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

December 11, 2003

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Dec-11 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 11 December 2003 Jeudi 11 décembre 2003

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

DEBT RETIREMENT PLAN

ONTARIO HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

DEBT RETIREMENT PLAN

ONTARIO HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

DEBT RETIREMENT PLAN

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHRISTMAS EVENTS IN DURHAM

SHIRLEY EIDT

VIOLET HIPGRAVE

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IN BRANT

HYDRO RATES

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY IN LONDON

REPORTING OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

FEDERAL LIBERAL

CAMPAIGN PROMISES

SUDBURY REGIONAL HOSPITAL

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

MINISTER OF ENERGY'S REMARKS

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CELLULAR PHONES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

GOVERNMENT

ADVERTISING ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR

LA PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE REFORM

VIDEO CAMERAS IN POLICE VEHICLES

SAFE SCHOOLS LEGISLATION

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

HYDRO RATES

CLASS SIZE

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

HEALTH CARE REFORM

HIGHWAY 410

PREMIER'S VISIT TO NEW YORK CITY

CONSUMER PROTECTION

NORTHERN TAX INCENTIVE ZONE

FLU IMMUNIZATION

FOREIGN-TRAINED

MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

VISITOR

CORRECTION OF RECORD

PETITIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

SCHOOL CLOSURES

TUITION

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE /

DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

DEBT RETIREMENT PLAN

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I move that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should commit itself to a 25-year debt

retirement plan, articulating five-year interim targets, such that the province of Ontario is free from its net debt by the fiscal year 2029-30.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Arnott has moved private member's notice of motion number 1. Pursuant to standing order 96, the member

has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Arnott: "We in Wellington understand the economic value of hard work and the social value of personal responsibility. From this understanding

stems a serious concern when our government refuses to live within its means, when our government grows until it begins to inhibit overall economic growth, when even excessive taxation does not

prevent the expansion of government debt."

The words I just quoted are as relevant today as when I first delivered them during my maiden speech in the Legislature 13 years ago this very month. We all

remember those days. That was back when the New Democratic Party of Ontario governed with a huge majority in this House, as they embarked upon five years of disastrous fiscal policy, bringing the

province to the brink of bankruptcy.

A great deal has changed in 13 years. Financial irresponsibility was replaced in 1995 with financial prudence. Under successive Conservative governments, there

were four balanced budgets in a row, the greatest record of sustained fiscal discipline in Ontario since World War I. Today, with the results of the October election still reverberating through

this House, we seem to be starting again down the slippery slope of financial recklessness under this new Liberal government.

My riding has changed since 1990. Since the election of 1999, I've been honoured to say, "we in Waterloo-Wellington," when I advocate for the interests of my

constituents and the communities I'm so privileged to represent. In the recent provincial election, I made clear to my constituents that paying down the provincial debt should be made a priority

and that I would continue to advocate in favour of a concrete long-term plan to make Ontario debt-free.

This is the basis for my resolution today, stating, "that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should commit itself to a 25-year debt

retirement plan." This resolution represents not only the firm beliefs held by many in Waterloo-Wellington but throughout the entire province. Those beliefs include the need to pay what is due and

make a small but necessary sacrifice today, to improve the lives of our children and grandchildren in the future, leaving them with a higher standard of living and even more opportunities than we

enjoy today. To do otherwise would be to pass an overwhelming financial burden on to the next generation, and to do so is simply unacceptable to me.

The need to commit to a concrete plan of action to eliminate the debt is sound fiscal policy and makes good economic sense to most people. It is a view that is

shared by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, an organization that, as we know, exists to advocate on behalf of taxpayers. In a letter endorsing my resolution, the Ontario director of the Canadian

Taxpayers Federation, John Williamson, has outlined the problem in terms of how our provincial debt, now estimated to be more than $118 billion, and the interest costs on that debt, tie the hands

of government in terms of keeping taxes at the right level and paying for social programs.

He wrote: "While there are many short-term spending pressures on government, lawmakers should consider this: The province will spend $8.6 billion this year on

interest payments to service the accumulated debt. If there was no provincial debt and no interest to pay on it, provincial income tax could be reduced by 44% -- without a corresponding reduction

in program spending. Alternatively, the health care budget could be increased by 30%. Ontario's high debt load has resulted in higher taxes and restricted program spending options." He also wrote:

"This motion is an important initiative and deserves the support of all members of provincial Parliament."

The Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce has also supported making debt retirement a higher priority. Chamber president Todd Letts has written the

following in support of my initiative: "I commend you on your intention to introduce a private member's resolution calling for the government to balance their budget in this current fiscal year and

enact a 25-year plan to retire the debt beginning with the coming fiscal year."

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a voice for small business, surveyed their membership recently and found that in Ontario there was a whopping

84% in favour of a new, strong provincial debt repayment target.

Support for this idea continues to grow, because it makes good economic sense and is based on proven fiscal principles that are being applied in other Canadian

jurisdictions that have already enacted debt retirement plans. For example, in the province of Alberta, which of course is governed by the Progressive Conservatives, they committed to such a plan

in 1995 and they have achieved a 78% reduction in their accumulated debt over a seven-year period. That's a reduction from about $21 billion in 1994-95 to $4.7 billion last fiscal year. Alberta has

legislated a specific debt reduction program, outlined in their Fiscal Responsibility Act, and from what I understand they're approximately 10 years ahead of schedule.

The province of Manitoba, currently governed by the NDP, has a long-term plan to pay off their debt by 2040. In 2003 they announced a fourth consecutive payment

of $96 million against their debt and pension liabilities, and as of 2002 they were four years ahead of their schedule.

So we see that the idea of debt retirement is supported across the political spectrum. We have Conservative Alberta and NDP Manitoba, both with governments that

are proceeding with long-term debt retirement plans, paying down their debts.

