Arnprior is now receiving $889,000 for 2005 -- an increase of $386,000 in the member's riding.

This is great. The Madawaska Valley is now receiving $916,000 for 2005 -- an increase of $267,000. These are real improvements in the funding for those municipalities that was done at the same time

as these funds were allocated. The Ontario Strategic Infrastructure Financing Authority was also put into place for that purpose, and it is helping municipalities of under 100,000 to finance their

projects.

It is important that we step back and review just how much this government has done to improve the infrastructure in our municipalities. The previous government

had a history of downloading, and provincial highways and bridges were just some of the projects that were downloaded on to rural municipalities that couldn't possibly afford them. Those eight

years of downloading, those eight years of taking money from those municipalities, have put them in a serious situation. We are working with our new programs to alleviate that. In the 1998

downloading of all the funding for public transit, all of a sudden the cities found out that, from 75%, they were being reduced to nothing. The buses got older, and whole bus fleets had to be

replaced in 2003, 2004 and 2005. That was a setback. The ridership dropped. Making our cities more sustainable took a very, very bad hit in 1998 when the Harris government Tories took away all that

funding. In 1998, the Tories downloaded GO Transit to the municipalities -- another action that didn't help public transit.

After having suffered from downloading for so long, I think it's only fair that infrastructure and public transit systems in the municipalities should benefit

from the funding programs set up by the McGuinty government. Similarly, the funding from the gas tax should remain focused on improving public transit, which will in turn decrease congestion and

gridlock, and improve air quality and the quality of life for all Ontarians.

Mr. Wilson: I don't normally speak on Thursday mornings but I wanted, in spite of the fact that we had a caucus Christmas party last night, to

be here to support my friend John Yakabuski, the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. John is doing an excellent job. Almost daily he asks questions -- he certainly does petitions daily -- on

behalf of his municipalities and the people of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. He's also got a terrific sense of humour, although this morning's topic isn't that funny. What he's really doing is

helping the Liberals, I say to the member for Ottawa-Orléans, who just spoke, fulfill one of their 231 campaign promises.

I sat through seven all-candidates' meetings in my riding, and I'm sure there were hundreds and hundreds across the province in 103 ridings. The fact of the

matter is that consistently, at every one of those meetings, not only the impression but the fact that the Liberal candidate purported to put forward was that this government -- the Liberals, if

they came to government -- would make sure that every municipality got a share of the gasoline tax. There were no strings attached. They come to office, and only 105 of the 445 municipalities are

actually receiving any share of the gasoline tax.

You can talk about COMRIF funding. To the people at home: That's the Canada-Ontario municipal funding program, infrastructure program. That's not what this bill

deals with. This deals specifically with your campaign promise that every municipality would get a share of the gas tax. They come to office and say it's only about a quarter of the municipalities,

and then they say it's only those municipalities that have public transit. As Mr. Yakabuski and Mr. Bisson pointed out, public transit in rural Ontario is our highways; it is our bridges; it is our

automobiles. You've cancelled Highway 26. What happened to the $34 million for that highway?

You can at least live up to one of your campaign promises. Mr. Yakabuski is doing you a favour to get up and get off-topic and talk about other infrastructure

programs -- which, by the way, the federal government is helping to pay for. The federal government didn't make this promise the way you made it. In fact, they didn't make the promise but they

actually brought in the program. They didn't talk about it in 2003. They knew that AMO and other municipal organizations across the country had resolutions in this regard, but the federal

government is actually sharing their gas tax now with every municipality, and it's a big help. I know we're in the middle of a federal campaign and I don't want to endorse anyone but the

Conservatives, but the fact of the matter is that it's a big help and they did bring in a program.

I want to support the legislation. I hope all members will; I don't know how you can't. You absolutely have to vote for it or else you'll just be slamming, once

again, rural Ontario. You're not doing very well out there right now. People feel neglected in rural Ontario and they feel that you've let them down. This morning, this bill gives you an

opportunity to correct what you've done wrong to rural Ontario.

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I want to thank the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke for introducing Bill 3. I understand that he

represents an area and he wants to bring as many dollars as possible to his riding. That, generally speaking, is the right thing to do for any honourable member. I also understand that his wife is

here today; I want to welcome her to this House.

The gas tax objective was to deal with a major issue that the Tories created in Ontario, and that was to address public transportation issues. Unfortunately, the

Tories in 1998 started reducing not only the operating costs of public transportation but also the construction of new subways, new busing and so on.

Therefore, what we promised during the campaign was to bring two cents over our mandate to address public transportation. For us to now start removing some of

this funding from an area that is in such need would be the wrong thing to do.

We have other programs that address the needs and wants that the member suggested in Bill 3. That has been done. In addition to that, there is discussion going

on between the province and the feds to also come up with new money to assist and improve conditions outside and within the big cities. Therefore, I believe that that will give more than what the

member would be asking for under Bill 3.

The cities, and in particular Toronto and the GTA -- my area of Thornhill, Concord, the city of Vaughan, the town of Markham; the region of York and all four

regions that make up the GTA -- these areas are suffering significantly because of the poor public transportation that, unfortunately, the Conservatives before us created. As I said, in 1998, they

started the process which I think took three years, brought the municipalities' subsidies to zero, and therefore many municipalities had to stop investing the money they had been investing in new

busing, expansion of the subway system and maintaining the system that was there.

We know that the city of Toronto keeps on saying to us, over and over again, that they need more money just to bring the service to the level that is needed, yet

we are looking for new money to expand the Spadina-York subway extension; we are also looking at a connection to Scarborough that would also allow a connection along that line to the town of

Markham, we are looking at Yonge Street public transportation improvements that would bring the line to Newmarket; and at a system where people who fly at Pearson International would be able to

connect to downtown Toronto.

Those things happen in other cities such as Paris; such as Rome, Italy; such as Tokyo; Frankfurt, Germany. Those types of services already exist. Why can't we

have them in Toronto? One way of doing it in the GTA is by starting to look at funding for that specific purpose. That is what we did. In fact, we promised before the election -- and we did deliver

-- the two cents per litre of existing tax; we already did one and a half, and the other half cent will come in next October. It's my hope, and certainly I will champion as much as I can, that as

we balance the books that unfortunately our friends from the Conservatives left with a major deficit, we might even be able to look at increasing that two cents to a higher amount, so that public

transportation will become more important, as it should be, because most of the pollution that we are getting is because of poor public transportation.

I had the fortune of being in China recently. When I visited, for instance, the Hong Kong subway system, what a difference. People there go to weddings in

tuxedos. Normally, they go by public transportation. The reason is very simple: They are comfortable using it. It's quite comfortable. Even if it's packed, because of the way the system is built,

because of the first-class service they provide, people use it.

We must do that in the GTA in particular, but also in other cities like Ottawa, London and major cities in Ontario. It can be done. The only thing we have to do

is convince ourselves that more public money must be allocated. What this bill will do, in fact, is take money away, money that we specifically allocated for public transportation. Even if I

congratulate the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke for the objective of bringing more money to these areas -- because that's our job -- I think he is asking to take the money from the wrong

account, and therefore I cannot support it. I encourage him because his riding and his constituency will benefit when we have a strong Toronto, a strong GTA, which will be able to operate more

economically and more efficiently, because all the province of Ontario will benefit when the GTA does well. There is lots of revenue in this region. There are lots of taxes that are paid because we

are able to have a better economy.

We all should do whatever we have to to make this area even more economically viable, because when that happens, more investments take place here and more taxes

will be paid to the province of Ontario -- and to Ottawa, our friends who are getting $22 billion more than they are investing in this province. When we are able to get some of that money, and more

taxes from you and I because the economy will do better, then we can certainly allocate more funding in other areas, and all of us will benefit.

I have more to say, but I understand that a colleague of mine wishes to add more.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): It's a pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill 3, the Public Transportation and Highway

Improvement Act (Assistance to Municipalities), 2005, brought forward by my friend and colleague the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, who is very articulate in bringing forward the concerns

of rural Ontario. I was quite disappointed by the Liberal member who is speaking against this bill -- soon to be voting against it, I guess -- because it isn't fair, and rural Ontario wants a fair

shake. This is why the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke has brought the bill forward to address the concerns in rural Ontario.

