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

October 24, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Oct-24 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 24 October 2001 Mercredi 24 octobre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FRANCHISE BUSINESSES

CROWN LAND MANAGEMENT

CONSTRUCTION LABOUR MOBILITY

PORK PROCESSING PLANT

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

CHILD CARE WORKERS

KENNEDY ROAD BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION

HOUSING STOCK

FILIPINO COMMUNITY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT

PROGRAM AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN DISABILITY

INCOME SUPPORT PAYMENTS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE

PROGRAMME ONTARIEN DE SOUTIEN

AUX PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

(ÉQUITÉ DANS LES VERSEMENTS

DU SOUTIEN DU REVENU)

DEFERRED VOTES

IMPROVING CUSTOMER SERVICE

FOR ROAD USERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION

DES SERVICES À LA CLIENTÈLE

OFFERTS AUX USAGERS DE LA ROUTE

PRIVATE MEMBER'S RESOLUTION

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

PROVINCIAL SALES TAX

LOW-INCOME ONTARIANS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

TAX CUTS

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

INTEGRATED JUSTICE PROJECT

CHILD CARE WORKERS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

AIMING FOR THE TOP SCHOLARSHIPS

CABINET OFFICE FUNDING

TRANSIT FUNDING

MUSLIM COMMUNITY

PRIVATE MEMBER'S RESOLUTION

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

NATIONAL CHILD

BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HIGHWAY 407

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

EMERY ADULT LEARNING CENTRE

OPPOSITION DAY

PROVINCIAL SALES TAX

PRIVATE MEMBER'S RESOLUTION

Wednesday 24 October 2001 Mercredi 24 octobre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FRANCHISE BUSINESSES

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Currently in Ontario, nearly 40,000 franchise owners are vulnerable to the arbitrary termination of

their franchise agreements.

Franchise owners are people like my constituent Janice Snyder, an entrepreneur who invested her savings and for the last eight years has successfully operated

two franchise stores for Grand and Toy. She also employs 30 people.

I find it unbelievable that today in Ontario a franchisor is under no obligation to provide appropriate notice or compensation when ending an agreement with a

franchisee.

This is exactly the situation my constituent and 26 other franchise owners in Ontario find themselves in. It is not news to this government that the majority of

problems in franchising occur after signing the contract.

Expert after expert advised that the Arthur Wishart Act should include an alternative dispute resolution mechanism outside the court system. More importantly,

they advised that the act include an outline of fair commercial standards when it comes to the performance, transfer, renewal and termination of franchise agreements.

I want to make it clear that this government was aware that franchise agreements are one-sided, lengthy, non-negotiable contracts drafted by the franchisor.

The franchise owners of Ontario deserve better from their government. Ontario entrepreneurs are the engine that moves our economy. They are women and men who are

willing to take risks and work hard. All they ask for is a level playing field guided by a principle of fair commercial practices.

CROWN LAND MANAGEMENT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to pay tribute to the citizens of Orono and Clarington for their stewardship of

the province's lands in their community.

Last Friday, I attended a ceremony for the signing of a new and creative partnership between the Orono Crown Lands Trust and the Ministry of Natural Resources.

This agreement covers the management of over 1,000 acres, located west of Orono along Wilmot Creek. This land includes woodlands, meadows, trails and an outdoor education centre. It is one of our

community's natural treasures.

The trust will coordinate the activities of the site, maintenance and management. At this time, I would like to congratulate Mr John Thomson, chair of the Orono

Crown Lands Trust, and members John Slater, June Smith, Jim Parker and Paul Jones.

The advisory committee to establish the management plan also includes the outdoor educator, Bonnie Anderson, of the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board;

Norm Monaghan, of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters; Tracy Osmond; Mark Peacock, of the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority; Rayfield Pye, of the Durham Region Field Naturalists;

Henry Sissons; Kevin Williams, of the Durham Stewardship Council; Mayor John Mutton, councillors Robinson, Schell and Trim, and Heather Brooks of the municipality of Clarington.

The committee, and indeed the entire community of Orono, deserves to be congratulated.

I would like to commend the Minister of Natural Resources, John Snobelen, and the staff of the Aurora district office for their vision in supporting this

partnership. I'd also like to recognize the grade 2 students from Ontario Street Public School in Bowmanville, who helped in the celebration. They presented me with a snake, which made me feel

rather uncomfortable, because I've never associated with things like that in my life.

CONSTRUCTION LABOUR MOBILITY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): The former Minister of Labour and today's Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, made all sorts

of promises to Ontario construction workers during the last election. He spent millions of taxpayers' dollars on billboard, newspaper, radio and TV ads. He also passed Bill 17, the Fairness is a

Two-Way Street Act.

Ontario construction workers are still on a one-way street. Last week, Black Electric of Ottawa called me to tell me that even though they have a Quebec master

electricians' licence and were the lowest bidder by 60%, they lost the job on a federal public works contract in Hull, Quebec. Was it because they were from Ontario? This contract was awarded to a

Quebec contractor, even though the Quebec contractor was 60%, or $167,000, higher. This is taxpayers' money.

The present Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the present Minister of Labour, without the consent of the city of Ottawa, opened the doors to Quebec

master electricians in Ottawa. But it appears the doors to Ontario master electricians to work in Quebec are still closed.

The Ontario-Quebec construction labour mobility agreement is up for renewal in November, and my leader Dalton McGuinty and I urge the Ontario Minister of Labour

to stand up for Ontario construction workers when he negotiates this new agreement.

PORK PROCESSING PLANT

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise in the Legislature today to tell my colleagues of a new pork processing plant that is being built in

Mitchell, in my riding of Perth-Middlesex.

West Perth Packers is building a state-of-the-art hog processing facility, which is expected to begin operations in June 2002. When the plant is fully

operational, it will process 5,000 hogs a week and employ 60 people.

I realize that 60 jobs may not sound like a lot to some of my urban colleagues. But in a town of 3,600, those 60 jobs represent employment for almost 2% of the

population.

West Perth Packers will further add to the local economy by contracting with small independent abattoirs to slaughter their hog requirements, thereby supporting

local entrepreneurs and allowing them to focus on the value-added part of the business. Although Perth is a leading pork producer, this will be the first dedicated processing plant in the

county.

Rural Ontario has always produced great agricultural products, but the recent move has been toward attracting value-added businesses to those communities. This

plant is a great example of just that.

I tell you about this today because a groundbreaking ceremony for the West Perth Packers' plant will be held tomorrow. Although I won't be able to be there

myself, I want to extend my best wishes and the best wishes of all members of this House to those who have made the $10-million investment in this facility.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): At 5 o'clock this afternoon, a group of advocates on behalf of children's mental health services will be

holding a rally in my home community of Windsor, Ontario. Led by George Johnson and Joanne Johnson, that group is going to address yet again the chronic shortage of children's mental health

services in our community.

Neither my colleague from Windsor West nor my colleague from Essex nor I can join with them today because of our obligations in the House, but they know we are

in full support. They know we understand that the waiting list is far too long for a whole range of children's services.

They know that the broken promises our finance minister -- I should say that our finance minister met with them last year and, guess what, didn't do a thing

about it, not a thing. There's still a waiting list of over 750 kids waiting for very basic and elementary mental health services ranging from counselling on through.

Interjection: It's a shame.

Mr Duncan: It is a shame. It's a crying shame, and it's a problem that's prevalent not only in our community but indeed right across the

province. Member after member after member on the government side talks about what they've done in health care, knowing that those statistics are nothing but a smokescreen.

One of the most important issues here is the fact that children's mental health ought to be considered part of the health care system, not community and social

services. It's a crying shame. Thank goodness for people like George and Joanne Johnson and all the people who will be there this afternoon supporting them.

CHILD CARE WORKERS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Last week I sent all MPPs a letter advising that this day has been designated Child Care Worker Appreciation

Day. I encourage those with appreciation day activities in their ridings to support these events, to thank these workers for their tremendous contribution in caring for our most important resource

-- our children.

Over 75 Ontario municipalities have issued proclamations recognizing the valuable work being done by well-trained child care workers. They help shape the social,

emotional, physical and cognitive development of our youngest citizens. They support Ontario families by providing safe, high-quality child care so that parents can participate in our economy.

Child care workers provide an essential public service, and Ontario can't work without them.

If this government truly wanted to show its appreciation, it would pay these workers the pay equity they deserve. But this government has shown disdain for these

workers by cancelling proxy pay equity in 1996 and then, when the Divisional Court ruled against the government, by capping proxy pay equity in December 1998. These workers are now back in court,

trying to get this government to pay them what they are owed. This capping of pay equity to child care workers makes a mockery of this government's alleged commitment to our kids.

Today, on Child Care Worker Appreciation Day, the Conservatives should prove they really do value the efforts of child care workers and pay them the proxy pay

equity they deserve.

KENNEDY ROAD BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): Yesterday I had the privilege of attending the annual meeting of the Kennedy Road Business

Improvement Association. The purpose of the association is to promote business and economic development along Kennedy Road in my riding of Scarborough Centre. It has over 500 member businesses and

is chaired by Blayne Lastman. The association's primary objective is to improve the shopping environment and to represent store owners' concerns and comments to different levels of government and

organizations.

The association has been in existence for over 11 years. They have assisted me in many ways by communicating their concerns, which helped me do my job as city

councillor, and now as an MPP, to make it a positive environment for business to grow.

Unlike the previous two Liberal and NDP governments, 10 lost years of 69 tax hikes and deficit financing, this government has laid a solid foundation for small

business to grow by cutting taxes, balancing budgets, eliminating red tape and removing barriers to business. These measures have made Ontario's economy and small businesses more competitive and

better able to weather any economic downturn.

The Kennedy Road Business Improvement Association has proven itself to be an extremely important part of the Scarborough economy. I'm pleased to congratulate

them on a successful annual meeting.

HOUSING STOCK

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): This coming Monday, October 29, the tenants of Brentwood Towers and on Eglinton East are going to have their

housing fate determined by the Ontario Municipal Board because the city of Toronto has lost the power to determine the fate of its rental stock, notwithstanding that vacancy rates are less than 1%

in the city, notwithstanding that we have a housing crisis.

We have institutionalized the destruction of low-cost housing, creating incentives for a decrease in affordable housing stock instead of an increase. That's why

in September 1999 our housing critic, David Caplan, and I proposed a private bill that the city of Toronto would bring forward and that I would sponsor before the private bills committee. It would

give back to the city of Toronto the power to determine the destruction of affordable housing stock and condo conversions.