I look forward to hearing presentations from both sides of the House from members of all three parties, but I hope to address in advance some of the issues

members might wish to raise in this morning's debate. We might hear talk of a Liberal deficit this year in Ontario, and some might say we can't look at paying down the debt because there is a

belief, however inaccurate, that the current government inherited a considerable deficit. My belief is that the Liberal government can and should balance their budget this year. The member for

Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey has offered a road map on how they can do it. Then, as spelled out in this resolution, they should enact a 25-year plan to retire the debt starting next fiscal year. I

reiterate: The Conservative government balanced the budget four years in a row, from 1999 to 2003.

Despite the outcome of this election, not once have I heard a constituent tell me that it's time to revert to the days of uncontrolled spending, tax hikes and

deficits that were the order of the day in the 1980s and early 1990s. Voters today will not tolerate the cynical and all-too-familiar gamesmanship of a new government saying they are shocked and

appalled at the books they are responsible to manage in the public interest.

When it comes to the Liberals' characterization of the state of Ontario's finances, there appears to be far more in the way of political strategy than substance.

I say that the government has a deliberate political strategy to inflate and exaggerate the size of the deficit to try to dampen expectations on their spending promises and leave the back door open

so they can tax and spend like there's no tomorrow. They are trying to create a crisis. What they need to do, and what I think Ontarians expect them to do, is to demonstrate leadership, show that

they have a vision for the future, balance the budget, and listen to the people of Ontario who are concerned about how much debt they are passing on and how expensive and counterproductive the

interest payments are. If they do, and if they care about fiscal prudence, they will wholeheartedly commit to getting rid of that debt in our lifetime.

There are perhaps others who would try to point the finger back and claim that the previous government could have done more to pay off the debt. I want to

address that point as well.

Some members will recall my previous resolution debated here October 9, 1997, calling upon the previous government to pay down the debt in 25 years with

five-year interim targets. That resolution passed with support from both sides of the House. In 1999 the Harris government committed in the blueprint election platform to pay down $2 billion of

provincial debt. That goal was increased to $5 billion in our first budget of our second majority government. The government announced it would achieve that target earlier this year. In the fall

election the Conservative Party committed to paying down $5 billion over five years, if re-elected. Since the last time the House debated this initiative, it's fair to say that there has been

considerable action taken on the debt.

The next step is to fully recognize that we need to do the same thing that families do. Many achieve home ownership, burning their mortgages, by paying off the

interest and principal in about 25 years or sooner if their budget permits. Others could try to assert that a 25-year plan is too ambitious, too expensive. To that I would simply say, if we don't

establish a goal, we'll never solve the problem. It is far better to recognize the problem, set a goal and try to achieve it, than to ignore and just hope that somehow it will go away.

There may be some who don't care if we ever pay down the debt and there may be some who try to muddy the waters with talk about the debt being OK because our

economy will grow anyway and the debt-to-GDP ratio will diminish or perhaps stay the same. To that call to inaction, I say nonsense. We should never be spending something like $8 billion to $9

billion in interest payments on the debt. The failure to commit to a debt retirement plan by any government of any political stripe simply puts the province at a risk of a higher and more expensive

debt down the road.

This problem was created by governments of all stripes. I think all MPPs should become part of the solution by supporting the measures spelled out in my

resolution and committing to make Ontario debt-free. I look forward to the debate this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt has five minutes.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I listened with great interest to the comments made by the member from Waterloo-Wellington, and I've got to

tell him that the people in my riding -- when we talk about a financial burden being passed down to kids -- are far more concerned about the after-effects and the consequences of your government's

fiscal policy, which included irresponsible tax cuts, deficit reduction measures which were extreme and a downloading on to municipalities and the resulting social burden that has now been passed

down to our kids, which our kids are going to feel for years and years. That's what people in my riding are worried about -- the impacts of your policies when you were in government and the social

deficit that my kids and everybody else's kids and the kids to come in future generations now have to deal with.

Let me give you some examples of that social deficit. We have 37,000 kids in Ontario who need special education in our public school system, thanks to the cuts

to education that were made by your government. How do you explain that those kids are falling further and further behind? If they don't get the remedial help that they need, they are going to be

dropping out of school, they are going to be in trouble with the law, and they'll never be able to fully contribute to Ontario economic life. That's part of your fiscal policy. Or the 12,000 kids

who are on a waiting list now for children's mental health services, because of your fiscal policy which was more interested in tax cuts and cutting social programs to finance those tax cuts for

the rich and famous. Those of us who were at the presentation this week by Susan Hess heard how devastating, how detrimental that has been for so many Ontario families and is going to continue to

be, because now we need to try to find that money to reinvest.

Look at the cuts that were made to home care by the Conservative government. In our part of the world, we've had many, many restrictions by the

Conservative-appointed CCAC board which has left hundreds of elderly and the disabled having no choice but to go into long-term-care facilities. These are seniors who, with a little bit of support

at home, with homemaking services, laundry and home care, could be able to remain in their own homes with dignity. But because of the cuts that the Conservatives made with respect to their fiscal

policy on home care, they're being forced into long-term-care facilities. And we all read the stories that were highlighted last week about how terrible so many of those facilities are in terms of

the care, or lack of care, that they're providing to seniors. That goes back to this government's fiscal policy.

Look at the cuts that were made to high-quality, regulated child care by this government: $43 less per child for regulated space than when we were the government

in 1995. And what does that mean? Ontario parents are now paying the highest cost for regulated child care anywhere in Canada. We also know that 70% of Ontario women who work outside the home and

have kids under the age of 12, only 8% of those can actually access high-quality child care, again, because of the fiscal policies of the former government.

For example, look at the fact that ODSP payments have been frozen for eight years because this government was more interested in tax cuts and dealing with the

deficit than it was in ensuring that some of the most vulnerable Ontarians, disabled Ontarians, could actually have an adequate standard of living. They're now living below the poverty line in the

province. Never mind the terrible cuts that were made to people living on social assistance: a 22% cut in the first year of this government's mandate. Those people have been frozen ever since. We

affected 400,000 kids by that cut.