There has been talk about the federal election going on. This is a big topic in my riding. It has a lot of media attention. The Conservative candidate, who is

the MP in the riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Barry Devolin, has also worked a lot with municipalities on this and has gotten petitions signed, because it is unfair what's going on with the

gas tax sharing for rural Ontario. I want to thank him for that and wish him luck in the upcoming election. I know I'll be there supporting him.

The issue is that we need to improve our gas tax system, not just because there is public outcry but because it is the fair thing to do. I'm going to use that

word a lot through here, because what's happening in rural Toronto isn't fair. The daily financial pressures on the constituents in my riding, whether they're farmers, seniors on fixed incomes,

small business owners, young and growing families or professionals -- the dramatic increase in the price of gas is a significant extra expense for them, this year especially. Many people are

frustrated, and they're frustrated because they know there are considerable taxes placed on the price of the gas that they must purchase. We need to remember that most Ontarians have no choice but

to buy gas to get to and from work, take their kids to school or hockey team practices, and transport goods for businesses. We all agree that the taxes are too high, but we have the potential to

use this asset to benefit all Ontarians equally.

That's what this bill does. It addresses the current uneven distribution of the gas tax head-on to make the gas tax benefit all Ontarians. We need to ensure that

the needs of rural residents are not undercut by the requests of urban residents in this province. I've thanked the member for speaking up on behalf of rural ridings many times. I've thanked him

for recognizing that roads and highways travelled by residents of rural Ontario are no less important than the streets in Toronto's financial district or the public transit system that runs

underneath this building. Currently, the Gasoline Tax Act refers to and leans toward uses like the ones I mentioned, for extending or improving subway lines, bus routes and public transit

infrastructure.

But the residents of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock are less concerned with the TTC than they are with safe roads to travel to work, to school and on the highways and

byways that crisscross my riding. Winter is a long season, full of dangerous and difficult driving. We need to ensure that the roads they travel every day are well maintained, well serviced and

continually improved. In Kawartha Lakes, one part of my riding, nine Kawartha Lakes roads were nominated for the worst road in the province in 2003. None of them made the top 20, I'm thankful, but

the fact that over 11,000 Ontarians voted in this contest says something about the critical mass worried about the local highways and roads.

We should all answer this call. Adapt the Gasoline Tax Act to address these concerns. Support the bill proposed by my colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.

The member himself said it best when he said that local roads, highways and bridges are, after all, the public transportation system in rural Ontario. I have the stats from my communities. The

member from Peterborough is not here, but it takes in Peterborough county, the county of Haliburton, Brock township and the city of Kawartha Lakes: Over 80% use roads to get to work every day. This

is our infrastructure. I can't say it enough. We rely on a fair share of gas tax to build our roads.

Kawartha Lakes councillor Dave Marsh spoke in the local newspaper about the requirement for the gas tax that the $50,000 be spent on new bus shelters in the

town. Now, I understand that we're working to improve public transport and that we encourage residents of our ridings to make environmentally sound transportation decisions, but to ask that a town

spend $50,000, a significant amount of money, on a bus system that's marginal at best instead of keeping our high-traffic highways and roads safe, clean and modern is a terrible mistake and could

easily be remedied by this bill brought forward today.

It's not just a vanity project for municipalities. It's the safety of Ontarians that's on the line. Rural ridings need to work extra hard with limited resources

to keep the roads clear in the winter and safe throughout the year. There's a big storm coming tonight. Except for Brock township, all the municipalities I mentioned in my riding are part of the

Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus. Bob Sweet chairs that, and is here today. They have been very involved in eastern Ontario, promoting the special needs there. We supported the member from

Lanark-Carleton, Norm Sterling, when he brought his private member's bill back in, that eastern Ontario needs its fair share.

I think the best way is for us to realize the differences between rural and urban transportation issues, because we don't want a split between rural and urban

Ontario. We all want to work together. Mayor Barb Kelly said in the local paper, "For the city of Kawartha Lakes, we have 72,000 people but we have 2,400 kilometres of road. We probably have more

roads than Toronto ... They're getting millions. Over five years, we're getting $11 million, but compared to what Toronto is getting, it's not close. It's not as fair as it could be." She's right

on.

I encourage all members to approach this bill as a matter of fairness for rural Ontario. It's time this was acted on. I'm certainly going to support this, and

I thank the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke for bringing this bill forward.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): In the short time that's left, I'd like to address this bill as well. First, I want to extend my

congratulations to the members from the rural ridings who have stood up for their communities. That is the role and task of all members in this House. However, the tool that's being chosen here to

provide the funding for highways in rural areas would have an impact on my own urban community of Oakville.

Oakville has long recognized, as a growth area in this province, that that growth could be stymied if we didn't have a proper transit system. In the 1980s, we

talked about building communities that would have a transit-modal split of about 25%. What that means is that on a daily basis, 25% of the people in Oakville, who are getting up in the morning and

going to school or to work or just going about their business, would use transit. In fact, because of downloading and various other funding issues, my own community has only been able to achieve to

date a transit-modal split of between 5% and 7%. That simply isn't enough in a modern economic community.

So to suggest that we should take further money away from municipalities, having implemented a policy where we've agreed as a government to provide a certain

portion of the gas tax for public transit in municipalities such as mine -- to stand in this House and suggest that that number should be reduced I don't think is in the best interests of this

province or its economy. In fact, I think a very strong argument could be made that that funding for public transit should be increased.

While I appreciate the member standing up for his community, I don't want to see the gains that may be made in rural Ontario come at the expense of my own

riding of Oakville. They have sent me down here to do a job, and that is to provide public transit. As a government, I think we're doing that.

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): It's my pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill 3,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation

and Highway Improvement Act, brought forward by the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.

First of all, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for his hard work in this House since his election in 2003. His arrival here just

over two years ago, along with the member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, created a spark in our caucus at a time when it was needed. The enthusiasm and dedication of both of these members in their

new roles has had an energizing effect on our caucus.

It's a pleasure for me to speak in support of Bill 3 this morning because I've been an advocate for fair gas tax funding for all our municipalities for a long

time. In fact, I spoke about this issue during members' statements on October 13, 2004, and worked with our municipal affairs critic of the day, the member for Erie-Lincoln, to advocate for a

solution to the inequity experienced by rural municipalities. Our caucus has certainly done much work on this topic, and I congratulate the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke for bringing the

issue forward once again today, as a private member's bill this time.

I'd like to just highlight again the importance of private members' business in this Legislature. It's an opportunity for all members to raise awareness on

particular issues that the government might otherwise want to ignore, and offer solutions to problems around our province. It's also a time for members to challenge the government to take action on

a wide range of concerns facing Ontarians.

Bill 3 addresses an issue which I know is of vital importance to rural communities all across this province: the lack of provincial gas tax money being

invested in rural municipalities, those without municipal transit systems.

As members of this House are aware, the McGuinty Liberal government announced in October 2004 that it planned on investing more than $680 million of the

provincial gas tax into transit systems across Ontario. This money would be directed to 78 transit systems in 105 municipalities. The problem is that there are 445 municipalities in this province,

meaning that 340 municipalities will not see a single penny from the gas tax, despite the fact that all Ontarians pay this tax every time they fill up at the pumps.

The government's plan has completely ignored the transportation needs of rural Ontario. It is interesting to note, however, that the federal government, as has

been pointed out, does not discriminate between municipalities, large and small, with their gas tax plan. In fact, the federal government distributes their gas tax funding to each municipality,

bypassing the provincial government entirely, by working with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and they base it on population. I'm told that, in my riding, for example, Wellington

county is in line to receive more than $6.5 million from the federal gas tax over the next five years, Centre Wellington expects to receive about $2 million, and Minto township is counting on

receiving over $600,000 by the year 2010.