It has now been two years since city council unanimously passed a resolution supporting this private bill. I anxiously and eagerly await the city producing this

bill so that we can get the bill before this House. I say to this House, I'm going to need members' support to fix this housing anomaly. Let's give back to the city of Toronto the power to control

its housing stock.

FILIPINO COMMUNITY

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): It gives me great pleasure today to speak about an event that is taking place on Sunday, October 28, in my

riding of Thornhill. The Filipino community in Thornhill will be holding a multicultural event highlighting Filipino customs, culture and traditional food. In fact the city of Vaughan has a twin

city in the Philippines called Baguio.

Recently, a delegation from the city came and toured our beautiful province of Ontario and stayed with local families in Thornhill. This is an ongoing commitment

between the twin cities, as local Thornhill high school students have also visited the city of Baguio.

The event being held on Sunday is aimed at raising money for a new Filipino community centre that will not only act as a general meeting place for Thornhill

residents but will further support the cultural exchanges between Thornhill and Baguio delegates. Last year, the Filipino-Canadian Association of Vaughan helped raise more than $25,000 for the

student exchange program. This program allowed 26 Thornhill students of Filipino descent to visit the Philippines and 22 Filipinos to visit Vaughan. I was very excited and proud to recognize them

in the House when they came for a tour on May 17 this year.

Congratulations to the Filipino community of Vaughan and best wishes for success at the event on Sunday.

I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize two members from the riding of Simcoe North, Garfield Dunlop's riding, who are here today. Welcome.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the 14th report of the standing committee on government

agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 106(e), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice and social policy and move its

adoption.

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

Bill 14,

An Act to encourage awareness of the need for the early detection and treatment of brain tumours / Projet de loi 14, Loi visant à favoriser la

sensibilisation à la nécessité du dépistage et du traitement précoces des tumeurs cérébrales.

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

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT

PROGRAM AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN DISABILITY

INCOME SUPPORT PAYMENTS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE

PROGRAMME ONTARIEN DE SOUTIEN

AUX PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

(ÉQUITÉ DANS LES VERSEMENTS

DU SOUTIEN DU REVENU)

Mr Martin moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 to require annual cost-of-living adjustments to income support payments / Projet

de loi 118, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur le Programme ontarien de soutien aux personnes handicapées en vue d'exiger des rajustements annuels relatifs au coût de la vie en ce qui

concerne les versements du soutien du revenu.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Quite simply, this bill would tie ODSP benefits to the annual cost-of-living increase and adjust benefits

every April 1 to reflect that rise. There has been no increase in support payments to people with disabilities since this government took power. At the same time, rents have soared, medications

have been delisted, and people with disabilities are being forced to live in poverty. This bill would go a long way toward improving their lives. They could afford, if you can imagine, food and

maybe even the medications they need.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have not seen it and I don't think the other side has seen it

either. I guess the time to stand is now, to ask whether you would deem it to be in order, and if you could just look at it, I'd appreciate it.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I understand you haven't seen it, but it's a timeliness issue.

The Speaker: As you know, I don't get pre-information on all the bills. We review all bills that we know --

DEFERRED VOTES

IMPROVING CUSTOMER SERVICE

FOR ROAD USERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION

DES SERVICES À LA CLIENTÈLE

OFFERTS AUX USAGERS DE LA ROUTE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 65,

An Act to permit the Minister of Transportation to delegate to persons in the private sector powers

and duties and responsibilities to deliver services relating to road user programs / Projet de loi 65, Loi permettant au ministre des Transports de déléguer à des personnes du

secteur privé des pouvoirs, des fonctions et des responsabilités pour fournir des services liés aux programmes à l'intention des usagers de la route.

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

The division bells rang from 1351 to 1356.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Sorbara, Greg

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 47; the nays are 36.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

PRIVATE MEMBER'S RESOLUTION

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My point of order concerns

notice of motion 8. As you are aware, the honourable member for Ottawa West-Nepean has presented a resolution requesting you, Mr Speaker, to establish an inquiry in relation to Project Truth.

Mr Speaker, you will know that the honourable member previously raised the matter in the House in the form of a private member's bill. My predecessor, the

Honourable Jim Flaherty, previously provided advice to the House regarding this matter, and I am standing now as Attorney General to respond to the current request.

First, I note that the motion is not worded in the customary manner of private members' resolutions. I ask whether the motion is appropriately worded for

consideration under standing --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry to interrupt. I say to all members, I give some latitude for yelling and heckling during the regular

question period, when it is partisan. But you would appreciate on points of order that I'm very strict in making sure all points of order, whether they be from opposition or government -- I need to

hear them. This is a non-partisan matter where I need to hear specifically what the Attorney General is saying to make a ruling. During question period and other things, if I miss some things, it

really doesn't matter all that much, because I'm just the referee, but in a case like this, I do need to hear the points that are being raised. I would appreciate if all members would kindly allow

the minister, and anybody else who may be making a point, so I can hear. Sorry.

Hon Mr Young: That's all right. Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I may just go back to my first point, I note that the motion is not worded in the

customary manner of private members' resolutions. I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether or not it is appropriately worded for consideration under standing order 96.

My second point to you is a question asking you to consider whether the motion attempts to do something that indeed can only be accomplished by legislation. I

refer in particular to the reference to the Speaker's warrants and the power to compel evidence. This power would be given not to a committee of this House but to a commission, and the power would

be confirmed by motion, not by statute. I ask whether a motion can be used to bypass the legislative process. I would ask you to consider standing order 79, which involves three readings before a

bill becomes law.

I don't make these points in any particular order; I think they are all of significant importance.

Thirdly, I ask you to consider whether the motion is out of order, pursuant to standing order 23, and I would specifically refer you to clause (g). I bring

that to your attention given the likely impact that such an inquiry would have on the criminal proceedings that are before the courts at this time, both trials and appeals.

As a further preliminary matter, and I say this with the greatest respect to you and to your office, there is considerable doubt from a legal standpoint

regarding your authority as Speaker to order the requested inquiry. I have conducted a considerable amount of research over the last short while, and I am not aware of your office ever having

acceded to a request such as this, one where, in fact, the judiciary is already engaged and which does not directly bear on the responsibilities and duties of the Speaker or the rights and

privileges of this honourable House. I know of no precedent in the history of this province -- indeed, I know of no precedent in the history of this country -- where that has been done.

Mr Speaker, as you are aware, there is a fundamental principle of justice at issue, one which we dearly cherish in our free democracy, and that issue is the

independence of the judiciary. The judiciary and the Legislature are cornerstones of democracy. There should be no doubt about that. The integrity of each institution must be carefully

respected.

There are other significant values engaged by this resolution, no matter how well-intentioned its author may be. Those other matters include the right of each

citizen to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. As Attorney General, I am careful not to say or do anything that would affect or interfere with that right. Indeed, I am careful not to do

anything that would leave the appearance or the influence of prejudging any individual. It is essential that individuals are allowed to have a free and fair trial, and we should not be prejudging

that trial.

This principle applies equally to representative institutions of our democracy. It applies to courts, to me and how I carry out my job as Attorney General and,

I say to you with respect, it applies to this honourable House. We have maintained in Ontario a tradition of not commenting on cases before the courts. However, if this resolution does pass, if it

is put in front of this Legislature and it passes, that important value will be compromised. An inquiry like the one being suggested could lead to various unintended and serious results, including

the appearance of an unfair trial, disrespect to witnesses and the judiciary and, significantly, the possibility that charges would not be dealt with on their merits, that charges would be

dismissed or stayed as an abuse of process at some point.

I would ask you as well, Mr Speaker, to consider the potential impact upon victims if that result occurred. Even the most well-intentioned and carefully

crafted terms of reference relating to an inquiry of this sort still pose what I believe to be an unacceptable risk to the fundamental and cherished rights that exist in this country.

The police investigation may well have concluded -- it's over -- but what the police have laid before the courts is not. The matter in issue must be allowed to

proceed to trial without interference from this Legislative Assembly.

As I referenced a moment ago, I am aware that the honourable member who brought forward this resolution is well-intentioned. However, I want to say that I am

just as concerned as the honourable member in ensuring that justice is followed and that the rights of children and of all citizens are protected. The proper course of action is to allow the

current process, the court process, the legal process -- one that is the envy of the entire world -- to proceed.

If such an inquiry as the one requested by the member were called, it would seriously jeopardize the proceedings currently in front of the court and could

result in trials being stayed or dismissed, and this would remove the issues from the justice system. I say to you that is not fair to anyone. It's not fair to the victims and it's not fair to the

accused. It's not fair to anyone involved in the proceeding. And it's not fair to the province and it's not fair to the country.

As a member of this House and as the Attorney General, I have great confidence in your office, Mr Speaker, but in my respectful opinion as Attorney General, I

say to you that you cannot and you should not allow the resolution to proceed.

The Speaker: I thank the Attorney General. The member for Niagara Centre on the same point of order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Speaker, it's a serious point of order and it's a serious matter. I want to ask the Speaker to understand

and share my regret that the point of order is made in the absence of the member for Ottawa West-Nepean, Mr Guzzo, who is the author of the motion. That's number one.

Number two, I want to ask the Speaker to seriously consider the time frame in which this point of order is raised. But a couple of weeks ago, when the Speaker

was called upon by way of a point of order to address the orderliness of a private member's resolution, the issue there was the length of

preambles or the number of

preambles, a lack of

conciseness. As I recall the Speaker's ruling at that time, the Speaker clearly declined to rule it out of order because of the time frame in which the point of order was raised. As it was, the

point of order was raised on the same day that motion was to be debated. Understand that the Speaker subsequently said, "Yes, those types of motions are out of order," but because of the fact it

was raised, in that instance, on the same day, the Speaker said, "No, I am not going to rule it out of order."

The Speaker could have deferred the matter five or 10 minutes and used that time frame to consider the matter and respond to the point of order, but the

Speaker clearly said no, that a point of order raised so soon before the matter is to be debated, in and of itself -- insofar as I understand the ruling, the only inference to be drawn -- ought to

be disregarded.

Here we are, admittedly one day before the resolution is to be debated, and the point of order is raised. Put that in the time frame of the fact that this

motion has been on the order paper for a considerable amount of time now. It has not only been on the order paper, but has been a matter of some controversy, not around its orderliness but around

the matter it addresses. It is not something that could have been overlooked, I put to you, by inadvertence on the part of the Attorney General or anybody else.