Then we look at the mess at the Family Responsibility Office, done again because this government was more interested in finding money for its tax cuts and

dealing with a deficit overnight than they were ever interested in ensuring that they met their obligation to ensure that women and children received the support payments that they are legally

entitled to. We've got $1.3 billion now owing to women and children, thanks to the mess that the Conservative government made at the Family Responsibility Office.

I say to the member, you want to talk about a burden? The burden results from the social deficit inflicted on the province by your government over eight years.

We'll have lots of kids who will pay a long time for that social deficit. That's the shame of it. That's the burden that I'm much more worried about addressing.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I join the debate on the motion brought forward by the member for Waterloo-Wellington. It's a well-meaning motion.

It would deserve some wonderful attention, because I think it's the intent of every member of the House to have a government that doesn't run into any debt or deficit. As well-meaning as it is, we

have seen the action of the past government, and if we are in a situation today where either programs will have to be deferred, or cut, if you will, cut, it's because of the total mismanagement of

the former government. It has left the people of Ontario some $6 billion in debt, or we should say, unbalanced budget, let alone the debt, because in the last eight years we have seen some $20

million to $24 million added on to Ontario's total debt. Of course we will be paying that. If it's not us, on top of what they have left us, our kids will be paying for that.

As the government, we are repeating today what our leader was saying during the election. It's refreshing to hear the member for Waterloo-Wellington repeating

the exact same phrase that Dalton McGuinty has been saying in the House as Premier -- and while he was campaigning -- that the government must live within its means. I know that the member

understands that and I know he's well-meaning, but unfortunately he was part of a government and leadership that absolutely neglected what was in the best interests of the people of Ontario. Does

it make sense to have a balanced budget when year after year we have to sell Ontario's interests to balance the books? I don't think so. With just one sale alone of those assets, and I'm speaking

now of the 407, our kids will have to pay for the total mismanagement of the government. Can you believe that? The 407 --

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Come on, Mario. That's not so.

Mr Sergio: Well, you tell me, my friends. I respect your views, but 99 years -- the sale of the 407. Don't tell me otherwise, because you know

it and we know it, and the people of Ontario know it: We will be paying for your total mismanagement. A 99-year lease -- unheard of. I wonder what the heck they would have sold next to balance the

books. They couldn't have done it even with selling other assets.

Guys, give me a break. We are not here to play politics when it touches the lives of the people of Ontario. I think the intent is well-meant that we should have

in 25 years -- I would say we should have Ontario free of debt today, let alone in 2029 and 2030. I think the people of Ontario deserve that, but we are paying now. If you look at your hydro bills,

what do you pay? We are paying our share of $38 billion. Who is paying for that? Why are we paying for that?

I think Dalton McGuinty is right on track when he says that we will have to live within our means, and now, to correct some of the previous government's

mistakes, we will have to take action. He's doing well. He's speaking the people's language. He's doing what the people told him to do. And if we cannot live within our means, it means we are

neglectful and we are not doing what the people told us to do.

Let's not find excuses. Even the members from the other side are well-intentioned and well-meaning members, but they have to face the reality today. We are

facing that reality for you and for the rest of the people of Ontario, and we will take the necessary action to correct some of those horrendous mistakes, the chaos and misunderstanding you have

created among the people of Ontario, and very true today.

I'll pass the torch, if you will, for the next five minutes to other members of the House because I think they want to express their views as well.

The Deputy Speaker: It's in rotation, so the member for Kitchener-Waterloo.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'm very pleased to join this debate today. I very strongly support the resolution that has been put

forward by the member from Waterloo-Wellington. He is putting forward the concept of finally tackling the provincial debt with a very concrete 25-year plan to make this province totally debt-free.

I support this. I have always supported this, unlike some of the people who may be speaking today, who did support it at one time and are not prepared to support it today.

I think anyone can agree that between 1985 and 1995 we went through a period of tax-and-spend. When our government was elected, we made a commitment that we

would balance the budget and we would tackle the debt. I'm very pleased to say we have done both. We were very successful in balancing the budget four times in a row between 1999 to 2003, which was

unheard of in this province since World War I. I'm also pleased to say that we started paying down the debt. However, I think this motion today is particularly important because I fear for the

future of our children and our grandchildren as I see the new Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty embarking on a path of tax-and-spend, which will only increase the debt and will take us back

into a position of deficit.

At the present time we know that the Liberal government has done everything they possibly can in order to exaggerate and create a bogus deficit. They are only

doing this because they are trying to make excuses for the fact that they know they cannot deliver on their promises. We knew they couldn't deliver on their promises. As a former Minister of

Education, when a commitment was made to cap class size at 20, I knew that it was going to cost $1 billion to do so. Yet they continue to make promises. However, I've noticed they're not talking

about it.

They're also making excuses about other promises which we don't hear about any more. They talked about 8,000 more nurses; they talked about more hospital beds;

they talked about more doctors. The list goes on and on and on. So, recognizing that they couldn't deliver on their promises, and continuing to break their promises day after day after day, whether

it's on the moraine, housing, P3, hydro or whether it's auto insurance, they now continue to do everything they can to create this bogus deficit.

It's a deficit that we faced as well, in 1995. But I can tell you, our team, our cabinet, under the leadership of our finance minister, Mr Eves, got to work and

started reducing that deficit, and as I say, we were able to balance the budget in 1999. It took a lot of determination; it took a lot of grit. There were difficult decisions that needed to be

made, but I am not prepared to see my children and my grandchildren have a situation where we have even more debt in the province of Ontario.

My colleague is well supported in his resolution by groups such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and of

course the chamber of commerce. All of these groups recognize the need for fiscal prudence. If we take a look at the letter that Mr Arnott received from Mr Williamson, he says that retiring this

debt is extremely important. He says, "Regrettably, many politicians" -- I think he's now thinking about the Liberal government; I think he rues the day that he supported them -- "prefer to tax and

spend without giving much thought to ensuring the debt is not passed on to the next generation of taxpayers."