How is it possible that the McGuinty Liberal government can ignore municipalities like these while their federal counterparts are distributing their gas tax in

a fair and equitable way? How does the provincial government continue to sustain that sort of discriminatory position?

The vast majority of my riding is not serviced by a public transit system. This is true of dozens of ridings across rural Ontario. Because of this, almost

everyone needs a car to get around, since public transit is simply not an option. I would submit that because of this reality, rural Ontario residents probably pay more gas tax per capita than

urban residents do.

Consider this: The provincial gas tax is 14.7 cents a litre. If the average motorist fills up a 50-litre tank of gas once a week, this totals almost $400 per

year in gas tax payments. If this person lives in rural Ontario, they are not seeing one single penny of this gas tax invested back into their community. There are a great number of transportation

needs in my riding that I continue to advocate for through the Waterloo-Wellington Transportation Action Plan.

I call upon this government to pass Bill 3.

I want to leave some time for my colleague the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I'm glad to have a minute to add my support to the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke for his Bill

3, which would see some of the gas tax go to all municipalities, not just those with transit, as has been put forward by this government.

In the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, there are some 26 municipalities, and only one -- that being Huntsville -- is getting its share of the gas tax. I ask,

how is that fair? For rural areas, public transit is roads and bridges. For a very small municipality -- I have some that have only 500 people -- building a new bridge is a huge challenge. I would

say that it's only fair that they get a share of this tax.

I have other things I'd like to say but only 17 seconds to say them in, so I would just like to reiterate that I do support Mr. Yakabuski and this Bill 3, and

I look forward to other members supporting it as well.

The Acting Speaker: The member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Yakabuski: I want to thank the members from Timmins-James Bay, Ottawa-Orléans, Simcoe-Grey, Thornhill, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock,

Oakville, Waterloo-Wellington and Parry Sound-Muskoka for speaking to my bill this morning.

I want to address the fundamental issue we have here, and that is sustainable, reliable funding for rural Ontario municipalities like my county, Renfrew

county. I do appreciate Warden Bob Sweet's joining me here today for this debate.

I want to speak a little bit to the positions taken by the government members. This is not about a battle between rural transportation funding and public

transportation funding in urban municipalities. There are significant subsidies and government support for those entities in places like the city of Toronto. This gas tax is a small portion of that

funding, but this gas tax is an issue of fairness. We are relegating rural people to a second-class status if they don't share in some rebate of that tax, which they pay on every litre of gasoline

equally to what every resident and every business and every entity in Toronto or Ottawa or London pays. It is a fundamental issue of fairness, and it must be addressed.

I ask the members opposite, those in rural ridings and those in urban ridings, to ask yourselves: Do your constituents believe in an Ontario that represents

fairness or unfairness, where you create second-class citizens in rural Ontario and have a program that only supports a public transportation system in the city of Toronto when it is a specific tax

being used to pay for that? I say no. There are other programs that support public transportation and we support that, but this gas tax, which this government, when they were campaigning, purported

to be for everyone, should be for everyone equally across this great province.

LOBBYISTS

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I move that, in the opinion of this House, former employees of the Premier's office be barred from

lobbying any and all ministries and government agencies for a period of one year from the termination of their employment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joseph N. Tascona): Pursuant to stand order 96, the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr. Hampton: I want to read the resolution again, because it is a very pointed resolution: That, in the opinion of this House, former

employees of the Premier's office be barred from lobbying any and all ministries and government agencies for a period of one year from the termination of their employment.

Let me give a brief history of why this resolution is needed. Currently, it is the case -- it might seem absurd to Ontarians -- that someone can work in the

Premier's office, can have cabinet ministers and cabinet ministers' staff reporting to them, can have deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers reporting to them on certain issues, and, under

the rules as they now stand, they can leave the Premier's office one day and the next day go to work for a private company that is lobbying the government for a contract or for some special deal.

They can go around and lobby the very cabinet ministers, cabinet ministers' staff, deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers that, the day before, were reporting to them. Those are the rules

as they now stand under the McGuinty government. I think anyone who thinks about this would say, "That's terrible. That shouldn't happen."

You should not have a situation where someone can work as a right-hand adviser or left-hand adviser to the Premier, be privy to all this information, be privy

to all the knowledge and all the nuances, leave the Premier's office on Thursday and go to work as a paid lobbyist for the very companies who have been trying to get access to cabinet ministers and

access to assistant deputy ministers and deputy ministers and access to people in the Premier's office. They can go to work the very next day and then be lobbying those deputy ministers who used to

report to them, be lobbying those cabinet ministers and cabinet ministers' staff, people who used to report to him or her.

I want to say that there are a number of people who support me in my resolution. One of them is the now Minister of Natural Resources, David Ramsay. This is

what he has said about clamping down on lobbyists and how important it is: "One of the big problems we've seen with this government is assistants to ministers and assistants to the Premier who have

worked on a first-hand basis on different briefs, different cases, different issues with the private sector. All of a sudden you find an announcement and they're gone to the very company they were

advising from the government standpoint, and now they're working for that company. I think that should be absolutely outlawed." That was David Ramsay; that's his view.

I want to quote someone else who I think supports my position. This would be Dalton McGuinty: "Senior staffers are privy to highly sensitive and confidential

information. They not only know what you're going to do tomorrow, but they know what you're going to do next week and in many cases they know what the government is going to do next month and even

what it's going to do a year away.

"That information can be exceptionally valuable to people who want to do business with the government."

Then Dalton McGuinty then finished with this question: "Do you not feel that there is a very serious problem here and that there ought to be some restriction

placed on senior political staffers who were formerly employed through your office?" -- meaning the Premier's office.

I want to quote another authority. The former Conservative government wrestled with this issue. They brought in a bill called Bill 69, which said that you

couldn't go back and lobby the office that you worked in but you could lobby all the other offices. I want to quote Mike Colle, now a member of cabinet, who was very critical of this. He said,

"This bill will do nothing to control what the lobbyists do. There's not one lobbyist in this province who's shaking in their boots, I'll tell you. They've probably got a big smile on their face as

they smoke their big, fat cigar and eat their blue steak in the bottom of some fancy restaurant down here in Toronto. They're smiling at this. You haven't heard one complaint from a lobbyist about

Bill 69, because Bill 69 is essentially a piece of cake for the lobbyists. It should be called the Lobbyists Protection Act. It is meek. It is meaningless. It does nothing. It's not only too late;

it's much too little." So said Mike Colle.

I want to turn the clock forward to the situation we face today. The situation we face today is this: The McGuinty government has come forward and said that it

would be in favour of spending at least $40 billion on expensive, unreliable nuclear power. If history is any guide in the province of Ontario, a cautious person would say that this will double; it

will likely be $80 billion. What does that mean for the average family? Well, if it's only $40 billion -- I say "only" -- that would be $13,000 that every family in Ontario would pay for these

nuclear power plants. If history is a guide here and it's $80 billion, it means $26,000 out of the pocket of every family for Premier McGuinty's nuclear fantasy.

What's going on here behind the scenes is this: The former right-hand advisers of the Premier, who worked in the Premier's office, who had access to all this

information, who were privy to all the knowledge, guess what they're doing now. They're working as paid lobbyists for the nuclear companies who want these $40-billion contracts. They have all this

inside information. They know all the nuances. The Minister of Energy used to report to them; the Minister of the Environment used to report to them; the deputy ministers used to report to them;

the assistant deputy ministers used to report to them; the Minister of Finance used to report to them. Now these right- and left-hand advisers of Dalton McGuinty are acting as paid lobbyists, going

to the very cabinet ministers, the very deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers on a daily basis and lobbying them. I think this is terribly, terribly unsightly. Just think about it. The

two people who were right-hand advisers to Dalton McGuinty over the last two years left their work as the Premier's advisers and now are paid lobbyists for nuclear companies, and they go around and

they lobby the very cabinet ministers who used to report to them.

I want to read the Premier's words again:

"Senior staffers are privy to highly sensitive and confidential information. They not only know what you're going to do tomorrow, but they know what you're

going to do next week and in many cases they know what the government is going to do next month and even what it's going to do a year away.