I think we have and we ought to have some serious concerns that it's the Attorney General who rises on this point of order. The Attorney General has a very

clear function in addition to his political function as a member of his party and as a member of the caucus he serves.

The Attorney General says he has a profound respect for the presumption of innocence. I share that with him. He's distinct in contrast to one of his

predecessors in that regard. But at the same time, I put to you that the Attorney General has judged implicitly on the Speaker's capacity to do or not do something as directed by this House in a

way that displaces what would properly be the role of the court -- with respect.

If this resolution were to pass, and I'll speak to other aspects of it being in order in a minute, and the Attorney General, or quite frankly anybody else,

felt that it would for whatever reason be improper for the Speaker to proceed with that direction, the course of action, I put to you -- and the Attorney General's own logic during at least part of

his submissions would seem to endorse or support this -- would be for the Attorney General to apply, for instance, for an injunction to enjoin the Speaker from doing that for the reasons argued

before that Supreme Court judge or justice, seeking that injunction. There could in fact be a debate around the legality, the legal issues and some of the things that the Attorney General tries to

put on the floor today.

(1) I think it is very, very dangerous, with respect, sir, to fetter the subject matter of private member's resolutions, motions or bills. The standing orders

do that in terms of the types of bills that can be put forward, and they're pretty clear. It's been a long time since there has been a successful point of order regarding the subject matter of a

bill, for instance, because members are pretty conscious of what is the proper content. Of course we know it goes to the matter that private members can't, as I understand it, address matters

dealing with revenue raising. That's clear.

(2) The Speaker spoke clearly about resolutions, but not as to their content. He spoke as to their form, and that is a far different thing than what's being

addressed here. The Attorney General is not criticizing the form of the resolution, in this most untimely manner, but he's addressing the content.

Look, I understand. It's clear that the Attorney General would rather that this assembly -- I'm assuming; this is the inference I draw, the irresistible

inference -- did not approve this motion. Fine. Let him come here tomorrow and debate the motion. That's his forum in which to persuade any member of this assembly that it would be, for any of the

reasons he tried to enumerate today, improper or inappropriate to effect this motion by way of it passing. Let him persuade any member of his caucus by way of personal lobbying, or any other member

of this assembly, not to support the resolution. Let him distribute speaking notes. But please, for the Attorney General to usurp what I submit would be the function of a court were this motion to

pass, to decide on, as I say, for instance, an application for an injunction, is in itself an abrogation of the very careful role that the Attorney General has to play.

May I speak very briefly to the subject matter of the resolution. Neither you, nor your office, nor this assembly is unfamiliar with the issue. The member, Mr

Guzzo, has used -- as is his right and, I submit, obligation -- his position in this Legislature to the extent that the rules permit it. It's not inappropriate to consider that the rules have

become increasingly restrictive about the rights of members. They haven't diminished our responsibilities, but the rules, the standing orders, have become increasingly restrictive. I think that's a

given. Everybody acknowledges that. I think in context of that, the most appropriate thing to do -- look, the resolution speaks for itself. The assembly is directing the Speaker to do something.

It's quite right, this isn't a piece of legislation in terms of law. In other words, were the Speaker to decline to do something as directed, it's not a matter of the Speaker breaking the law.

Let's make that very clear. The Speaker shouldn't have concerns. I can understand the Speaker having concerns about a piece of legislation that compelled the Speaker to do something in such a way

that the Speaker had no opportunity to exercise what would be an inherent and natural and historical discretion on the part of the Speaker. This resolution doesn't do that, because this resolution

isn't a bill, it isn't a statute; it's a resolution. We all know from our own experiences how much impact resolutions can, and sometimes may not, have here in the assembly. But it's a resolution to

direct the Speaker to do something.

If the Speaker were to determine that he did not have the capacity to comply with that resolution, then the Speaker has to make a decision if at the end of the

day the resolution is passed. I respect the Speaker's right to make a decision. I respect the Speaker's right to respond to this and say, "Assembly, ballot item number 28 directed me to do certain

things. I feel compelled to inform this assembly that it is my -- " And then members of the assembly can again use whatever extraparliamentary avenues -- and I'm speaking of judicial avenues that

may or may not be available, but they could investigate that -- to compel the Speaker, if they thought the Speaker was in error in determining not to follow a direction.

It is not for a single member, least of all the Attorney General, to short-circuit -- I have to draw your attention to that precious little bit of time in this

assembly Thursday mornings. Speaker, it's two hours a week, for increasingly fewer weeks a year, that private members have a chance to respond to issues, and I hope the Speaker will defend

individual members' rights to act from time to time, and many times very independently of their caucuses, even of their parties, in their utilization of that very scarce right to bring forward a

matter for one hour. It amounts to one hour perhaps every two years to bring forward a matter which is of personal significance to them or to a constituent in their community or to a constituent

out there in the broader community.

This is a very precious right -- a very precious right -- and I suggest that you should be interfered with as rarely as possible, should be interfered with

only when on its face, as in the matter of form, it violates the standing orders with respect to motions and resolutions or when on its face it violates the standing orders with respect to a

private member compelling the government to increase revenues -- two clear-cut issues; two clear-cut examples.

I'm asking the Speaker to tread very carefully, because it's being called upon to trample on that right. It is not for the Speaker to determine -- to determine

-- whether this in and of itself will constitute an interference with independence of the judiciary. I say that as a blanket statement, and please link that with my subsequent statement.

This is not, please, with respect to the Attorney General -- if the Speaker will not adopt or accept the argument that it's not for the Speaker to determine

that, then let's go to the next stage. This is not an interference with the independence of the judiciary. The Speaker is not being asked to determine culpability, either criminal or otherwise, of

any individual during the course of performing what he is called upon to do, should he do it in this resolution. You still go back to the fact that at the end of the day the resolution may pass,

but then the Speaker can decline to do it because it's not law; it's but a resolution.

There is nothing in this resolution which tramples on the rights of anybody currently under prosecution, or who may be under prosecution. The issue is very

clearly the effectiveness of police investigations. That is so thoroughly removed from the issue of guilt or innocence, from the issue of any type of culpability, criminal or civil or otherwise --

it's as removed as anything could be.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Look, Speaker, I regret the time that I've felt compelled to devote, but this is a critical issue for every member of this

assembly, both present and in the future. It's something that I feel obliged to address as fully as I can. It's clearly not a matter of interfering in any respect with the independence of the

judiciary.

Let me ask you to consider as well, and I think this is not inappropriate, the underlying interests of the Attorney General in raising this point of order. I'm

very conscious of the rules, the standing orders, when I speak to this. Please. But let's understand that this government has stood firm in what has been a not-illegitimate request for a public

inquiry. What I'm putting to you is that nobody has disputed that the issues raised by Mr Guzzo could legally be the subject matter of a public inquiry. Rather, it is my submission to you that the

government has simply refused, has exercised its discretion not to call one. Governments call public inquiries and they don't call public inquiries. It's within the power of the government to do

that, and nobody, at the end of the day, can force the government hand, no matter how legitimate the call is for a public inquiry.

The Speaker knows -- both in your current status and through the history of your office -- a history of debate and litigation in this assembly going back to

the days succeeding 1987 regarding public inquiries, the plethora of case law that has flowed from that, including the now-leading decision in the Westray mine incident. I ask you to refer to that,

sir. I know your office will make that litigation available to you. That clearly defines the circumstances in which an inquiry can be conducted, notwithstanding that there is concurrent litigation

of either a civil or criminal matter, and doesn't disallow the public inquiry but merely restricts it in its scope.

This Legislature has witnessed more than one public inquiry that has survived the challenge of the government of the day, and as a result of the court

direction it has been made clear that the public inquiry can coexist with litigation, the prospect of litigation or the prospect of appeal, never mind an appeal actively underway.

So I submit that if you do not accept the proposition that it's a simple matter of not fettering the right of a member but do feel compelled to delve into the

issue of whether or not it's an interference with the independence of the judiciary, and then consider the underlying interests of the government, I put to you that your examination of the case law

will determine, in contrast to many of the responses given by an Attorney General about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a public inquiry, that in fact the position of the Attorney

General is as much a political position, and certainly in most cases more so one of a political concern, than an accurate

interpretation of the law, because the law makes it quite clear.

So I put to you at the end of the day that even the calling of a public inquiry -- but let's understand how careful the author of the resolution was, because

the resolution does not call for a public inquiry. It calls for a commission of inquiry. It calls for a report back to you, sir, the Speaker, and it says that any portion of the report can be made

confidential. I put to you that the author of this resolution has anticipated any possible arguments, that this resolution has anticipated any possible arguments that might be accepted, even though

I put to you they ought not to be accepted, about the concurrence of a public inquiry and litigation for the commission requested.

I'm asking you, please, Speaker, to accept the fact that it's our job to move resolutions and motions as we see fit; and to deny that, to inhibit it, to

prohibit it, to restrict it, is in itself -- I put this to you: one of the underlying effects of the Attorney General's point of order is to do precisely that: it's to inhibit, restrict, control

the types of resolutions we can put forward here, based on political considerations. That, I put to you -- without wanting to be at all inflammatory -- comes pretty darn close to what we've

examined as being contemptuous of this assembly because of the effort on its part, by way of that argument, to muzzle members of the assembly.

Members have to have an unrestricted right to move resolutions. Their validity, their impact, their effectiveness, their scope, their relevance -- subject to

the very narrow

interpretation of the standing orders which we've witnessed in the recent past -- is then a subject matter for something to occur after that resolution is passed. It's up to the

members of this assembly to be persuaded not to vote for this by the Attorney General, should he wish to do so.

Sir, I submit that it's not for you to tell us that we can't debate it. To grant this point of order is to tell us that we can't debate this very serious

motion by a member who has expressed long-standing concern and has been joined by members of this caucus and many others across Ontario out of their concern about the serious legacy of abused

children in Cornwall and area for whom -- we know this, and there's no debate -- no justice has ever been done. This modest effort to seek justice for those abused kids, those assaulted kids, those

victims, should have its day in this forum.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I have not had -- and I know that the House leader for the third party has not had -- the benefit of the

extensive research to which the Attorney General referred. So we make these submissions in that light and in this vacuum.

I would echo the comments from Mr Kormos, but add this: we would like you to speak to the issue of notice. We have had no notice of this. We have not been

provided the research. We have not been given the opportunity to respond to this appropriately. In that sense, there is a feeling of a procedural ambush. We have had this resolution on the books

since June 6, and as a result, we would ask you to speak to that.