In his letter he also says that this year we're going to be spending $8.6 billion on interest payments. He says -- and this is what's so important and this is

why I would encourage the Liberal members to seriously consider this resolution -- if we didn't have a debt, a debt that we started to pay down, and if we didn't have the interest, we could

actually reduce the provincial income tax by 44%. He also says that the health care budget could be increased by 30%.

Our debt today is creating higher taxes; it is restricting our program spending. If you had this money available, you could actually move forward with your

broken promises of 8,000 more nurses and doctors and hospital beds. The amount of money that we're spending in interest on the debt today -- if it is, as Mr Williamson says, $8.6 billion -- is

about the amount of that we give to our hospitals. Think of it: We could be giving more money to hospitals; we could be giving more money to children's aid; we could be giving more money to

schools. The list goes on and on and on.

So I very strongly support the resolution that has been put forward by the Waterloo-Wellington MPP, Ted Arnott. I hope that members of all sides will support

this resolution and that they will seriously consider the impact it's going to have on their children and their grandchildren if we don't take action. I hope they will remember that this is a

problem that was created by all governments of all stripes. It wasn't just Liberals or NDP or Conservatives. We, collectively, have created this problem, and I believe it's very important today

that we give serious consideration that we do what Alberta has done under a Conservative government, do what Manitoba has done under an NDP government, and move this recommendation for this debt

retirement plan. I would hope for the support of everyone in this House.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Timmins-James Bay has up to five minutes.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My good friend Mr Arnott and I were having a chat sometime earlier this fall, and he said to me, "Gilles,

I really am a right winger. Quite frankly, I'm extremely right-wing." I've always seen Mr Arnott as a bit of a moderate, but I really see by way of this motion that he means what he says. If I look

back to the motions this particular member has brought before this House, they've been on a bit of a right-wing edge. For example, in the last Parliament, we dealt with the double-hatter bill,

where he basically wanted to change the current system to allow professional firefighters to volunteer in volunteer fire departments and break collective agreements of firefighters in this

province. Now he brings forward a bill where he says, "I want to put in place, by way of a motion, a law that would basically say the government has a debt retirement plan of 25 years."

Well, the first thing I've got to say to my good friend Mr Arnott is, where were you for the last eight years? These guys were the government, right? Aren't they

the guys who were the government of the province of Ontario from 1995 to 2003, the fiscal managers, as they tried to make themselves out to be? The Conservatives came to government and said, "We're

going to get things in order. We're going to bring things under control. We're great fiscal managers."

My first point is, why did this not show up in the last eight years? The member had an opportunity, while he was in government, to whisper in the ear of the

Premier and of the cabinet that such an idea was a good one. And if it was a good idea for the Tories, I think they would have done it. So I just find it a little bit interesting that he brings

this forward after the Conservatives were defeated, that he all of a sudden now wants to bring forward a motion that says they want to put together a debt retirement scheme. When you guys were the

government, you certainly didn't have one. You obviously didn't want to put one in place, because you didn't adopt this idea when you were the government. For you to come forward now and ask this

Parliament to do this, when you're in opposition -- I just find it a little bit interesting.

I don't want to repeat everything my friend from Nickel Belt, Shelley Martel, said, but I want to echo and say ditto to everything she said. The Tory government,

while they were in place from 1995 to 2003, quite frankly created a social deficit in this province that we're still trying to recover from. For example, take a look at the people on disability

pensions in this province. They have not had an increase since the Tories came to government in 1995. People have been falling farther and farther behind, all because that government, the

Conservative government, wanted to pass on tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this province. I think that was wrong. I think it was mean-spirited. I think we were targeting the wrong people when

it came to assistance. A person like me, who makes $85,000 or $90,000 a year, hardly needs a tax cut and a few extra bucks in my pocket compared to somebody who's on a disability pension through no

fault of their own, by virtue of being ill and not being able to work having to live in poverty. I say that's one heck of a social deficit.

I look at the kids in our school system. My good friend Madame Martel again raised yesterday in this House the whole issue of children with autism and the money

that needs to be invested to make sure that kids after six years of age are able to get the kind of services they need.

I look at kids in schools in my riding -- I'm sure you have them in all of yours -- who have special needs. A particular child I'm dealing with now, in grade 4,

has severe problems, severe behavioural problems, and it has got to the point where the school board has had to evict the child from the school. Why? Because they don't have the money to be able to

deal with that child. I'm sure the school board doesn't do this lightly and they don't want to do it just to be mean to the child, but the child is very hard to deal with and they have no resources

to deal with that child while the child is in the classroom.

So I say to the member, Mr Arnott, you'd have been better off trying to make sure we reinforce the services that are important to people in this province. Once

you've got that in place, then maybe we can talk about your motion.

I come back to my first point: You had an opportunity to do this when you were in government, and you didn't do it; instead what you've done is created a social

deficit in this province that we're still trying to dig ourselves out from under.

My last point, in the last few seconds I have, is -- and I know Liberals will get up and say, "That's why we're in a mess. The Tories left us a big surprise" --

that there were no surprises. We all knew, going into the last election, that there would be at least a $5-billion deficit. Mr Phillips, who sat on the estimates committee with me last spring,

repeated over and over again to Minister Ecker, the Minister of Finance of the day, "You're going to have at least a $5-billion deficit, if not more." We knew that, so don't get up in this House

this morning and say, "Surprise, we've got a deficit," because it was no surprise. It might have been in your minds, but it wasn't in anybody else's.

Mr Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): It is my pleasure to rise and add my comments on this motion, "That ... the government of Ontario should

commit itself to a 25-year debt retirement plan, articulating five-year interim targets, such that the province of Ontario is free from ... debt by the fiscal year 2029-30."

I'd like to thank the member for Waterloo-Wellington for bringing this item forward. It provides an opportunity for this Liberal government to address in this

House once again the central issue facing this government and facing the people of Ontario.

On the surface it certainly seems like a good idea. I don't think you could show me a politician, I don't think you could show me a political party -- certainly

I don't think we'll find one in this House -- that doesn't think debt retirement is a good idea. We all know too well how debt and the interest on that debt can compromise our ability to provide a

level of service and the kinds of services to the people of Ontario -- services they want and services they expect.