"That information can be exceptionally valuable to people who want to do business with the government.

"Do you not feel that there is a very serious problem here and that there ought to be some restriction placed on senior political staffers who were formerly

employed through your office?"

Let me say that I heartily agree with what Dalton McGuinty used to say. His senior staffers have all kinds of inside knowledge of the nuances of energy policy,

of what the government may be looking at, what the government may favour, or what the government may want to do. It is terribly inappropriate that the people who worked as the principal advisers to

the Premier, who have all of this inside information, are now paid lobbyists for companies that are seeking this $40-billion expenditure. It is completely inappropriate that they be allowed to

lobby the cabinet ministers who used to report to them, the deputy ministers who used to report to them and the other senior ministry officials who used to report to them. So that is the reason for

this resolution. I'm calling Dalton McGuinty, David Ramsay, Mike Colle and all the other Liberals who said that this is inappropriate and it should not be permitted.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Peterborough.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I don't want you reading a speech.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I'm not reading a speech.

Mr. Bisson: Don't let the Premier tell you what to say. Say what you really feel.

Mr. Leal: I certainly will. It's an opportunity for me to reflect on the member from Kenora-Rainy River's resolution this morning.

I first came to this place in 1985. I had the opportunity to be on the staff of the late John Eakins, who was the member from Victoria-Haliburton from 1975 to

1990 and had two cabinet positions in the Peterson government. He was Minister of Tourism and Recreation and Minister of Municipal Affairs during the five years of the Peterson administration. He

was also my political mentor. He chatted to me about the need to have the highest ethical standards in public life, and he indeed exhibited those standards as a councillor in the city of Lindsay,

the mayor of the city of Lindsay and then the member of provincial Parliament for some 15 years prior to his retirement in 1990. In fact, his integrity as a minister was duly recognized by the

Premier of the day, Mr. Rae, who appointed Mr. Eakins to sit on the Ontario Place board for a period of time during his administration.

What has transpired over the last 20 years is interesting. I don't want to dwell on what may or may not have been said by others who were here prior to 2003,

but my time here is since 2003. It's interesting to see that there's now almost a reverse onus taking effect -- the member from York North very ably touched upon this the other day -- that we're

now assuming the very worst in everybody; that people indeed are guilty. We go about and we question integrity almost constantly, and if you reflect back some 20 years ago -- we used to have great

debates. I used to sit in that gallery right there. It was an opportunity to watch debates about principle, about concepts, about ideas, and I thought that was appropriate for this chamber.

All parties over the last 20 years I think have been somewhat guilty of this, particularly during question period, when we stand up and question the integrity

of individuals. It's interesting. I've learned that we have full immunity, I believe, when we stand up in this place. Others make suggestions here during debate, but they're reluctant to step

outside this chamber to make the same kinds of statements.

We do in fact have some protections in place -- I have respect for the leader of the third party, the member for Kenora-Rainy River -- that guard the possible

impact of lobbying. The Honourable Lloyd Houlden is the current Conflict of Interest Commissioner within the Ontario Public Service Act, as so defined, and this deals with both former cabinet

ministers and people who serve on staff. The COI Commissioner is the designated official for conflict-of-interest matters involving staff in the Premier's office or in a minister's office.

Regulation 435/97 of the Public Service Act deals with conflict of interest, and the MBC Conflict of Interest and Post-Service Directive extends conflict of interest to post-service situations. The

It's interesting. We put these protections in place. A short time ago, there was an issue in this place regarding the issuing and procurement of an advertising

contract. Even when we put protections in place, we question when some people of impeccable integrity come forward who have these positions within the Ontario government and provide statements that

things were completed in a very ethical and straightforward manner. We all stand up and say, "Well, that can't be believed either." I think that's becoming most unfortunate in this area.

We spent some time this morning dwelling on what might or might not be in terms of the OPA report as we move forward. I want to comment on the conclusions of

that report. It says:

"The advice in this report is intended to set Ontario on a course to:

"Maximize conservation and build on its potential in the future;

"Pursue an aggressive course for renewables within current constraints, while looking at ways to reduce these constraints;

"Adopt a `smart gas' strategy that takes advantage of the benefits of natural-gas-fired generation but limits exposure to its price and supply risks; and

"Benefit from supply options that need long lead times, such as nuclear, large-scale wind generation, hydro imports and gasification."

It would be a distortion of the OPA report to say that the plan puts all the emphasis on one particular side of the energy equation. There will be a discussion

over the next number of months. There will be people involved who will be chatting about this and what sort of options might take place, but to me this emphasis on questioning people's integrity

and character, what they may and may not do -- I don't want to spend time dwelling on the past. I'm sure that if I went to the member for St. Catharines -- he probably has 15 books in his desk over

there that I could dig out and dwell on the past.

I happen to think there are provisions in place that provide protection. The standards of the day -- we all have to make decisions in this place. We all have

to conduct ourselves in an appropriate manner. I happen to be one who believes that in most cases people exhibit ethical standards to the highest degree in doing their tasks. There are a lot of

examples.

I could go back to the mid-1950s when Mr. Frost was Premier. There was the famous scandal here in the Ontario government. It was the NONG scandal, the Northern

Ontario Natural Gas pipeline issue. That was part of the great pipeline debate that was going on across Canada at the time of the extension of the TransCanada Pipeline from western Canada through

Ontario.

Mr. Frost, who set the standard of the day -- there was a question of whether some insiders were actually providing tips on buying stock in the company that

was to construct that portion of the gas pipeline through northern Ontario. In his day, he exhibited the highest standards possible, and certainly removed at least three cabinet ministers at that

time who looked like they had a conflict of interest in dealing with that.

During my short two and a half years here, I have observed people on all sides who I believe have exhibited the highest ethical standards and certainly conduct

themselves in an appropriate manner. It seems to me that from time to time the debate in this House is getting away from an opportunity to talk about principles and policy into what I call this

reverse onus, spending a lot of time questioning character. Even when it's proven, through various officers of this Legislature, and they provide the evidence that shows that correct procedures

have been followed, whether it's in procuring advertising contracts or others, we still keep questioning that. Why do we take the time through rigorous debate to put these structures in place, to

report back to the 103 members here, to provide observations and data in support that say things are done in a clearly transparent manner, and we keep questioning that?

In terms of a number of things, we're building on activities that previous governments have begun. We brought forward a transparency act, to increase the view

that we as members and the outside public have on activities of the Ontario government. I think we've brought transparency. It really goes back to the mid-1980s in terms of how we allocate

advertising contracts here in Ontario, creating arm's-length agencies that look at procurements to make sure they're done in an appropriate manner. One of the things we have done is ban partisan

advertising, which I think by and large is an appropriate thing to do, and I think we've gone a long way. Justice Coulter Osborne, the Integrity Commissioner, who reviews the activities of members

in this province, certainly has gone a long way, I believe, to reassure the public of activities that we're involved in each and every day.

This could be a better place. I appreciate the comments of Mr. Tory, the leader of the Conservative Party, when he came here to perhaps enhance the quality of

debate and the direction we're going in. I think there are sufficient protections in place to make sure that the interests of Ontarians are protected.

The Acting Speaker: I'd ask the members to welcome Len Wood, MPP for Cochrane North in the 35th and 36th Parliaments. Welcome.

The Chair recognizes the member for Kitchener-Waterloo.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'm pleased to briefly join the debate and discussion this morning on Mr. Hampton's resolution,

"That, in the opinion of this House, former employees of the Premier's office be barred from lobbying any and all ministries and government agencies for a period of one year from the termination of

their employment."

I think we would all agree that it is important that people behave appropriately, that there is not perceived to be any conflict of interest at any time

because people have the opportunity, based on their former employment, to have access to information and be able to accomplish things that other people cannot.

I just want to speak briefly this morning about the fact that when we were in government, we recognized the importance of having in place some very strong

government-wide conflict-of-interest rules. We did introduce those rules in 1997, and they were entitled the Conflict of Interest and Post-Service Directive, by Management Board Secretariat.