I think it also speaks to your finding in this sense: in a word, this motion is premature. To rule on the commission of inquiry on a point of order is

something that ought to be done only once it becomes found by the House that we proceed with a commission of inquiry. This point of order is speaking, on the one hand, to the validity of the

commission of inquiry, and the arguments are directed to the prejudice to potential or existing defendants. But the problem is that really the point of order is not about the validity of a

commission of inquiry. That's not before you right now. Before you right now is the validity of the resolution: should members of this House be able to debate the resolution?

It is often the case that the procedural issues surrounding either a resolution or a private member's bill become the subject matter of debate. How many times

have we heard in this House one side or another say, "Well, we're not going to support this bill because it flies in the face of the BNA Act" or "it's unconstitutional"? I've heard that in this

House before. That's a procedural argument. It's a legitimate argument, and it's an argument that can be made during private members' hour. Members may choose not to support the resolution because

of that fact, but to rule that the resolution is out of order is premature. We should have the opportunity to debate the propriety of this. If, in fact, a commission of inquiry becomes the subject

matter of a resolution, then only at that time, I would submit, ought you to rule on whether or not the commission of inquiry itself is valid.

All members of this House, obviously, are here to be held to account, one way or another, to our constituencies, and there is a concern here that the

government is trying to do indirectly what it does not want to do directly. It does not want to speak to this resolution. It does not want to be seen to be voting down this resolution, but this is

the House in which people are to be held to account. This is the House in which we must have free debate, restricted by nothing: absolute liability immunity, subject to -- of course, we cannot rise

in this House and make reference to young offenders, contrary to the Young Offenders Act. Yes, we cannot do that, or we ought not to do that. But the restrictions are obviously extremely limited,

and they cannot include that we are unable to debate this matter at all.

I'd also say that I believe the Attorney General is asking you to rule on the constitutionality of this particular commission of inquiry and resolution. As you

know, you are not in a position to rule on the constitutionality of the resolution, as I understand it.

All the arguments of the Attorney General with respect to "innocent until proven guilty" are concerns we all share in this House. But all of these due-process

arguments are not going to be jeopardized, all of these concerns about prejudice to the accused are not going to be jeopardized, by debate.

A commission of inquiry: I leave it to you to make that determination. I think you've heard submissions from the third party on that. But we'd like the

opportunity to speak to that as well.

With respect to the resolution, the independence of the judiciary is in no way impacted by debate of a resolution -- in no way, although I appreciate and echo

the comments of the Attorney General with respect to the importance of the independence between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Innocent until proven guilty: again, no prejudice

to any existing or potential defendants in the event that the resolution is debated.

Lastly, I would say that I think it's important in your ruling that we narrow it to the resolution itself and not expand it to unintentionally in the future

capture a ruling on the commission of inquiry or on the propriety of speaking to matters on public inquiries or the propriety of speaking to matters on question period itself.

We need to have the opportunity to debate this motion. The government may not want to be seen to defeat this motion, but at the very least, before determining

whether or not the commission of inquiry in and of itself is the right thing to do during private members' hour and thereafter, you need to determine whether or not you will have the powers to do

so. We need to have the opportunity on Thursday to debate this, for the sake of this chamber and for the sake of the province of Ontario.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): There are two additional points that we'd ask you to take into account.

First of all, you yourself last year and earlier this year defended against the intrusion of an outside body on the affairs of this Legislature. I'm

referencing specifically the Lord's Prayer. In effect, when the Attorney General came here -- and I listened to his statement very carefully -- he was speaking as the Attorney General. He is a

member of this assembly, but in effect the Attorney General's ministry is attempting to influence the affairs of this Legislature -- something, sir, that you yourself and your good offices defended

against. You defended against the Human Rights Commission having the ability to influence the Lord's Prayer; you've defended against the courts having an ability to do that.

It is sacrosanct, sir, that this Legislature can make the determinations as to what will and will not be heard here. The references are numerous, whether you

look at Marleau and Montpetit, Beauchesne or any of the references. I would argue, sir, that the government, in addition to asking you to rule this out of order, can by way of motion remove it,

defeat it, either procedurally or in the substance of the debate itself, a point that was made by the member for Niagara Centre and my colleague from St Paul's.

Finally, subsequent to the point of order that was raised by the member for Northumberland, a number of resolutions were taken off the order paper. This

resolution sat on that order paper when that occurred. It was tabled, as I recall, on June 6 of this year. Presumably, sir, you and the staff of the Clerk's office have reviewed this already and,

by not removing it, have found that it's in order. So in effect, you're being asked to rule about a decision you have already in fact made.

To conclude, my colleague from St Paul's has pointed out that substantively this does not interfere with the legal proceedings. Second, from a procedural

perspective related to this House and the primacy of this House to set its own affairs, the test, in our view, is the members themselves, not you and your good offices. Subsequent to this

resolution being defeated or passed, you will still, as Speaker, have the opportunity to approach the House with respect to whatever limitations you may be confronted with. It's been suggested to

me, for instance, that there would be challenges to you in terms of the funding of this inquiry, that that would require Board of Internal Economy approval. There's no power to compel witnesses

contained in the resolution itself, though as I understand it, those powers are contained in the Legislative Assembly Act.

So on that basis, number one, we do not believe that this resolution would interfere with the court processes, but more importantly, this House and the members

of this House are the only ones -- not the Attorney General, not the Attorney General's ministry, not a court, not a commission -- the members of this House, by their vote, who can determine what

can and cannot be debated on the floor of this House. Finally, if the government takes the view, if the opposition takes the view, as presented by the Attorney General, then the power rests with us

to defeat the resolution if we are so convinced.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): The issue before yourself is, of course, does this resolution so offend the standing orders of the House that it

should be removed from the order paper? I submit to you, sir, that it is clear it does not so offend the standing orders. I'd like to set out the reasons for that.

I would like first to refer to the question of timeliness. It has been pointed out that this was placed on the order paper on June 6 of this year and the day

before it's to be debated, we have this before yourself. It's quite proper that it should be brought before yourself, but I would submit to you, if there is a matter of discretion in these

circumstances, discretion should be exercised in favour of leaving it on the order paper because of the lateness of this objection being raised.

The Attorney General spoke of wording. There's nothing that I'm aware of in the standing orders that says anything about the wording of a resolution. There's

nothing in this resolution that offends any of the standing orders. He also speaks about the question of compelling of evidence. The House has the power to issue Speaker's warrants. That's been a

privilege and right of this House for hundreds and hundreds of years. There's no intent here to assign that right to anyone else. It's the House that would compel any evidence, if it were required

to be compelled. This resolution does not delegate to anyone else that ancient and essential right.

We have received comment from the Attorney General with respect to standing order 23. It says that criminal proceedings are specifically dealt with in the

motion. Mr Speaker, the motion is quite clear, and I want to read that part of it: "The commission may not engage in any activity which may jeopardize any ongoing prosecution of a criminal nature."

So there can only be the kind of problem that the Attorney General referred to if the commission doesn't follow the resolution of the House. I, for one, have confidence in a commission that you may

appoint to follow the resolution of the House. That's their legal responsibility and legal duty, and the concerns raised by the Attorney General are only valid concerns if the resolution is not

followed.

I would like to suggest to you that there is no doubt, no doubt whatever, in the 800 years of parliamentary tradition, that this House has the right to direct

inquiries. It's an absolutely fundamental right that this House have the right to make inquiries. How else can we do the right thing for the people as a whole if we can't inquire and get

information? That right, I believe, is fundamental to the functioning of any democracy. I think it is incumbent upon you, sir, to defend that right in this House.

The Speaker is called "the Speaker" because he speaks for all members; that's where the term originated. I would suggest you have a duty, sir, to speak for all

members of this House and let them make a decision which they legitimately can make. Parliamentary tradition and the parliamentary rules all say that you have the right and duty to do that.

I think we should touch briefly on what this is about. This is about the adequacy of two police investigations. I think determining that is fair to the

victims, is fair to the investigators and is fair to the people of Ontario. The resolution is not offensive to the functioning of democracy; it speaks directly to the functioning of democracy. I

think being fair is to let the House decide whether or not they think this is the right investigation to undertake.

There is some concern in the minds of some that the House may do the wrong thing. I don't think the House has been irresponsible in the resolutions it has

passed, and I think we can be confident the House will do the right thing tomorrow if it has been given the opportunity to do so.

I'd also like to make note of a comment made by one of the previous members. This is not a call for a public inquiry; this is a call for an investigation.

Parts of it can be confidential, so if the investigators and if the commission follow the resolution, the concerns of the Attorney General will be totally met. His concerns can only be valid if the

commission does not follow the resolution. I think the House can have confidence in you, sir, and the people you may appoint to follow a resolution of the House.

I would like to return, for the last time, to my point. It should be for the House to determine what they investigate. It should not be for the rules to decide

what's right and wrong; it should be for the members. I personally have confidence in the House, the Speaker and the representatives of the people. I ask you to find this to be in accordance with

the standing orders.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Mr Speaker, there were several points brought forward that I'd like to address. Firstly, the traditional

actions of your office: I believe we have seen events that your office has undertaken recently, such as compensation issues, that have not been traditional actions. So in dealing with traditional

and non-traditional actions, I would hope you would take that into consideration.

There was considerable mention by the member from Niagara Centre and the others of the independence of the judiciary. In the resolution itself, it calls for

the possibility of reporting back in a maximum of 18 months. Mr Speaker, 18 months is a long time; 18 months is certainly enough time to bring a new Premier into the province of Ontario. It's

certainly enough time, in my expectation, to deal with an issue.

Another area that I have concern about is that it is the right of the individuals in here to bring forward issues of concern, and what you're now being asked

to determine are the specific issues as they relate to the members here: can they or can they not be brought forward? Are you setting a precedent that will determine that in the future?

Lastly, with this, in the past in regard to the issue, I believe that the public were dependent on due process, and I would think that the member who brought

this forward is looking for a just process, and I'm hoping, Mr Speaker, that you do the right process.

The Speaker: I thank all members for their very thoughtful contributions. I will reserve opinion. Obviously we understand that it needs to be

done very quickly in light of the circumstances, but I thank all of the members for their participation and for their very thoughtful comments. I will reserve my judgment and report back to the

House as soon as possible.

VISITOR

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sure you would like to welcome into the Legislature Mr Darren

Praznik, an MLA from the Manitoba Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I wasn't aware he'd be here, but we welcome our honoured guest.