But like most things that are done in this House, it is a question of timing. We all know that at this time the Liberal government of Ontario has a $5.6-billion

deficit, and that's a whole bunch of reasons why this item is not a good idea at this time. We all understand how the fiscal mismanagement that has occurred here in recent times has curtailed the

ability of this government to move forward in the manner it would like.

I'm sure the irony of this item is not lost on anyone. Mr Peters has stated clearly that we have a $5.6-billion problem that occurred under the watch of the

previous Tory government. I think it bears repeating that this is not my number, it's not a Liberal number, it's not a number produced by any ministry under the Liberal government; this is a number

produced by the former Provincial Auditor of Ontario.

Let's talk about debt for a little while; not the $5.6-billion deficit but the debt left by the previous Tory government. At a time when, by most accounts, the

economy of Ontario was performing relatively well -- and of course the provincial treasury is the beneficiary of that -- they still found it necessary to sell off billions of dollars of government

assets, and of course the government of Ontario would be the beneficiary of that. Under these circumstances, they still managed to add over $20 billion to the total provincial debt.

We have talked a lot about the deficit in this chamber, but I'm not sure how many people in the province are aware that $20 billion or more has been added to the

total debt by the former Tory government, which the taxpayers of the province are now responsible for, and during tenure how the interest expense on that debt has further compromised our ability to

provide services to the people of this province. As all of us here know, that $20 billion in debt does not even begin to include what has happened under the watch of the former Tory government as

it relates to hydro and the accumulation of the debt there. We all know there's only one taxpayer, and certainly we all understand that that responsibility lies with that taxpayer. So I think we

have to ask ourselves why a member of the former Tory government would bring this item forward at this time.

You know, a lot of people who would consistently support a Tory candidate would likely do so because they believe Conservatives could fiscally manage this

province better than any other party. But now we know that is not so, not just because we found out about a $5.6-billion deficit -- independently provided -- but because we also know that during

approximately eight years of Tory government they added $20 billion or more to the debt, and annual interest payments in the multi-millions.

Maybe that's our answer. Maybe that's why this item has been brought forward at this time. Perhaps it's an attempt to begin rebuilding an image of good fiscal

management. Perhaps it's an attempt to go public and beat their chests and say Liberals won't support or aren't in favour of debt retirement. I say to the honourable member opposite: Good try, but

it's too late; the bluff's been called, and the game is up.

Just yesterday, we had a vote looking for a referendum on Bill 2. We just had one. It happened on October 2 and lasted 30 days. We call it an election. The

people of Ontario were listening, they were paying attention, and this time they called the bluff. The cards of the previous Tory government have been laid on the table for all of us to see, and

it's not a good-looking hand. The people of Ontario have allowed us to reveal the true state of the finances in this province.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I'm very pleased to join the debate this morning on the resolution proposed by Mr Arnott, "That in the

opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should commit itself to a 25-year debt retirement plan, articulating five-year interim targets, such that the province of Ontario is free from its

net debt by the fiscal year 2029-30."

We all know that Mr Arnott, the member from Waterloo-Wellington, is a hard-working, sincere and dedicated member of this Legislature. He's a very responsible

person. He's looking out for his riding and his constituents, and this is an initiative that's based on responsibility. This resolution is about the Ontario government taking on a plan to deal with

our long-term debt. It is about the government acting responsibly to deal with our debt.

Think of the Ontario government's debt, some $118.7 billion, as a big mortgage on our home, Ontario. Individual Ontarians deal with their home mortgages in a

responsible way. They make their mortgage payments, and over 20 or 25 years they pay off their debt. It's time for the Ontario government to do the same thing.

Think of all the tax dollars currently going to service the interest on $118.7 billion. By my quick calculation, that's about $8 billion -- I see the

taxpayers' federation says it's $8.6 billion. That $8 billion to $9 billion could be spent on health care, education or environmental measures, or it could be given back to the taxpayers of

Ontario. That would be a 44% reduction in income tax or a 30% increase in health spending.

We now have a new government in Ontario. Mr McGuinty stated many times in the election, "I won't lower your taxes, but I won't raise them either." Mr McGuinty

signed and pledged with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that he would balance the budget. He's saying he wouldn't raise taxes. So why are we seeing a 27% increase in business taxes in this

province? That's something that worries me more than anything, and the effect that will have on business in Ontario.

When we were in government, my colleagues would often talk about tax-and-spend Liberals. I was new to the place, and I thought they were kidding. This

government is quickly showing they are indeed tax-and-spend Liberals. That's why this resolution is more important than ever. We need a long-term plan to deal with our debt. It is too easy to give

in to short-term spending demands and act irresponsibly with regard to spending.

Let me be clear: It is our children and our grandchildren who will suffer if this government does not act responsibly. It's short-term pain for long-term gain.

I very much support this resolution. I believe it's the right thing to do. It's tough for governments that live on a four-year cycle to look 25 years down the road, but it is the best thing to do

for all Ontarians. I would like to see the government adopt this strategy.

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I'm very happy to rise on this motion, and I want to spend a few minutes speaking about how we got

here -- the kind of thinking that got us here and what this government is going to do to move forward.

No one can dispute the need, the virtue and the importance of retiring debt. No one can dispute the burden that provincial debt places on future generations.

No one can dispute, certainly, that to the extent we are saddled with debt, we can't meet our promises and don't have the ability to fund our programs.

But first, I want to share with the House some information about the status of our debt. Our net debt as of March 31, 2003, was $132.6 billion, and the

interest last year alone on that debt was $9.7 billion. As my friend has said, the Tories actually increased the provincial debt by some $30 billion while they were in office. The cost of servicing

that increased debt rose as well, from $8 billion to $11 billion per year. Every year during the Tory regime, one sixth of the provincial budget was spent servicing the province's debt. That is not

a record to be proud of.