At that time, a conflict of interest was determined to be "any situation where an individual's private interests may be incompatible or in conflict with their

public service responsibilities." This focused largely on the public service, but certainly we can extrapolate, and we can ensure that all people who have worked in former offices are in a similar

position where they are not in conflict.

The purpose of that post-service directive at that time was to enhance public confidence in the integrity of public servants and the decision-making process in

government by setting some clear rules of conduct for conflict of interest in post-service practices that would apply to all public servants. We were also trying to reduce the possibility of

conflict between the private interests and the public service duties of public servants. We were trying to provide a means to resolve such conflicts in the public interest.

That particular directive applied to "senior public servants," including:

"(

i) the secretary of cabinet

"(ii) deputy ministers

"(iii) senior staff in the Premier's office and ministers' offices

"(iv) public servants (except for clerical and secretarial staff)

"(

v) the senior management group

"(vi) any other individuals designated under

part 3 to whom the post-service employment restriction will apply."

It is important to recognize that our government did recognize the importance of putting in place this conflict-of-interest and post-service directive for

public servants, in the best interests of all of the people in the province of Ontario.

It went on. Really, the bill was all about ensuring that "the government of Ontario maintains a legal interest in the post-service activities of former public

servants. As such, public servants shall not, after leaving employment of the crown, take improper advantage of their past offices." For example, they shall not do the following:

"(

a) allow prospects of outside employment to create a real or potential conflict of interest while in public service with the crown;

"(

b) seek preferential treatment or privileged access to government after leaving public service with the crown;

"(

c) take personal advantage of information obtained through official duties and responsibilities that is not available to the public;

"(

d) use public office to unfair advantage in gaining opportunities for outside employment." Certainly, this did move activity forward.

Part 3 of the document was specifically dedicated to looking at the mandatory requirements for post-service restrictions for senior public servants. It said,

"For 12 months after leaving the service of the crown, a former senior public servant is restricted from lobbying for or on behalf of any person, entity or organization, to any ministry or

organization with the crown with which the individual worked in the 12 months prior to leaving the service of the crown.

"Where a former senior public servant lobbies the crown on behalf of an organization in contravention of the requirements of this section, the crown reserves

the right not to do business with that organization with respect to that particular issue or transaction."

I think what's extremely important here -- and I'll conclude -- is simply that, given this government's commitment to transparency, accountability and

democratic renewal, the Premier and this government, who talk about transparency and accountability, should at all times hold all staff to the highest standards of integrity.

Mr. Bisson: I am so happy to be part of this debate, because it gives us a chance to talk about the Liberal way. We are in a federal election

right now, and everybody will know that one of the key issues federally in regard to the election that will play out on January 23 is the largesse that Liberals like to show to their friends when

it comes to things that have happened over the years, when it comes to favours that Liberals do for each other when they're in government, for their friends in the private sector, and their friends

generally.

We would know right now, for example, that this whole issue around the Gomery inquiry has been pretty categorical in saying that the Liberal government in

Ottawa did a whole bunch of things that, quite frankly, were not very moral and, I would argue, not even legal, when it comes to helping their friends along: little brown envelopes with thousands

of dollars in them given to people at suppers; contracts being given out to their friends in order to get contributions back to the political party -- all kinds of stuff like that. I've just got to

say, you know, it's the Liberal way. It's the way it is.

We have this thing: We politicians talk among the parties. I don't like what the Conservatives do, but I know where they're coming from. They have a principle.

I don't agree with it, but they stake themselves out on the right of the political spectrum. I would argue that the Conservatives don't agree with us New Democrats, and we stake ourselves on the

left of the political spectrum. Liberals will just do what has to be done to get elected. It's not about ideas. It's not about anything other than, "How do I get power? If I have to be a

left-winger today and a right-winger tomorrow and, in between, switch three times and do whatever, so be it." It's all about power, because once you're in power, you can help your friends.

We have, for example, Mr. Lopinski, who was the director of issues within the Premier's office -- in fact, was one of the key advisers to the Premier on a

whole bunch of issues having to do with what happens here in the Legislature and what happens generally within the government. Lo and behold, after gaining inside knowledge about what happens in

this place and what the policies of the government are, all of a sudden he ends up as a paid lobbyist for Bruce. Now, surprise, surprise, Bruce gets a $6.5-billion deal by the provincial government

to refurbish Bruce -- as Howard would call it, the fixer-upper at Bruce -- where they're going to refit a number of generators at the Bruce nuclear station.

It's just interesting that the government doesn't seem to see this as a problem. It's OK for inside staffers -- good, loyal Liberal partisans -- to come into

government, to be in key positions, gather information, know what the government direction is, and then all of a sudden it's OK for them to leave and become paid lobbyists for whomever to try to

influence the government in doing whatever. In this particular case, Mr. Lopinski, who was a key adviser to the Premier -- I think "director of issues" was his actual title -- ends up going from

the Premier's office in the know, knows what's going on in the nuclear file, and all of a sudden gets big bucks working for -- I think it was Hill and Knowlton where he ended up, and at Hill and

Knowlton getting big bucks to help their customer, Bruce Power, to lobby the government to get dollars. And all of a sudden it happens.

What I find really remarkable -- well, I don't find it remarkable. I find it -- I can't say it because it would be unparliamentary, and I don't want to be

unparliamentary. You know me; I'm a great one for making sure I keep the decorum of this House when it comes to what I say. But what I find interesting is that in opposition, when the Tories were

there and they passed their legislation on lobbyist registration, the Liberals were jumping up all over the place saying, "Oh, my God, it's terrible. You've got to stop this." You had Michael Colle

-- I remember him standing up in the House: "Oh, my God, you can't allow this to happen. Insiders have inside information and they're going to profit."

Dalton McGuinty was up in the House asking questions to both Premier Harris and eventually Premier Eves. Most of the ministers who are in cabinet now were in

the opposition and really decried the Conservatives when it came to what they did on lobbyist registration, saying it didn't go far enough. They were really upset. I think the only thing they were

upset about was that they couldn't get into power themselves at the time and help their friends. Now that they're there, oops, "It's OK. No, no, we don't need that kind of legislation. We have to

trust these people because they'll do all the right things."

At the end of the day, I say no wonder voters are cynical. We're seeing this pattern develop in Canada over the years and, I would argue, in most of the

democratic world, where more and more voters are disconnecting from politics and politicians because they look at this kind of stuff and say, "Oh, my God, look at that. There they go again. Oh,

well, what do you expect? Gomery? All right, they passed an envelope of thousands of dollars; more Liberal friends got payoffs. It's more of the same." They say, "I'm going to stay home, and I'm

not going to vote."

I'm saying, at the end of the day, the very people who could make the difference in sending a message to politicians not to do this are the very people who

stay home and don't vote. This serves the interest, I would argue, of the Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Ontario. They like it when you have low voter turnout, because the people

who show up are those who are partisan, people like you and I who are engaged in the political process, who live and breathe this, or at least are mildly interested. Those are the people who go and

vote. So it's no wonder we keep perpetuating the same problem, when the very voters who can make a difference and say, "Stop this kind of stuff. We don't like what happened with Gomery. We don't

like that the Liberals did what they did with taxpayers' dollars, paying off their friends. We don't like the idea of insiders of the Liberal Party who are staffers to the government going out and

working for the private sector and costing the taxpayers a lot of money on the other end" -- the only way to stop that is for voters to say, "Enough is enough. I'm not just going to stay home and

say `I'm mad and I'm not going because all politicians are the same.'"

Go to the ballot box and vote for the party or the candidate that you think is going to make a difference and not do that. Send a message, at the very least.

Can you imagine if, at the January 23 election, all the people who are dissatisfied with government, who say, "All politicians are the same. They're on the payoff. They're not looking out for my

interests," would get up one day -- almost 50% of entitled voters in this country, because we're down to about a 50% turnout -- and say, "I'm going to go and vote for one of the parties in

opposition to the Liberals in order to make sure that I send a message"?