It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Now that the Premier doesn't have to worry about public

support or worry about his comments meaning something other than what he meant, he can finally speak his mind and tell us where he's really going in the area of two-tier health care. Today's

comments by the Premier in a scrum here at Queen's Park indicate the real reason you are still the Minister of Health. It means two-tier health care when the Premier said today that we will rely

more on the private sector and on individuals in the area of funding for health care. As Minister of Health, will you clarify today that you will not introduce user fees, that you will not allow a

two-tier health care system in Ontario?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I don't think anyone is advocating British-style two-tier health care or

American-style health care. I'm not advocating that; the Premier was not advocating that.

The fact of the matter is the Premier was commenting on the situation that arises because we have relied in the past on agreements we thought we had with the

federal government. Initially, with the passing of the Canada Health Act, the federal government undertook to finance 50% of all health care spending. The fact of the matter is right now they

finance 14% of all health care spending. The Premier's only point is that if they continue to underfund health care, if they continue not to make health care their top public spending priority,

then this restricts the poorer provinces, the have-not provinces, in the choices that are made available to them. That is a fact. That is what the Premier is good at: expressing facts.

Mrs Pupatello: Minister, we asked you a very simple question. We asked you to stand up in the House today and say that you oppose user fees in

health care. We asked you to say that you will not lobby the federal government to change the Canada Health Act, that you need to be a defender of the Canada Health Act. It's very simple. We are

asking you, the minister already dubbed to be "Two-Tier Tony," to stand and defend us, defend what the general public wants, and that is not a two-tier health care system.

It's very simple, Minister. You just need to stand in your place today and say you will not bring in user fees -- it's very simple -- that you will not

advocate to change the Canada Health Act to allow user fees. You will not bring in user fees. We want to hear those words right now, Minister.

Hon Mr Clement: My ears are deceiving me obviously, because it was the Prime Minister of Canada who raised the spectre of user fees after

coming back from the kingdom of Sweden. If anybody's talking about user fees, it's the Liberal Senator Michael Kirby. It's the Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien who's talking about user

fees.

What Mike Harris was saying was that we have been consistently underfunded by the federal government. At the start of 1994 they funded 18% of health care

spending; in 2000 it is 14% -- down, down, down. They are not living up to their commitments. They are not meeting the aspirations of the people of Ontario and the people of Canada. Shame on them

and shame on you.

Mrs Pupatello: I didn't hear the Minister of Health say no to user fees. We asked you one very simple question, and we asked that of the

minister who's been dubbed Two-Tier Tony.

To the Minister of Health who's hiring Stockwell Day's staff, to the minister who in his speech at the Empire Club advanced the notion of improving the

involvement of the private sector and where user fees were going to be required: you want to have a system for the rich and another system for the rest of us. You are Two-Tier Tony. You have an

opportunity, a chance today to stand up and say no to user fees. Take that chance now, Minister.

Hon Mr Clement: This Liberal Party, they come and they go, and they say one thing one day and they say another thing in this chamber. Here is

what Dalton McGuinty said just in March of last year. He said, "We've divorced health-care users from the notion of costs connected to their care. Access to quality health care doesn't mean

unlimited access." That's what he said then. Now she's saying different. Well, if the honourable member opposite is concerned about health care in this province, I can tell you that for $1.1

million of Cipro pills, we could have hired 20 nurses in Ontario. Why don't you tell the federal Minister of Health that?

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week I asked you about the Janet

Ecker boondoggle contract with Andersen -- now that company's called Accenture. I'd like to return to that contract today.

We asked you how you could justify throwing away $200 million and you couldn't even advance the truth, and that was that you didn't save anywhere near the

amount of money you spent on that contract. We asked you what you had to show for all that wasted money and you talked about some fancy computer program, one that we showed in this House isn't even

working. That sounded so familiar. It was familiar because the Brian Mulroney government used this same company to create the same kind of program, and it too did not work.

Minister, we know now that the federal government is suing the same company, alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation and professional negligence. Here is

the suit. According to the statement of claim, the federal government says Andersen "actively conspired to conceal information from the crown."

Minister, my question is simple. Why would you sign a contract with this company --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member's time is up. Minister?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone

affairs): I would be most interested to see if the member opposite would dare make those accusations outside the House. If she's so convinced they represent the truth, let her say them

outside, but rather, typical Liberal tactics, smear tactics, they come in this place and use their legislative immunity falsely.

The member opposite wants to defend --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's too noisy, I'm afraid. Sorry for the interruption. Minister?

Hon Mr Baird: We inherited a welfare system that was out of control. We inherited a welfare mess left by the Liberals and the New Democratic

Party. This government took real actions to clean up the old and outdated technology, to clean up the old and outdated processes, where welfare fraud was rampant, where overpayment and

administrative problems were rampant.

To date -- the member opposite is wrong; she still doesn't have her facts right -- we've been able to save more than $350 million for the taxpayers by

restoring some integrity to our welfare system. The member opposite should be on her feet applauding that initiative instead of undertaking these --

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

Mrs Pupatello: I'll go outside if the minister wants. I'll bring a copy of the suit with me, because it's all in here. I'm sure that if the

minister were on the job he would have a copy of this suit already. The suit talks about professional negligence and conspiracy. This is the company you renegotiated with. It gets worse, though. We

went through the list of contributors to the PC Party and we found something really interesting. In the first few years of Janet Ecker's boondoggle with Andersen Consulting, there were no

contributions to the PC Party by this company, but this government was forced by this House to renegotiate the contract, and all of a sudden the company started making tremendous donations to the

PC Party. These individuals, executives of this company, over 99, in the year 2000, when we brought this issue up in this House, made contributions upwards of $20,000 to the PC Party.

Minister, are you going to wear this boondoggle of your predecessor --

The Speaker: Order. The member's time is up.

Hon Mr Baird: I think the record of my predecessor, Janet Ecker, in running the welfare system speaks for itself: hundreds of thousands of

people making that important transition from welfare to work; a new Ontario disability support program; a new Ontario Works Act. She can be very proud, as can all of us on this side of the House,

of the reforms that we've undertaken in social assistance.

Every single time we went to the plate to try to change the welfare system -- we tried to get tougher on welfare fraud. What did Dalton McGuinty and the

Ontario Liberal Party do? They were against it. We wanted to get tough on overpayments and a system out of control. What did Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party do? They didn't support

it. We tried to bring in workfare and restore the merit principle and hard work to our welfare system. What did Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party do? They opposed it. They rejected

every single welfare reform that this government has undertaken. The people of Ontario have spoken in two successive elections. They strongly support the Harris welfare reforms; they strongly

support the Ecker welfare reforms; they strongly support this government's attempt to get --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

Mrs Pupatello: The only thing we see about fraud is in the lawsuit launched by the federal government about the company that you are

overpaying in the contracts that you renegotiated. They started making contributions to the PC Party after you started having to renegotiate with them because we went after your predecessor over

the Janet Ecker boondoggle on that Andersen contract. That contract was worth $180 million, you have now paid over $200 million, and the system doesn't work.

This is the same company that has been chased out of the federal government; this is the same company that is now chased out of New Brunswick and Texas. The

federal government is suing them for fraud, negligence and conspiracy to conceal information. We don't have enough money for home care, we don't have enough money for textbooks in our classrooms,

we don't have money for the health system the public deserves, but you have enough money to pay over $200 million to follow up on the Janet Ecker boondoggle.

Hon Mr Baird: In fact, two years ago the contract was renegotiated, and what did that renegotiation deal with? It dealt with successfully

completing the project. It dealt with completing it on time and it dealt with completing the project on budget. We're restoring a welfare system that was out of control.

I understand why they're so sensitive about this issue. Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party disagree with work for welfare. They want to return to

the money-for-nothing days of the past. They want to return to a system rampant with fraud. They reject every notion that this government and that this party and that this caucus and cabinet have

taken to restore some integrity to the welfare system. I understand why they're so disagreeable: because the people of Ontario strongly support our welfare reforms.

PROVINCIAL SALES TAX

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Today you have a fresh opportunity to do something for

Ontario's sagging economy, for consumers and for working people across the province. Later this afternoon we will debate the New Democratic call for a three-month provincial sales tax holiday to

help people where they need it most at this time, when they go to the cash register to make needed purchases.

The evidence grows daily that the economy is stumbling, that consumer confidence, which accounts for two thirds of economic activity, is declining. Your own

parliamentary assistant, Mr O'Toole, has said that he supports our idea of a retail sales tax holiday. We might even find out today where the Liberals stand on this issue. But the real question is,

when are you going to show some leadership? When are you going to respond to the decline in consumer confidence which may well result in more layoffs? When will you bring in a sales tax holiday for

Ontario?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I appreciate, once again, that the member opposite has converted to the importance of

tax reductions in Ontario. They've been advocated by Mike Harris since at least 1989. It's taken the leader of the third party I guess 12 years to realize the efficacy of tax reductions in

Canada.

He's joined by Paul Martin, who said that tax reduction is essential to secure strong and sustained economic growth in this country. So I guess we're ad idem

between the New Democratic Party, the government of Ontario -- the governing party here -- and the federal Liberal Party. It's just the opposition Liberals that still don't get that reducing taxes

is important for long-term, sustainable growth in Ontario.

Mr Hampton: No, Minister, you don't get it. What you don't understand is that your latest round of corporate tax cuts will only benefit the

most well-off corporations and the most well-off people in this province and will do nothing for the 11 million consumers.

Let's just look at one corporation: Bell Canada Enterprises, who will get about $22 million from your latest corporate tax cut; Bell Canada Enterprises, that

is busy laying off 150 employees at CTV, and it's speculated will lay off hundreds more at Bell Globemedia; or the president of Bell Canada Enterprises, who pocketed $6.7 million in salary and

bonuses last year. They're going to benefit from your corporate tax cuts, but your corporate tax cuts are not going to do a thing to restore consumer confidence around this province. That's why

you've got it wrong.

Unload the corporate tax cuts. Give the consumers of the province a retail tax holiday so they can go out and do the shopping, make the purchases they need and

stimulate the economy.

Hon Mr Flaherty: There have been two myths in Ontario that have changed over the past several years. One is about tax reductions and the idea

that tax reductions benefit our income, in terms of being the government, and benefit the people of Ontario. Indeed, times have changed. When budget time comes now in Ontario, the media and others,

the people of Ontario, want to know where the tax reductions are, when they used to look for where the tax increases are under the Liberals and the NDP. Times have changed in Ontario.