Here in Ontario, previous governments have also let the debt more than double. The NDP government let it double from $38 billion to $101 billion during their

time in office. And we are paying a price for the increases by those past governments. It is not a situation to be proud of. To incur our debt is to mortgage our future. Not only have we been left

with a financial debt, my friends, we have been left with a debt and a legacy in terms of mismanaged government.

Mismanagement leads to debt, and we're here to fix it. On October 2, the people of this province voted for the straight goods. They voted against Magna

budgets, they voted against accounting tricks, they voted against sweeping it under the rug and they voted to listen to a Provincial Auditor instead of questioning his motives and judgments to act.

They voted for respect, openness and transparency in the books of this province, something that has been sorely missing for the past eight years.

Interjections.

Ms Broten: Do you know what? We've already taken a number of initiatives to move forward --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Just take a second. Members more and more seem to think that they have the right to speak when somebody has the

floor, and I think we'd like to change that around here, so I'd appreciate it if you'd listen to the speaker who has the floor.

Ms Broten: Thank you. We certainly need to address the deficit and the debt. There's no doubt about that, and we are moving forward in that

regard.

The setting of targets is an admirable goal, but I want to ask you how, right now, 28.4% of GDP is being used for servicing the debt. Before the days of the

Tories and the NDP it was less than half. But remember, it took a long time to build up this debt and, unfortunately, it's going to take a long time to pay it down.

I know that the Minister of Finance will have more to say about this when he does his economic statement, but I also want to just spend my last remaining

moments talking about the deficit in public services and public safety that this province has also suffered over the last number of years. We need to set timetables and we need to have targets for

paying down the deficit. But let me ask my friends across the House, where were the five-year targets when it came to improving our health care system and our education system? Where were the

targets when it came to fixing our water and improving our air? Where were the targets to ensure that the Family Responsibility Office phone got answered when the people in our communities were

calling for help? Where were the targets when it came to ensuring that hospital beds were open and available?

Is it time for Mr Arnott's motion? No. It's time to restore the fiscal situation to a balance. It's time to have openness and transparency in government books

so we can ensure that we reverse the deficits in public health and safety. That's the direction we're taking in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nepean-Carleton now has the floor.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Mr Speaker, I watched you over the last eight years in this place, and I listened and I learned. We're

going to be an effective opposition because of all we learned from you, Speaker.

I'm pleased to rise and support my colleague from Waterloo-Wellington. I think his resolution is important. I strongly believe in balanced budgets. I strongly

believe in debt repayment. I think he has presented a responsible resolution, and I would encourage all members of the House to support it.

This is a rather serious issue. I do think it's important. This is private members' hour and we should be speaking as individual members. In all honesty, and I

won't mention which members, but we shouldn't be reading speeches that the minister's office wrote for us. This should be a time when it's non-political and we speak to the question before us. I

listened to two speakers and neither of them even said whether they would support the resolution or not. We want to make this place more relevant and we want people to come and tell us what their

constituents think on these issues -- what they think, not what the canned speeches from the whiz kids in Greg Sorbara's office or the Premier's office say.

I listened with great interest to Mr Mauro and Ms Broten talk about the $20 billion of interest that was added by this government. That $20 billion is funny

because it's identical to the number that Lyn McLeod in 1995 said she would have to borrow before she balanced the budget. Lyn McLeod agreed with Mike Harris that you couldn't come in and cut $11

billion in spending like that, that you had to do it in a responsible way. So the Liberal and the Tory plan, had Lyn McLeod been elected and undertaken her economic strategy, would have added $20

billion to the debt; exactly the same. I suppose Greg Sorbara's office or the Premier's office didn't tell you that. It's interesting. I think that's important to mention. We balanced the budget

responsibly over four years, exactly like the Liberal Party said they would. And I say this quite sincerely: Don't fall into the trap of the spin doctors.

I do think it's fair to admit that all three political parties over the last 30 or 40 years -- Conservative, Liberal and New Democrat -- including the

government that I served in, had to borrow money. I think it's self-evident that that happened. I don't think any of us should be proud of that. I think if there were three people responsible, it

would be all three parties.

The question that Mr Arnott is asking today is should we all not, collectively, take responsibility -- particularly, I say to the members for

Etobicoke-Lakeshore and Thunder Bay, as younger members in this place -- for the problem and come forward with a plan to balance the budget and pay off the debt? That's what this resolution seeks

to do. I think it's important. If we could set a 25-year plan to reasonably pay off the deficit, I think that would be a good thing.

But I do think it's remarkable. There's no doubt the province is facing some significant challenges this fiscal year. All we're saying to the government is

surely there would be a million dollars out of a $70-million budget where the government -- just $1 million out of $8 billion -- could say, "Do you know what? We're going to cut spending by $1

million." We're going to do something. We're not going to take the $5.6 billion number. It's sort of like driving a car and you know you're going to drive off a cliff in six months from now, on

April 1 -- and you were elected on October 2 -- but we can't do anything. There's not a single thing we can do.

We came forward with about $10 billion worth of ideas, and I have no problem with your saying 90% or 95% of those are unworkable, that it can't be done. We'll

disagree. But surely there must be one single thing where you could say, "Do you know what? We can take that $771 million and count it in this fiscal year," as John Manley says. That's not John

Baird talking; that's John Manley. Surely we could take that $330 million of SARS money and say we're going to deduct that right off the $5.6-billion financial challenge we're facing.

I asked in question period. The Liberal candidates ran on a plan saying, "We have set aside $2 billion to deal with the potential deficit." David Hall, who

verified the plan, said that you can cut that off the deficit. The members won't look at me when I say this, and I don't blame them. Because there's $3 billion that has gone missing and there

doesn't seem to be any willingness whatsoever to say, "Let's roll up our sleeves and work together." We came up with some positive ideas, and I think that's regrettable.

I'm very pleased to support this resolution by my friend Ted Arnott, and I will be voting in favour.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Waterloo-Wellington has two minutes to reply.