I would argue, vote for Jack Layton; vote for the NDP. Vote for Carol Hughes up in Kapuskasing. Vote for Charlie Angus in Timmins-James Bay. I think that would

be a good message to send, because it would mean that the Liberals would have to take the public seriously for a change -- the Liberal government in Ottawa, which thinks that it's their

God-inherent right to be government. Imagine, Canada would have a government other than a Liberal government. My God, they should just have a constitutional change so they're always the government.

Imagine if you sent that message. All of a sudden, every party would have to take voters seriously because the message sent by Canadians would be, "Hey, you can't get away with this stuff."

I think it's rather sad. When governments like the Dalton McGuinty government do what they've done, allowing political insiders to go and work as lobbyists,

lobbying the very government they worked for for money, where they know what the inside scoop is, it really sends a terrible, terrible message. I just say that, at some point, voters have got to

stop this "I'm not going to go out and vote" thing and get out and vote and make a difference. At the end of the day, it would make a difference.

The other thing I want to touch on very quickly has to do partly with David MacNaughton, who was the former principal secretary to Dalton McGuinty and who now

works in the nuclear industry. I think he's involved with the Candu reactor. It gives me a chance to say something that has not been said by many people, but I think it needs to be said: This

government is going down the road of developing new nuclear power generation in Ontario, even though we know that, every time we've gone down this road, it has cost the taxpayers up to three times

as much money as what the estimates said. If you remember Darlington, by the end of the day it was three times higher in cost than it was supposed to be in the very first place. Now we're going to

say that $40 billion worth of generation could end up costing taxpayers up to $120 billion.

Aside from all the other issues, there's one thing I want to put on the record. This government is saying, "We're not necessarily going to go to Candu

reactors." Not that I'm a big fan of nuclear power, but hang on a second, you guys. You'd better understand what you're saying. I know a little bit about this. I'm an electrician by trade, and a

technologist as well. There are a couple of things that you've got to take into consideration: Candu technology is one of the only technologies with which you cannot produce weapons-grade

plutonium. Did you know that? If you buy a French reactor or an American reactor, you can take the spent plutonium and make weapons-grade plutonium with the residual waste of those reactors. Candu

is one of the only technologies that doesn't allow that to happen because of the technology we developed. Canada believed that we had to design nuclear reactors in such a way that people would not

use the spent fuel in order to make weapons of mass destruction, as George Bush likes to call them. So do we as a province, if we ever went down this road -- and I'm not in favour of going there --

really want to say that we're going to a French-style reactor or an American-style reactor whose spent fuel can be used to make nuclear weapons? I don't believe for a second that Canada or Ontario

is in the business of making nuclear bombs, but my point is that we should not be supporting that kind of technology. The second thing is, I want to say very clearly for the record, that I am not

in favour of this government going down a nuclear path.

Here's the other issue, and this is how dumb this is: There are currently within the Ontario hydro system technicians, engineers and specialists who understand

our current technology used in nuclear reactors, the Candu. If you suddenly go out and say, as Premier Dalton McGuinty has, "Oh, well, we're open to anything. We'll buy a French reactor. We'll buy

an American reactor. God, we'll even buy a Russian reactor" -- remember Chernobyl?

My point is that the technology to keep those reactors going has a whole infrastructure behind it. If you bring in a new technology, you have to hire people

from outside of Canada who know something about that form of technology and how it works and how the machinery works. So you will end up with a more expensive infrastructure because you will not be

able to use the one we have here now, which is the Candu infrastructure, as far as technology goes. You will have to import all kinds of people to do the training and support that are necessary to

support the new technology, whatever it might be: French, Russian, American or whatever. I'm saying to the government, you're wrong to go down the nuclear path in the first place, but you're even

more stupid to go down the road of saying, "We're open to any kind of technology," on the principles that I've mentioned:

(1) You don't want to build a second infrastructure to support a technology

that we don't currently support in Ontario, because we support Candu; and (2) does Ontario really want to send the message that we're for buying reactors whose spent fuel you could use to make

bombs? I think it's a pretty dumb thing.

The government would be best served to follow the advice that Howard Hampton has put forward, that we need to do a number of things. There's not one answer for

the energy crunch that we're in. We have to deal with the whole issue of energy efficiencies. There's all kinds of stuff we can do around insulating buildings and utilizing energy that would really

go a long way to lowering the crunch.

We have to deal with the issue of other generation. There are all kinds of different technologies we can use that are a lot safer.

There's a whole issue of run-of-the-river generation that my good friend Len Wood, who's here today, would know very well. It's been used very successfully in

his old riding of Cochrane, now Timmins-James Bay. There is minimal impact on the environment, it is very reliable, it works, it is there for a long time and it is able to go into the base or peak

load, depending what river you're into.

The issue of wind generation could be used. We have to look at how we can subsidize the construction of wind generation and develop the capacity, as a

province, to build that particular technology here in Ontario. I look at James Bay -- Len Wood would know well -- at the communities of Peawanuck and others that have to generate electricity by

diesel. What a dumb way to do it. If Ontario were in the position of saying, "We will assist those First Nations who use diesel generation for electricity to build windmills to augment their

capacity to lower their reliance on diesel," that would go a long way. Peawanuck, Attawapiskat, Martin Falls and other communities would be absolutely ecstatic. Imagine our old friend Eli Moonias

-- do you remember Eli, Len? -- Chief of Martin Falls, I think the longest-serving chief in NAN territory, has been on that for a long time. He says, "I'm tired of paying." They're paying over 25

cents per kilowatt of electricity in Martin Falls. Certainly you can put wind generation in that community for less than that. There are things that the government can do.

Back to the point of this motion: I think the government should do and say what it did in opposition. In opposition they said, "We need tough legislation that

will stop, at the end of the day, the influence of political insiders going off to work in the private sector as lobbyists." There should be legislation that says there's a cooling-off period of at

least a year or two so that people have some distance between themselves and a knowledge of what goes on in government before they come back, because the temptation is there. If you're in the

nuclear industry or whatever industry and you're looking for a paid lobbyist and, "If I talk to the principal secretary to the Premier and offer him or her enough money, they're going to work for

me a day after they leave the Premier's office," you've got a pretty good in. They know all the political staffers and they've got all the connections. They have the personal connection with the

Premier, with cabinet ministers, with backbenchers and others. I think it's a temptation that you have to remove. Dalton McGuinty was right to ask, when in opposition, that the government do that.

Now that he's government, he says, "Oh, well. I don't know. We have to trust these people."

I just say, shame on Dalton McGuinty. He should do what he said he was going to do in opposition. This is an example of another broken Liberal promise.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to rise in support of this resolution. I want to say at the outset that I will be supporting it. I

would like to bring to the attention of the Legislature, as well as the public, further to the comments by my colleague for Kitchener-Waterloo, that the previous government did introduce

legislation to this House that dealt with issues of conflict of interest. I have here a copy of the directive issued by the Management Board Secretariat that deals with the Conflict of Interest and

Post-Service Directive. While, as the member for Kitchener-Waterloo indicated, this is primarily related to members of the public service, it does, in fact, capture precisely the issue that Mr.

Hampton is addressing in his resolution.

The member for Kitchener-Waterloo read the definition of "conflict," and she also referred to

section 3 of this directive, which deals specifically with

post-service responsibilities. What she didn't do and what I'd like to add to the record is that there is an appendix A attached to this directive. Appendix A makes very specific reference to the

additional members of the staff, and it deals with those individuals who are, and have been, employed by the Ontario SuperBuild Corp. It goes on to refer to appendix B, which is part of this

directive. Appendix B deals with positions that may be involved in one or more privatization matters. We wanted, as a government, to capture all of that.

Here is the issue that I believe Mr. Hampton is attempting to capture in his resolution, and it's appendix C of the directive. It refers to "Senior positions

in the Office of the Premier and ministers' offices (or positions of equivalent responsibility) that are designated as being subject to the post-service restrictions as detailed in

Part 3." It very

clearly lists:

"a. In the Office of the Premier:

"(

i) chief of staff;

"(ii) principal secretary;

"(iii) department heads and staff equivalent to department heads;

"(iv) staff in the policy department, except administrative staff."