One other thing has changed. I think most of us now recognize -- most people in Ontario -- that corporate profitability is good for the economy. It creates

jobs. It creates investments. We want healthy, viable, successful corporations in Ontario.

I understand -- the member opposite smiles; he doesn't understand -- that this is where the jobs have been created: in the small and medium-sized businesses of

Ontario since 1995. Ontario is open for business. We welcome their business. We want the jobs.

Mr Hampton: I want the people of Ontario to understand what the Minister of Finance said. He said that tax cuts for Bay Street are good, that

tax cuts for the millionaires on Bay Street are good. But when it comes to reducing the retail sales tax for the 11 million consumers across the province, that's bad according to the Conservative

government.

Minister, pay attention to what's happening elsewhere. The United States has cut their interest rate. The Federal Reserve has cut the interest rate in the

United States to its lowest level in over 30 years. The Bank of England has cut their interest rate to its lowest level in over 20 years. The Bank of Canada has cut their interest rate to the

lowest level since 1961. Why? Because they understand that consumer confidence in the economy, which accounts for two thirds of economic activity, is declining seriously, and they want to give

consumers a reason, an incentive to get back into the economy. When are you going to do your

part instead of just giving more money to your corporate friends?

Hon Mr Flaherty: Personal income tax reductions, which we've accelerated in Ontario, give money directly to individuals in the province. I can

tell you that auto workers at the GM plants in Oshawa are happy to have tax reductions. They can choose to spend that money as they see fit.

You could reduce the retail sales tax, which is another way of making goods more affordable. But you can do it the other way: you can put money right back into

people's pockets directly by saying, "Here's a reduction in your personal income tax. Spend it as you see fit."

That's the policy choice we made, it's the policy choice the Premier made in 1995, and it's been extremely successful in the province. We've had fabulous

economic growth in this province with the stimuli created by tax reduction. Indeed, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, that policy has been followed across this country in every

LOW-INCOME ONTARIANS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Minister of Finance again. We can see where this Minister of Finance would lead Ontario: more

tax cuts for the well-off, more corporate tax cuts, and who cares about consumers? That's where you would take this province.

I want to ask you about another group of people out there who haven't had a tax cut and haven't had a wage increase now in seven years: the people who work for

the minimum wage, the hundreds of thousands of people who work for the minimum wage and who, if they had an increase in the minimum wage, would almost certainly spend all of it in the local

economy, would contribute more to the local economy.

We've seen your arguments for rewarding your corporate friends. We see your arguments for giving more tax cuts to the well-off. Why do you continue to freeze

the wage for the lowest-paid workers in the province?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The Minister of Labour.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Let's be clear about who has received the benefits of tax cuts. The people earning the least amount

of money in this province have received the most generous tax cuts of anyone in the province of Ontario -- period. Case closed.

When this government came to office, they reduced taxes, removed taxes and dealt with taxes -- oppressive, crushing taxes -- on people who earned the least

amount of money. Where did those taxes come from? They came from you and you. So when we got elected, we understood that the money was better in their pockets to spend, supporting their families,

feeding their families and sending their children to school. We looked after those people who needed help. We will still look after those people who need help. And as I've said before, when we came

to office, the beautiful thing is they had one thing that they never had with you: they had a job.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Minister, what are you going to do for the disabled poor in the province? Ontario citizens with disabilities

haven't had an increase in their pensions since you came to power almost seven years ago. Rents have gone up, you've delisted needed medications, and these folks have not had an increase in their

income.

Today I introduced a bill that would peg increases to pensions for the disabled to the cost of living. Quick passage of this bill would guarantee increases to

these people every April. Will you do that for these vulnerable citizens? Will you support quick passage of that bill?

Hon Mr Stockwell: The Minister of Community and Social Services, I guess.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone

affairs): Through the Ontario disability support program, we provide social assistance rates that are substantially higher than the average of the other nine provinces. That's a commitment

we made back in 1995. We've protected those rates. They weren't reduced when expenditure reductions took place in the 1995-96 budget.

The Ontario disability support program is a program of which I think we can all be proud. It provides a whole range of supports. It provides a higher benefit

rate. It provides employment supports. We're helping more and more people with disabilities make that important transition from welfare to work. It provides a whole regulatory regime that supports

that. Most importantly, it also takes away the "permanently unemployable" title that was absolutely devastating. That's why the program has, since its inception, certainly done a lot to help people

with disabilities.

We acknowledge that more work can be done, and that's part of the continuing improvements we make to a whole range of disability supports, whether it's to the

developmentally disabled or to special-needs children.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. My colleague asked you yesterday about funding for Visudyne,

a treatment that can prevent blindness in people with wet form macular degeneration. You said you were still working on it.

The decision on Visudyne treatment was supposed to have been made in March of last year. Health Canada gave its approval for Visudyne treatment on May 31,

2000, a year and a half ago. Your predecessor informed me last December that the Ontario review would be completed by the end of February of last year, eight months ago.

You should know that in March of last year there were about 1,000 people in Ontario who would have been candidates for Visudyne treatment. In the last eight

months, it is likely that for 25% of those people, the disease has progressed to the point where they can no longer be treated. That means that 250 more people will have permanently lost much, if

not all, of their eyesight while you keep saying you're working on it.

Minister, the approval process was on track for last February until you came on the scene. Why are you continuing to deny this treatment to seniors who every

day lose more and more of their eyesight as you delay and delay?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The honourable member is confusing two dates: the date of Health Canada's approval

versus the date of the drug quality and therapeutics committee approval, which is a different date and a later date than the one the honourable member mentioned in the House.

The honourable member knows very well what the process is. The honourable member has followed the process on many other drugs. We on this side of the House

follow the process. There are some Ministers of Health who don't follow processes and try to cut corners, and we all end up paying more and getting less. On our side of the House, we follow the

process. This process is now beyond the DQTC. We are taking it under advisement, and I assure this House we will have an answer in the near future.

In the meantime, I would like to say to this House that this government and this ministry have added 1,216 products to the formulary since 1995. That's our

commitment to drugs for seniors and for those of limited means, and we are proud of that commitment.

Mrs McLeod: Your predecessor said the ministry was on track for deciding on this by the end of last February. Here's a letter from a woman who

wrote in March, expecting that you were going to have a decision. She was part of a medical research project receiving Visudyne treatment. She writes, "The prospect of becoming blind is

devastating. I am only 54 years old. Not only will this be a personal hardship, but I take care of my elderly mother. Without my sight, I fear I will not be able to take care of my parents." She

adds that on her income, she can't afford to pay for the treatment herself.

Here's another letter from Audrey Webb of Madoc. She's 75 years old, and she's losing her eyesight. She can't afford to pay for Visudyne treatment herself, and

she's afraid that she won't be able to care for her 75-year-old spouse if she goes blind. In fact, only 25 of 100 people who could benefit from Visudyne feel they can afford the cost of

treatment.

Minister, is that your answer to people who have been waiting for eight months for you to fund this treatment? Are you telling them that if they want to

preserve their eyesight, they've got to pay for it out of their own pocket? Is this part of Two-Tier Tony's privatization agenda?

Hon Mr Clement: Of course the answer to that is no. We have added 1,216 products, which is more than happened under previous governments,

which have tended to delist medications to pay for their other programs. We have not done that. We have added 1,216 products. Spending on the Ontario drug benefit plan has increased by 69.8% to a

record $1.8 billion under the Mike Harris government. We are proud of that record.

The honourable member is not capturing the reality of the situation when she says that and imputes the motives of myself and this ministry. From our

perspective, we are doing everything as it should be done, according to the book. It started with Health Canada and its recommendations, it then goes to the DQTC and their recommendations, and we

are apprised of that. I can assure this House that, just as we have done in many, many other cases with medications, at the earliest available opportunity we'll have an answer.

TAX CUTS

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is for the Minister of Finance. You have said that accelerated tax cuts are going to help

stimulate the economy in the province of Ontario and help ensure this province is well prepared to deal with a time of economic uncertainty. Could you please explain why you have chosen accelerated

tax cuts versus other methods --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Member, come to order, please. Sorry for the interruption.

Mrs Molinari: Minister, could you explain why you have chosen accelerated tax cuts versus other methods of dealing with this economic

uncertainty?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I thank the member from Thornhill for the question. Tax cuts are more important now

than ever in a time of economic slowdown, which we are experiencing. It's important that the people of Ontario more quickly have more money in their own pockets, their own hard-earned dollars. The

government doesn't have any money that it hasn't taken from people in this province in the first place.

We know that lower personal income taxes are very effective for long-term sustained wealth creation in the province of Ontario and for job creation for

individuals. It's for that reason that the personal income tax cuts, as announced by the Premier, were accelerated from January 1, 2002, to October 1, 2001.

In addition, as announced in the budget this year, the surtax on incomes of $70,000 or less is being removed during the course of this year.

Mrs Molinari: Minister, on October 18 the member for Parkdale-High Park was in my riding of Thornhill. When asked if the Liberals would

increase corporate taxes, his answer was, "We are not going to call it that, but we will increase corporate taxes." I think Ontarians know that the Liberals' plan is to increase taxes, no matter

what they call it. You are cutting the province's corporate income tax rate to 25% lower than that of our counterparts in the state of New York. Why the perceived rush to cut corporate income

tax?

Hon Mr Flaherty: It's certainly been indicated previously by members opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, who said in 1997, "I

will not reverse the tax cuts if I become Premier," that you can't afford to do so, that it would send out a negative signal about our economy. That's been the view expressed by the Leader of the

Opposition, that he would not change the tax reductions that have been made by Premier Harris's government.

Corporate income taxes are important. It lets corporations spend more money on investment in plant and equipment, in people, in jobs, in growing their

businesses. That's been the history of the province in the past six years, a history of investment and job creation, of a strong economy, of a solid, diversified, resilient economy so that now

we're in good condition to resist a time of slower economic growth.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): My question is for the Solicitor General. All across this province, the systemic abuse of animals is taking

place by people who operate so-called puppy mills and backyard breeding operations. There are over 400 of these abusers operating across our province of Ontario. It's a free-for-all. There are very

weak provincial laws and no provincial penalties to shut down these puppy mills. Repeat offenders, like the Miseners north of Toronto, have been operating at will since 1965.

Our provincial laws need to be updated and more powers must be given to the SPCA to shut down these criminals. Thousands of people across this province are

supporting my private member's bill, which if passed would put an end to these puppy mills by setting up a provincial registry of lawful kennels and breeders, fining offenders up to $50,000 and

putting repeat offenders like the Miseners in jail. It would also increase the power of the SPCA to inspect.