Mr Arnott: I want to thank all the members in this House who have participated in this important debate this morning, particularly my

colleagues from Kitchener-Waterloo, the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and the member for Nepean-Carleton, our able and dedicated finance critic.

I want to address some of the points that have been made by some of the Liberal members in this House this morning: the member for York West, the member for

Thunder Bay-Atikokan and the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I was disappointed because I didn't hear the Liberal members say they're intending to support this resolution.

I would point out to you that I introduced a similar resolution in 1997, and it enjoyed the support of all sides of the House. In fact, it was passed

unanimously on a voice vote. At that time, I had the pleasure to listen to the member from Yorkview, who is in the House today and spoke today; he's now the member for York West. In 1997, he said

about this initiative: "I will be supporting the bill because I think the principle is a sound one. It's something we can subscribe to as present and future governments. I hope we do that." We

didn't hear a statement like that from him today, unfortunately.

I would refer to the Liberal campaign platform, their Achieving Our Potential document, which was one of the documents they used during the election campaign.

They made reference to debt reduction:

"We will make sure the debt goes in one direction only: down.

"We will not add to the provincial debt. We will pay down the debt as conditions allow, with all surpluses going directly to debt payment."

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): Another promise broken.

Mr Arnott: As my colleague from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound has said, this is yet another broken Liberal promise. You can add that to the list. I

think it's most disappointing that the Liberal government, within a few days and weeks, has been breaking so many of its promises. This, to me, is a complete abdication of responsibility. I'm very,

very disappointed. I'm concerned about the future generations of this province: my children, my grandchildren, if I have any. I think it's most important that we articulate a long-term debt

repayment plan and that governments in the future commit to it. I would ask all members of this House to support this important resolution.

ONTARIO HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Brownell moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 16,

An Act to proclaim Ontario Heritage Day and to amend other Acts to include Ontario Heritage Day as a holiday / Projet de loi 16, Loi proclamant

le Jour du patrimoine de l'Ontario et modifiant d'autres lois en vue de l'ajouter comme jour férié.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): According to standing order 96, the member has 10 minutes.

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): It is a pleasure for me today to speak to this bill, which will proclaim the second Monday

of June of each year to be Ontario Heritage Day and to amend other acts to include Ontario Heritage Day as a holiday.

For many years -- actually, since I was a teen in my community -- I have been actively involved in the conservation and preservation of history and heritage,

most recently serving as the president of the Lost Villages Historical Society. Before that, I served as president of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Historical Society and the Cornwall Township

Historical Society. I was honoured, yet humbled, when I received the Ontario Heritage Foundation's Heritage Community Recognition Award in 2001.

As we all know, Ontario is one of the most culturally and ethnically diverse regions on earth, something of which Ontarians are extremely proud. In our

province, we have a long, rich history and heritage of the First Nations communities, and I must say that I am indeed proud to recognize the community of Akwesasne in my riding of

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh.

In my community, and indeed throughout Ontario, we have had settlements developed along the rivers and lakes travelled by the voyageurs. In eastern Ontario,

for example, our lost villages of Mille Roches and Moulinette, communities lost to the hydro and seaway projects of the 1950s, provide evidence of the early French culture and heritage in my

constituency. This is true for countless communities throughout Ontario. Yes, check the map of Ontario and see the French origins. Then, in the late 1700s, the arrival of the United Empire

Loyalists brought large-scale immigration to Ontario, a welcoming immigration policy that continues to this day. Today, we welcome new Ontarians to our province, encouraging them to profile and

celebrate their respective heritages of which they are so proud, and which we, as Ontarians, embrace.

The heritage which my paternal grandmother brought to this country as a home child is a heritage of rich Scottish traditions which I celebrate and remember. As

an orphaned child from Bridge of Weir, Scotland, she and many other home children left their marks on the landscape of Ontario. The marks they left are those which we as Ontarians must remember and

celebrate on Ontario Heritage Day.

It is time that Ontario establishes a day to pay tribute in recognition to the province's long and rich economic, social and political history. It is time to

celebrate our province's rich culture and natural heritage. It is evident in the communities in which we live. As other provinces and territories do in Canada, this day will give the opportunity

for Ontarians to celebrate their distinct and unique heritages and the important contributions made by generations of settlers and their descendants.

In Canada, provinces and territories do celebrate with special heritage days. For example, Newfoundland and Labrador celebrate Cabot's day, recognizing the

contributions of this great explorer and the heritage which developed in that province. In New Brunswick, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and the Yukon, a day is recognized in each region

to celebrate this distinct heritage.

In my area of eastern Ontario, year after year we welcome and embrace the thousands of visitors who travel across the border from Quebec to celebrate

Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in the beautiful parks and recreational areas and campsites of the St Lawrence Parks Commission. As a community, we join with our francophone neighbours in celebrating. But

we are also mindful of the economic boom to the businesses as they begin another tourist season.

Ontarians know that statutory holidays are days with special significance, days established by governments to commemorate and celebrate events, usually of a

religious or historical nature. They know as well that the primary purpose of the statutory holiday is to provide employees some time from work days to enjoy some leisure time and to participate in

activities and events in the community, knowing that they are not penalized financially during the holiday.

So why an Ontario Heritage Day statutory holiday? Firstly, an Ontario Heritage Day will give us the opportunity to learn about the past as we project to the

future. As we have seen through our museums, heritage sites and educational programs, heritage is alive and fun in Ontario, but an Ontario Heritage Day would place our province's rich and diverse

history and heritage on a higher plateau.

As well, communities in Ontario have had boosts in their economies and businesses through the development of heritage attractions. A new statutory holiday

celebrating heritage in the province of Ontario would be a boom for our recently battered tourism and hospitality industries. With many heritage and historical sites opening in late May and early

June throughout the province, an early June statutory holiday celebrating heritage would be the boost needed in the tourism industry.