Under

section B of this appendix it refers to ministers' offices and speaks about executive assistants; and special assistants:

" -- legislative assistants;

" -- press secretary/communications assistant;

" -- policy advisers.

"(iii) any other person employed in a minister's office in a senior position whose duties routinely involve advising the minister or any other official or

employee of the crown."

I'm not sure if it's a matter of the leader of the third party not having done his research to determine that, in fact, all of the employees to whom he was

referring in his debate are already caught under the responsibilities and the requirements of this directive, so this isn't a matter of requiring additional legislation. It's not a matter of

calling on the government to implement some new statute or issue new directives; really what it is about is calling on this government to simply enforce a directive that is in black and white

today, which very clearly states that individuals who are employed in the Premier's office in any of these capacities are restricted from taking on the kind of lobbying assignments or employment or

be engaged in any of those activities to which the leader of the third party referred.

What we have here is an example of a government that simply is refusing to enforce the directive that's already in place. I join with the leader of the third

party. I will certainly vote in favour of this resolution because it reaffirms this 12-month period of time that's already contained in the guidelines that, surely, the government would want to

comply with. I call on the Premier, I call on this government to simply enforce the guidelines that are in place today and, if they choose not to, to provide an explanation to this House as to why

they are not enforcing those requirements.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I can't imagine any member of this House not supporting the resolution. But at the end of the day,

what is important here is that the Premier enforce the guidelines and ensure that the people who have worked for him, or in any minister's office, comply with these regulations that are in place

today.

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I'm pleased to speak to this resolution. It's interesting, because what I have learned in my role in

the media and my role in politics is that there's a big difference between substance and optics. Optics are something quite malleable and open to spin and manipulation, and substance is quite

another thing. While this is worded in a fashion of, "Of course, why can't you support something like this?" I'll tell you what I don't support: I don't support the tone of this.

We're our own worst enemies in politics. You wonder why people out there are a little jaded, a little ticked off, and are throwing up their hands and going,

"Oh, those guys. Oh, you guys. The whole lot of you." It's because people get up here like monkeys with machine guns and spray misinformation and spray things that malign people and indicate that

things are all terribly seamy and awful and everybody is on the take.

Do you know what? My experience here at Queen's Park -- I've been here for two years -- is that I would say the vast majority of members in this House are here

for the right reason. They are here because they believe in something and have become political as a result, and so are the people who are working in the halls and offices throughout this area.

I am actually having my faith in humanity and politics restored. People might find that quite surprising, but it's because I am running into people who work

very hard, often just for the sake of issues they believe in, and they are not on the take. That's my experience, from the private sector to here, and I would say, that's in the civil service and

on the political side. I am finding good, honest, hard-working people.

The tone of this resolution maligns people. That's the optics of it: "Great. The usual game. You guys, you're terrible. You're dreadful. You're all on the

take." So we've just made everybody a little more jaded, a little more cynical out there. That's what we've accomplished with this resolution so far this morning.

Substantively, there are a number of things in place already that deal with this issue, and new ones have been brought in by our government. There are very

strict rules governing public servants and post-service activities, and there is a Conflict of Interest Commissioner. There is conflict of interest in vendors' rules and regulations, all contracts

having conflict-of-interest clauses. There's an increased level of accountability in government advertising. There is a ban on partisan advertising, which the NDP voted against.

I want to talk quickly about the Advertising Review Board -- one second about this. The man who created the Advertising Review Board was the communications

director for Bill Davis. But they didn't bring it in. Peterson recognized the intelligence of this man, G. Campbell McDonald. He recognized the non-partisan nature of what he was trying to do and

made him the founding chairman of the ARB. That is an organization that helps and has helped successive governments in here to keep things at arm's length and of a non-partisan nature.

I'm going to leave our last few seconds for my colleague here from ADFA.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I don't have a lot of extra time to speak here today, but I want to say that I will be supporting the

resolution by Mr. Hampton. I think the whole area of lobbying governments needs to be -- I think we're seeing a stronger growth all the time in this particular area and we're becoming much more

Americanized as we go down the path with our political parties and our system here in Ontario. I hate to think of some of the things that have actually happened because of the influence that a

minister, a Premier or an organization may have on a particular political party.

I think of June 2004 when the Honourable Sandra Pupatello, the Minister of Community and Social Services, spoke to Community Living Ontario. To a round of

applause, she told the organization that she would close down the three remaining regional centres in Ontario, and that was without any consultation whatsoever with parents.

I wanted to put on the record that just this week, on December 12 and 13, in Ottawa, the Superior Court of Justice heard the case and actually put forward a

stay for at least 30 days for a future decision by the court. In the meantime, it has cost these families a tremendous amount of money to fight the legal case. On top of that, they've had to battle

a team of lawyers from the provincial government. I think it totals approximately 12 people who are up in Ottawa fighting to make sure that we can evict the most vulnerable people in our society

from their homes.

I've just got a few seconds left. I want to say a few thank-yous today. First of all, I want to thank and congratulate the pages for a job well done. I think

they're a great group of kids. I also want to, on behalf of the Huronia Helpers, the people who represent the parents, families and friends of the clients at the Huronia Regional Centre -- I want

to thank them for the hard work they've done and for a job well done and wish them all the best in the future. I also want to say that we have with us Randy Panchoo, who is an employee here at

Queen's Park, a very friendly guy; you see him around. His mother, Clefida, is here in Canada from Grenada, and I wanted to wish Clefida Panchoo a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I hope

she has really enjoyed her time in Canada.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I was here even longer ago than my friend from Peterborough: back in 1975-77. Since

then, there has evolved a system which has worked very well.

I don't want to support this motion, because I value public service. I don't want to say to people who have chosen public service, "That was a mistake. You

shouldn't have done that because you're going to be penalized." I don't want to say to people, "Your expertise doesn't count because you can't use it, and the skills you've acquired and the

knowledge you've gained aren't transferable." That's not fair, that's not just and that's not the way we do things in a country like Canada, where we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Acting Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT (ASSISTANCE TO

MUNICIPALITIES), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN (AIDE AUX MUNICIPALITÉ

S) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joseph N. Tascona): We will deal first with ballot item number 15, standing in the name of Mr. Yakabuski. The member

has moved second reading of Bill 3,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act with respect to the assistance that the Minister provides to municipalities. Is it the

pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell, which we'll do after we deal with the next question.

LOBBYISTS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joseph N. Tascona): Mr. Hampton has moved private member's resolution number 9. Is it the pleasure of the House that

the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT (ASSISTANCE TO

MUNICIPALITIES), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN (AIDE AUX MUNICIPALITÉ

S) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joseph N. Tascona): Mr. Yakabuski has moved second reading of Bill 3.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Brownell, Jim

Dunlop, Garfield

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise.

Nays

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Delaney, Bob

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Kwinter, Monte

Marsales, Judy

McNeely, Phil

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Smitherman, George

Zimmer, David

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 25; the nays are 13.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): The standing committee on justice policy, please.

The Acting Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on justice policy? Agreed.

We will now open the door for 30 seconds.

LOBBYISTS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joseph N. Tascona): Mr. Hampton has moved private member's notice of motion number 9.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Dunlop, Garfield

Hampton, Howard

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Miller, Norm

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise.

Nays

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Brownell, Jim

Delaney, Bob

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Hoy, Pat

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Milloy, John

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Zimmer, David

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 17; the nays are 22.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 p.m. today.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DIABETES

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): This morning, I was pleased to attend the Canadian Diabetes Association's Healthy for the Holidays

Breakfast, promoting healthy lifestyles to prevent diabetes, here at Queen's Park.

Over 700,000 Ontarians currently live with diabetes, and another 53,000 people in our province are diagnosed with the disease every year. These people face

annual costs for medications that are two to three times greater than for those without diabetes. We all know that the costs for those with diabetes and diabetes-related complications are projected

to grow 78% by 2016.