I ask you today, will you support my bill to shut down these puppy mills or would you bring forward today a bill to put these criminals in jail?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): I certainly appreciate the question from my colleague across the floor. Obviously this is something

that is of concern to all members irrespective of what political party they belong to.

As I've indicated in this House before, we have under review the whole of the OSPCA act, which has not been substantially changed since 1919. Clearly we are in

the process of bringing forward changes to this. This being said, I have indicated to the SPCA that we're supportive of legislation and that we will be coming forward with legislation. In the

meantime, I delivered a cheque for $50,000 to help them with their prosecution of these important cases. This is allowing the Ontario SPCA to form a special operations unit.

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

Mr Colle: The cheques you're delivering are fine; the SPCA needs all the money they can get. But these abused, defenceless animals need more

than cheques. What they need is for you to do your job and make it a provincial offence to operate a puppy mill. Find these criminals, jail them and stop pet stores from selling these animals from

puppy mills.

There is a lot of room for provincial legislation. The law should have been updated decades ago. You have done nothing to stop these --

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): I'm confused.

Mr Colle: I know the minister across is laughing about this. People in this province care about these defenceless animals. They want you to do

your job. Today I've got a bill that almost everybody in Ontario supports. Will you endorse my bill today?

Hon Mr Turnbull: I've already indicated on many indications that I will be bringing forward a bill, and you are fully aware of that. There are

consultations with all of the stakeholders going on, and I would suggest to you that if you were to take the trouble of checking with the Ontario SPCA, you would find that they're very supportive

of the measures I've been taking.

This being said, I have spoken to the federal Minister of Justice and encouraged her to move forward with Bill C-15, which in fact puts this into the Criminal

Code in the proper context. Your bill, I would suggest, goes beyond the ambit of Ontario legislation. We on this side, being the government, have to make sure that any legislation we bring forward

is legal within the framework that we operate in.

INTEGRATED JUSTICE PROJECT

Mr Bob Wood (London West): My question is to the Attorney General. As members of this House know, the integrated justice project has been

ongoing for quite a few years. It is generally thought to be a good idea in principle, but a number of people have raised concerns about the length of time being taken to implement it.

Would the minister tell us what parts of the project have been implemented to date which will provide better service for the public?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for his question on what is indeed a very

important project. The integrated justice project is indeed an innovative procedure. It's breaking new ground. It's actually being watched by members from various parts of this province, from

across the country and indeed from around the world.

I'm pleased to say what we have done here and are attempting to improve upon is a working relationship between my ministry, the Ministry of the Attorney

General, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of Correctional Services. Together with private partners, we are making great progress and we have had some successes to date. But I

do want to say, before I list those successes, that there have been many challenges as well, as is often the case when you venture into new ground. I am, though, very proud of the computer-assisted

dispatch program that the OPP and various municipal police forces are using. I'm similarly proud of the offender tracking system being used in the corrections ministry.

Mr Wood: I think it's generally agreed there are a lot of potential benefits to this program, but there's a pretty widespread view that there

should be more focus on faster and better implementation. Could the minister please outline for us his timetable for further implementation of this project?

Hon Mr Young: Again I thank the member. We're at a stage now where we have a number of projects which we are presenting to members of the bar,

members of the judiciary and others who regularly utilize the justice system. In order to make this project work, it's essential that we do so, because these people are important players and we

need their input. I should say to you, though, that there's an electronic filing program that should be in place on a test or pilot basis in Hamilton in the very near future.

I'm equally proud of the fact that the crown case management program that has been established should be in place, again in a pilot capacity, in the London

area in the not-too-distant future. Based upon the success of those endeavours, we will decide just how fast we can proceed forward with the other projects.

CHILD CARE WORKERS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Some 75 municipalities have declared

today Child Care Worker Appreciation Day. They did so because these municipalities recognize the tremendous contribution made by child care workers who support the development of and care for our

most important resource: our children. On the other hand, your government continues to show its disdain for these workers, for their value in terms of skills, training and efforts, and you do so

because you continue to deny them the proxy pay equity payments that they deserve to truly compensate them for the important work they do.

Minister, instead of trying to waste money in court to fight these workers one more time, why don't you show your appreciation for child care workers today and

pay them the pay equity they deserve?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone

affairs): We provide a substantial amount of money toward child care and specifically toward wage subsidies in our regulated, licensed, institution-based child care. I recognize that this

government will never be able to spend as much money as the NDP government would like to spend on child care or, for that matter, on anything. We saw what happened in the NDP years where they spent

money on everything. We had an $11-billion deficit. We had less jobs, less hope, less opportunity. Now it's like a "he said, she said" game. He says cut taxes, she says increase social spending.

It's quite the tag team.

Ms Martel: Minister, the question was about child care workers and whether or not your government appreciates the valuable contribution they

make to the lives of our most important resource, our children. The fact is that child care workers, who are primarily women, are among the lowest-paid workers in the public sector, despite the

tremendous work they do with our children.

Our NDP government recognized that fact. That's why we brought in the proxy pay equity law, to ensure that they were paid the amount of money they were

entitled to, to recognize their contribution. Your government, on the other hand, cancelled proxy pay equity and when the Divisional Court ruled against you, you then placed a cap on these payments

as of December 1998. It's estimated you now owe these and other workers in the public sector about $140 million, wages which would finally recognize and compensate them for the valuable work they

do.

I ask you again, Minister, when will you stop showing disdain for these child care workers? When will you pay them the proxy pay equity payments they are

due?

Hon Mr Baird: This government is committed to pay equity. In fact, we spent $500 million to put in pay equity. That's more than the government

of which she was in the cabinet. In fact, for wage subsidies for child care providers we'll spend over $116 million.

The sad reality is that what we have to do is pay the interest on the debt that you and your party and your cabinet built up for the five years you were in

government. This year, we'll spend more than $9 billion paying for the debt. We will pay $9 billion of interest to pay for the legacy of financial and fiscal mismanagement of your government.

Now they're here today saying they want to give a tax cut to someone who wants to buy a Lexus, a tax cut to someone who wants to go to Hawaii. The NDP tax cut

regime, the risky tax scheme -- they wanted tax cuts. They want tax cuts more than social spending. We can never spend as much as the NDP would like us to spend. We saw the reality of the fiscal

mismanagement created by those years of waste and wild spending --

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

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It's a very simple question. Minister, where is your

made-in-Ontario safety net program?

Over the past several months, you've made several grand statements, held talks and consultations on what, in my opinion, is a very laudable goal, but the time

has come for you to make a definitive statement as to where this program is. Can you tell us, Minister?

The proposal has been on the desk since the spring. The proposal called for a substantial increase in safety net dollars, yet we hear nothing from you. It's

time for you to take that leadership role and tell Ontario farmers exactly what is being done on their behalf. Farmers are scared. Agricorp has already stated that they're going to see the highest

crop insurance payouts ever, yet there's been absolutely no word from you on what you intend to do with the market revenue program. Today, we have no market revenue for the crops that are being

harvested.

Will you assume that role as a leader of the agricultural community today and announce to the farmers of Ontario exactly what actions you're going to be taking

on their behalf?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Certainly, our government is committed to working with our farmers and our

stakeholders in the agricultural community to develop a made-in-Ontario solution. After we provided $90 million when we recognized that farmers needed some assistance this past spring, we asked

them to work with us to develop a made-in-Ontario solution. I'm quite proud to say that they have worked with us over the course of the summer.

With respect to the drought we've had this past summer and the programs we have in place, that's what those programs are there for, to meet those conditions

that they've suffered this past summer. I can tell you that we're working with the input they've provided to us so that we can come up with a package that will provide some sustainability and some

future to agriculture they can depend on.

Mr Peters: Minister, the farmers have worked with you, but the farmers are still waiting. Farmers across this province need to know how much

money is going to be made available to them. You, yourself, have raised the expectations of these farmers across the province with this made-in-Ontario program. It's incumbent on you to ensure that

the money is there.

We know there are serious problems out there. The quality of the crops in this province is well below average. In many cases, beans are not even worth the cost

of sending the equipment out into the fields to harvest them right now. Yields are far worse than anybody ever expected, and we know the insurance payouts are going to be enormous. But you cannot

simply hold up an unknown pot of money and say to the different groups in the agriculture sector out there, "Here, go for it." There are serious problems for red meat, grains and oilseeds, edible

horticulture and others. All of these have issues that you need to address on their behalf.

Will you assure the growers and the producers that the necessary funds will be appropriated and that you'll take the leadership role that is expected of the

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and you, the minister?

Hon Mr Coburn: Certainly we worked with the farmers, as I said, this past spring, and we have had tremendous support. The leaders of the

commodities that we've been working with have confidence in our preparing and have worked with us toward a made-in-Ontario safety-net solution. We have not failed farmers in the past and will not

fail them in the future. When we come forward with this program, it will be able to provide some certainty to agriculture and agribusiness of a sustainable future for them.

AIMING FOR THE TOP SCHOLARSHIPS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. I recently had the honour

to recognize the students in my riding who won Aiming for the Top scholarships this year. These hard-working students have earned high marks in their studies, and they deserve the recognition and

support to help them to continue on to post-secondary education. Clearly our government not only believes in higher standards for Ontario students but it also believes in recognizing those students

who surpass them. While I'm particularly proud of the students in my riding who have earned this distinction, I wanted to ask you to give this House a province-wide update of the results of this

year's Aiming for the Top scholarship awards.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): I take pride in our young

people in Ontario. This month all of us will have been given some information with regard to who did win the Aiming for the Top scholarships, and we do have an opportunity to get in touch with them

and congratulate them. We acknowledge their excellence, we acknowledge their merit and we have great confidence in the future of our province because of them.

There were 6,733 new Aiming for the Top scholarships that were awarded in Ontario secondary schools this September, and I just know that everybody must be very

proud -- their families, their teachers and certainly all of us, the MPPs in Ontario. Of that number, 1,900 actually earned average marks of 90% or higher, which is really just terrific. Since we

announced the program in 1999, we've invested $25 million. When it comes to maturity in 2003, there will be $35 million invested in our young people.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that update, Minister. I know that our government did promise in the Blueprint to ensure that willing and

qualified students in Ontario would be able to attend college or university, and it seems that this is another important step toward fulfilling that promise. But as we speak -- and I know the

Liberals are not interested in this, but I know that we, as government members, are -- another graduating class of high school students and their parents are in the process of making plans for the

future. I know there are many students in my riding, as well as across the province, including I'm sure Liberal ridings, who will be interested in being considered for next year's awards. What

students are eligible, and how would they apply?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It takes the students to get my colleagues in this House somewhat relaxed and pleasant with each other, so I congratulate

everyone in this regard. It is our students that we do represent.

The applications are open to all students who are Ontario residents, who earn high marks and who will continue full-time studies in Ontario. They can apply for

next year's Aiming for the Top scholarships through the standard OSAP forms. Eligibility is determined by merit and the amount of the award is determined by need. If they do well, students can

receive up to $3,500 in support, and if they continue to do well, they can actually maintain these scholarships for up to four years.

I hope this year's students are already thinking about it. They can go to their guidance counsellors, they can go to the financial aid offices at Ontario

colleges and universities or they can look at the information through our training, colleges and universities Web site.

CABINET OFFICE FUNDING

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Your response to my question on Monday about the 116%

increase in cabinet offices was quite pathetic and, frankly, an insult to the intelligence of the people of this province. I hope you can provide a better response as you vie for support in your

leadership campaign.

I've not been able to find any significant change in the work that cabinet offices do to justify your 116% increase. What I have found, though, is that the

operating costs for the Office of the Assembly, this Legislature, have decreased by 18%. The anomaly is in the cabinet offices. The question for you is, how has the work of cabinet offices changed

to justify the increase of 116% in operational costs?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The current size of the Ontario public service, as of June 2001, was 61,430 full-time

equivalents, also known as FTEs. Since June 1995 -- and I'm sure the member wants to know this information -- there has been an employee reduction of 19,270 FTEs and the additional elimination of

2,610 vacant positions.

I know the member opposite wants to have this information because she is concerned about the costs of operating the Ontario public service. The figures I've

provided, the reduction in the number of positions, means that $600 million per year has been saved for taxpayers since this government came to office in 1995.

Ms Di Cocco: The point is still the same. It's contradictory that you should, in your cabinet offices -- if you have a smaller Legislature now

and everyone else has been cut down, it would seem reasonable to expect that your cabinet offices' operational costs would decrease, as has every other ministry. This increase doesn't fit with your

response that you've made government smaller and leaner. You've got a double standard here, Minister. The operational cost has ballooned by 116%. You're the Minister of Finance; you approved that

budget. Did this increase escape your scrutiny, or did someone else approve it?

Hon Mr Flaherty: Six hundred million dollars per year in savings is substantial savings for the taxpayers of the province of Ontario. That's

the reality in the Ontario public service.

With respect to Cabinet Office itself, a number of changes have happened: restructuring to support the new cabinet committees structure and the decision-making

processes of cabinet, the creation of the Ontario Olympic Sports and Waterfront Development Agency in support of Toronto's 2008 Olympic bid and the important waterfront development work. I'm sure

the members opposite want to support the waterfront development work at the city of Toronto, and I encourage them to have their federal counterparts maintain a commitment to that waterfront

development work because there are grave concerns in the city of Toronto that you Liberals are going to welsh on your commitment to the people of the city of Toronto for waterfront development.

Six hundred million dollars in savings; this contrasts to an increase in the cost of the Ontario public service of $1.2 billion under the last --

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

TRANSIT FUNDING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, earlier this week you met with your counterpart, the

federal minister, David Collenette. I'd encourage members to follow up on this by reading a report by Royson James in the Toronto Star, which, by the way, does give a fairly accurate report.

According to the report, you met to discuss the promise that the federal government made in their red book and have been making relentlessly during their past federal election, namely, that they

would take steps to fund transit in this province. We all know about the Liberal election promises: GST.

Commuters in the GTA and certainly in my riding of Durham and across the province were expecting great things from your meeting; however, I learned from the

report that we're all disappointed that the federal government has made no commitment to fund transit. Minister, can you elaborate on this situation for the House today?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the member for his question. It's something that's very pressing for the province

of Ontario.

As you know, last month the Premier announced a transit plan that would see this government sharing the costs of ongoing funding for transit capital renewal.

We committed to providing up to one third of the eligible municipal transit costs in the amount of $3 billion over 10 years. Municipalities are on our side. They have committed their share

also.

The third member of this partnership was supposed to be the federal government, and we had every reason to believe that they would have been there with us at

the table. For example, at the TTC's 80th anniversary celebration on September 6, Minister Collenette said his government is "committed to working with partners across Canada to help improve public

transit."

In the National Post on January 15 the minister boasted that the federal government has committed itself to becoming involved as a partner in urban areas. What

the federal Liberals have failed to understand is that you can't pass yourself off as a supporter of transit without fulfilling --

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

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for that rather important response, Minister. I know how hard you and your cabinet colleagues have worked to

improve transit service.

You mentioned your partnership and the fact that municipalities and Ontario are onside. I know I've read about Ann Mulvale and others who have supported

that.

Why is it that the federal government does not want to be partners in funding transit when all the key stakeholders in Ontario are at the table and willing to

participate? Does the federal Liberal government not understand the reality of an effective, balanced, integrated transit system that would be responsive to the everyday needs of everyday

people?

Hon Mr Clark: Let's take a moment and put this into perspective. The US federal government is investing more than $200 billion in

The municipalities are with us; the developers are with us; the environmentalists are with us. Everyone in Ontario seems to agree that what we've proposed

makes sense. The only one that isn't there is the federal government. Everyone is asking them to come to the table with the money to help us in transit. The only ones who aren't asking them to come

to the table are the Liberals on that side of the House. Dalton McGuinty is missing in action. No one over there has asked the federal government to come to the table for transit. Where are the

Liberals?

MUSLIM COMMUNITY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the minister responsible for multiculturalism: you know full well that Muslims have been and continue to

be the targets of hate-motivated backlash to the events of September 11. Of any group, they're the ones most in need of reassurance of their safety and security, yet you excluded them from this ad.

You see, leadership and members of the Muslim community have made it clear to me that they're upset about the deliberate omission. They've expressed their concerns to me. I pass them now to

you.

My question is simple. Why did you choose to omit the image of identifiable Muslim men and women from this ad? Why didn't you include a Muslim woman wearing a

hijab, for example? The image is conspicuously absent. Why?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): First of all, I'd like to suggest to the member opposite that

he may have in his own mind a profile for a person who is a Muslim in this country and in this world, but as the minister for this province, I attended the Muslim conference this summer and spoke.

I met people from Israel, I met people from South America, I met people from all over the world, and I for one could not stylize the look of a Muslim in this country.

We are fortunate that we live in a province where people can practise their religion, attend their schools and participate fully in the life of our province

without specific identifiers. In this instance, Mr Speaker, if the member opposite would like the matter raised, both the Premier and I will be meeting with Muslim leaders later this afternoon, but

I for one happen to believe that the member is on a fishing expedition here, and I think it's most inappropriate.

Mr Kormos: You know full well what I'm talking about. It's those Muslim women, for instance, who wear head coverings and who wear the hijab as

a part of expression of their faith who are literally afraid to leave their homes, young and old, in this community because they are identifiable as Muslims. You had a chance to include them among

the people whom you regard as being Ontario's members in Ontario's communities.

We filed a complaint with Advertising Standards Canada on behalf of that community, on behalf of those persons. You pretend your ad's there to reassure people,

but your omission of an identifiable Muslim wearing garb that clearly reveals their faith appears to be a breach of at least three sections: exploiting fears, providing unacceptable depictions and

portrayals, and defying the federal gender portrayal guidelines governing diversity and guidelines.

Will you explain why you would not have included a Muslim woman in a hijab as part of Mike Harris's Ontario that deserves reassurance that their safety and

security is foremost in the Premier's mind as well?

Hon Mr Jackson: Mr Speaker, I am very concerned about the tone and the nature and the approach the member is taking in the question. Again, I

have to say that in the course of the last month I have met on numerous occasions with leaders of the Muslim community in this province, and I must confess that not once was this the nature of the

concern they expressed. I for one believe it's not helpful to the process of the inclusion of all people in this province for a member to stand in his place and raise this kind of a question. The

Muslim community seeks to be understood and they need to be listened to, and those are the things that we're doing. All members of Ontario's society should engage in this process.

I can share with this House that I for one have concerns that even until recently your own NDP Web site selling memberships was asking for ethnic profiling as

a condition of applying. In my view, that is most inappropriate, and I am pleased that it was recently removed from your Web site.

PRIVATE MEMBER'S RESOLUTION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is tangential to the decision you're going to make within the next

while with respect to Mr Guzzo's resolution. I would ask you also to consider, sir, what happens in the event that you rule that resolution out of order. It's an hour of private members' time that

would be lost. The members on all sides of the House, I am sure, would want to make sure that should your decision impact to the negative in terms of allowing that resolution some method be allowed

to accommodate an hour of debate on another private members' matter.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member for his input.

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised to institute patient-based budgeting for health care services in the 1995 Common Sense Revolution; and

"Whereas community care access centres now face a collective shortfall of $175 million due to a funding rollback by the provincial government; and

"Whereas due to this funding rollback, community care access centres have cut back on home care services affecting many sick and elderly Ontarians; and

"Whereas these cuts in services are forcing Ontarians into more expensive long-term-care facilities or back into hospital;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately lift the funding freeze for home care services, so as to ensure that

community care access centres can provide the services that Ontario's working families need."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

NATIONAL CHILD

BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition to stop the clawback that this government is doing on the national child tax benefit

supplement. I've got 460 further names to the 7,000 of the other day from all over Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order. Did you want to read it or did you want to explain it?

Mr Martin: I wanted to do a little bit of both.

The Acting Speaker: No, one or the other, please.

Mr Martin: "Whereas one in five children in Ontario live in poverty; and

"Whereas, as part of the national child tax benefit program, the federal government gives a supplement to low-income families across the country to begin to

address child poverty; and

"Whereas that money, up to approximately $100 per month per child, is meant to give our poorest and most vulnerable children a better chance in life; and

"Whereas in Ontario the Conservative government deducts the child benefit supplement, dollar for dollar, from those living on social assistance; and

"Whereas this is leaving our province's neediest children without extra money they desperately need to have a chance to begin their climb out of poverty;

and

"Whereas all children are entitled to a fair chance at life;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand that the provincial government of Ontario stop the

clawback of the national child tax benefit supplement and ensure this federal money reaches all low-income families in Ontario."

I assign my signature to it and give it to Timothy here.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I have a petition here