Earlier this month, the Canadian Diabetes Association released its report for 2005, entitled The Serious Face of Diabetes in Canada. According to the report,

the single greatest challenge for Canadians living with diabetes is affordability and the access to the diabetes medications, devices and supplies they need to reduce the risk of costly health

complications.

They have presented recommendations to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Two of the recommendations are:

(1) Reduce the waiting times for structured diabetes education and care in the province by improving access; and

(2) Improve access to eye exams and treatment of retinal complications.

Unfortunately, we know that wait times are not decreasing and that optometry services have been delisted. It is important to listen to the recommendations of

this report.

CAREFIRST COMMUNITY

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): Last Friday, I had the pleasure to attend the Carefirst volunteer recognition night and holiday party. The

Carefirst Community is a non-profit social service agency serving upwards of 6,500 clients a year, with the help of over 1,200 active volunteers.

Established in 1976, its membership is primarily made up of senior Chinese Canadians, although their services are available to anyone in need of them. They

provide a wide range of services to their clients, including Meals on Wheels and home care as well as social and recreation events in a program to promote active lifestyles, known as the wellness

program.

Throughout the evening, the Carefirst Community members entertained us with singing and dancing to Chinese and Canadian music. Many of these people have not

been in our country very long, but it was clear that they are very proud to be Canadians and Ontarians. The event brought together 450 people and raised funds for a proposed multi-purpose facility

for seniors and youths.

I would like to commend the Carefirst Community and the volunteers for the support and generosity they provide to people across the GTA.

This is a good example of the type of social activity -- seniors entertaining themselves, and us -- that this House should be much in favour of assisting and

promoting. That is the way to go.

BRIAN ADKIN

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On January 7, people will gather at the Holiday Inn Select at the Toronto airport to honour Staff

Sergeant Brian Adkin on the occasion of his retirement from the OPP.

Brian was a member of the OPP for 32 years and had an outstanding career serving in many locations throughout Ontario. But he is unquestionably best known for

his time as president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association. Brian served from1994 to October 2005 and holds the distinction of being the longest-serving OPPA president.

As Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety, I had the opportunity of working directly with Brian, and over the course of six years our relationship

became one of mutual respect and, ultimately, friendship.

Brian always had the best interests of his members and the improvement of public safety at the forefront of his agenda. We frequently had the same goals in

mind, but occasionally disagreed on the way to get there. Fortunately, those disagreements were infrequent, as Brian is a difficult guy to disagree with. At 6'6", he can be very persuasive. In

later years, even on those rare occasions when we agreed to disagree, we knew we'd done our best, with the public interest always uppermost, and we could put it behind us with a good cigar and a

wee dram of scotch.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus and our leader, John Tory, I want to extend our congratulations to Brian on an outstanding career and to wish

him and his wife, Janet, all the best for the retirement years ahead.

WATER RESOURCES AGREEMENTS

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I rise in the House today to recognize our government's historic accomplishment this past week.

Premier McGuinty and Minister Ramsay, alongside the province of Quebec and eight states that border on the Great Lakes, signed the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources

Agreement. These agreements include a good-faith commitment between the provinces and eight states, as well as a binding compact between the states alone. Ontario is already a leader in

implementing regulations to protect our water basins. This agreement between provinces and states proves that our government is committed to protecting our environment and considers the health of

Ontarians and of all our neighbours to be a top priority.

The agreement signed on Tuesday bans diversions, with strictly regulated exceptions for communities that straddle the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin

boundary. The province already regulates water withdrawals and protects natural ecosystems, but these agreements ensure similar protection from all Great Lakes jurisdictions. It will also

strengthen water conservation through programs in each state and province involved, as well as establish new environmental standards for regulating water uses across the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence

River basin states and provinces. The Great Lakes form part of a delicate eco-system which needs to be protected for the use of future generations. It is important to achieve regional collaboration

on this initiative, since it affects 10 different regions in two separate countries. Such co-operation is difficult to negotiate, and I am proud that our government was instrumental in bringing

this agreement to fruition.

PREMIER'S ATTENDANCE

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): It is improper and unparliamentary to refer to a member's absence. However, in view of this government's

own legislation --

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act, Bill 17, by Michael Bryant, the Attorney General of pit bulls and fouled-up appeals -- it is necessary to reflect upon the attendance

of cabinet ministers. The act, in fact, compels their attendance. I want to announce clearly that Mary Anne Chambers is the undoubted winner of this fanciful lottery, having been here for 97% of

question period.

A dismal failure has been the Premier. Although his Web site states that he was here for, oh, 68% of the time, his Web site is Harnicking the people of

Ontario. We did the numbers, and he was here for only 63% of the time. I say to the Premier that it's time for him to obey his own law. He knows that there's a monetary penalty imposed by Bill 17

for not being here often enough to work, receiving your full pay. It's time for the Premier to ante up. His absence had better cost him some money, because it's his government that passed this

phoney bill. It's time for the Premier to cough up. Put the money on the table. Put the money where your mouth is, Premier.

LOUISE HARRIS

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I rise today to pay tribute to an individual who has served the people of Ontario with distinction in various

capacities for 30 years, most of them here at Queen's Park. Louise Harris, during her time at Queen's Park, has worked in both government and opposition, with six party leaders, directly for three

MPPs and served as chief of staff in two ministries. She has the distinction of working in one of the first constituency offices in Ontario, starting in 1975.

While special assistant to the Minister of Transportation, the Honourable James Snow, it is little known that Louise was the driving force behind implementing

mandatory child car seats in Ontario. In 2002, Louise assumed responsibilities as my chief of staff in the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, and in 2003 found herself in the same office in which

she had started her career in 1975, only this time not as a special assistant but as my chief of staff in the Ministry of Transportation.

In 2003, Louise was honoured by the Ontario PC Party with the Trillium award for the distinction as Campaign Manager of the Year for her outstanding job of

getting the member for the riding of Oak Ridges elected for a third time.

I have been privileged to work with Louise Harris throughout my time as an elected member. I and the Ontario PC caucus have had the benefit of her experience

and untiring dedication. Above all, Louise will be remembered for her unwavering loyalty.

I ask all members of the House to join me in expressing our appreciation to Louise and to wish her well as she assumes her new responsibilities as the director

of advocacy, government relations and communications with the Ontario Bar Association.

Thank you, Louise Harris. Your service and loyalty will not be forgotten. Godspeed.

ALIGHT AT NIGHT

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): The holiday season is almost upon us. It's time for the people of Ontario to enjoy their

families, to relax and to appreciate the subtle joys in life. I know that I will be taking my family to Upper Canada Village in my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh to experience the beauty

and tranquility of the Alight at Night festival.

If any of you have thoughts about discovering or rediscovering Upper Canada Village, now is the time. Away from the hustle and bustle of big-city life, Upper

Canada Village recreates life in the 1860s village. Located in Morrisburg, it is conveniently accessible via Highway 401.

Far from the lights of metropolitan night, every star is visible. Take your family in a horse-drawn carriage through the serene streets of the village, past

historic buildings twinkling with Christmas lights. Breathe in the fresh air laced with the scent from a wood stove, inviting you to the village bakery for freshly baked bread.

Give yourself a special gift this year: Partake in an experience that captures all the best qualities of rural Ontario -- its history, its charm and its unique

character. While you are in the region, you could even catch a play, such as the classic "Anne" of Anne of Green Gables fame, being performed at the Upper Canada Playhouse in Morrisburg.

I just had the opportunity of walking over to the House, and I met one of Minister Bradley's staff members. She indicated to me that she is heading down to the

Alight at Night festival this weekend. That's going to be an exciting time for her.

Whatever your interests this season, you can find something to satisfy them in eastern Ontario. It's "Yours to Discover," as the motto goes. Thank you, and

best wishes for the holiday season.

FIREFIGHTERS' MEMORIAL

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): I rise this afternoon to recognize the important contribution made by firefighters in our province. Each

and every day, these brave men and women risk their lives to protect the safety of others. Most amazingly of all, those who they risk their lives for are usually complete strangers.

On Saturday, November 12, along with hundreds of others from Waterloo region and across the province, I attended an event in my riding to honour those