Having recently stepped down as a commissioner with the St Lawrence Parks Commission, I have seen first-hand the economic hardships borne by such attractions

as Upper Canada Village and Fort Henry because of such events as 9/11 and SARS. Having an Ontario Heritage Day to begin the tourist season would be the catalyst for future economic gains. Those who

work in tourism know that new and unique programs and events contribute to economic success. A new Ontario Heritage Day will give tourism a boost. Many Ontarians will use a holiday to get outdoors

and celebrate the province's diverse natural, cultural and built heritage venues.

Let us for a moment take time to touch on the educational importance of an Ontario Heritage Day, education for our youth and educational opportunities for

adults who wish to learn more about Ontario's cultural, natural and built heritage. For over 32 years I provided my students with the opportunities to explore Ontario heritage through outdoor

educational programs. These outdoor educational journeys were not opportunities to get out of a hot and muggy classroom on a June day, but it gave my students and I the opportunity to experience

history as it came alive in front of us and before our eyes.

In all of our ridings in Ontario, think of the countless opportunities for students as curriculum is developed around Ontario Heritage Day. Think of the

opportunities in the riding represented by my friend the honourable Minister of Agriculture, where the death of an elephant, Jumbo, allows students the opportunity to learn about Ontario's rich

entertainment industry and allows them to travel back to the time when travelling circuses were anticipated by thousands of Ontarians each year.

Let us teach our children and encourage them to travel to the places where great doctors left their marks on the Ontario landscape. I think about the times I

brought my students and members of the historical society, which I had the opportunity to lead, to visit the homes of Dr Solomon Jones at Maitland, Ontario, and the esteemed Senator from

Brockville, Dr Fulford. An Ontario Heritage Day would give educators the opportunity to showcase and build stories around the life and times of Dr Jones, who not only served as eastern Ontario's

first doctor but developed progressive agricultural practices in on his farm near Maitland. Children are fascinated by such stories as Dr Fulford's pharmaceutical exploits, developing his patented

pink pills for pale people.

Children and adults as well are fascinated to travel and learn about the legends and tales of a great Canadian heroine, Laura Secord. Yes, Laura is more than

chocolates, and an Ontario Heritage Day will give Ontarians the chance to discover and reflect on this bit of history in the ridings of St Catharines, Niagara Falls and Niagara Centre. Think too of

the valuable stories which would be passed on to our children and grandchildren. Think, too, about the opportunities they will have, by our actions here to have this bill proclaimed, as they take

the time from a busy workweek to reflect on Ontario's heritage and history.

I say to my fellow colleagues in this great House, we have much to celebrate in history and heritage in this province. I truly believe that an Ontario Heritage

Day will give all Ontarians the opportunity to reflect and celebrate on a great past as we move on to the future. It will be the catalyst to get this province moving in the tourism industry. It

will give this province the opportunity to have our hospitality industry move forward.

The heritage organizations in Ontario, from our local museums, our historical societies, LACAC committees and Ontario's biggest heritage booster -- the Ontario

Heritage Foundation -- will truly have reason to celebrate as we bring history and heritage to that higher plateau that I spoke of with an Ontario Heritage Day.

I encourage my colleagues on all sides of this House in this historic chamber to join with me in having Ontario Heritage Day proclaimed in this great

province.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I'm very pleased to join in the debate today on Bill 16,

An Act to proclaim Ontario Heritage Day and to

amend other Acts to include Ontario Heritage Day as a holiday, as put forward by the member from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh.

I think we all agree -- it's kind of like motherhood -- that supporting Ontario Heritage Day is a worthwhile endeavour. I do have a few questions for the

member, however. I believe it's the second Monday in June that he's proposing as the date of a statutory holiday. That does have consequences. I would wonder whether that is the appropriate time

for another statutory holiday, when we have Canada Day but a couple of weeks after that. Within the year, the month that doesn't have a statutory holiday is February, so it might make more sense to

have a holiday in February.

Certainly there are economic considerations to do with a statutory holiday. There can be some pluses, like increased tourism activity. For example, in my

riding -- I always like to talk about the beautiful riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka -- we have a number of different attractions with a heritage theme, like Muskoka Heritage Place in Huntsville,

where they have a steam train. It's become a very popular tourist attraction. They have a First Nations component to it as well. Over in the west side of the riding, in Parry Sound we have the West

Parry Sound District Museum, which is a very worthwhile attraction. I'd certainly recommend that everyone visit the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka on the new heritage day to visit these attractions.

As well, in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka we have seven First Nations communities. In Bracebridge there is the Bird house, an octagonal house of historical importance. So even in our riding

there are many other historical and heritage-type attractions.

There needs to be an economic analysis of the effect this heritage day and another statutory holiday would have, the economic considerations for the province.

For example, when you have a statutory holiday, small business is required to pay time and a half, but at the same time we could see some economic benefit from the tourism aspects of this.

I would ask that the member do that economic analysis. I wonder whether he has consulted with the stakeholders like the Canadian Federation of Independent

Business. I'm sure they have done surveys of their members and probably would have some ideas about whether this makes sense. I hope he would consult with them.

I would also ask him to check the work done by our very competent former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Culture, who I believe just last year did

extensive consultations with the cultural stakeholders. Julia Munro, the member for York North, did a very thorough job and a lot of extensive consultations with heritage stakeholders. I'm sure her

work would be of use to you in determining if this is the appropriate time and if there are any other considerations.

It's a worthwhile idea. I do think we need that economic analysis, and I question whether mid-June is the appropriate time.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I'm pleased to join in the debate. I want to congratulate the member for bringing the bill forward. I want to

point out that before and during the election campaign, the New Democrats said very clearly that we believe we should have two more statutory holidays in the province of Ontario, so I'm supportive

of any consideration that moves us along in that regard and say I support the bill that's brought forward today. We supported two statutory holidays, primarily because we believe working people in

Ontario, who are working longer and harder than ever before, deserve to have a break. If that break comes in terms of them reflecting on and celebrating Ontario's culture, that's great.

I want to give the House a bit of an idea of a slice of Ontario in terms of my own riding. I think we can all look at our own ridings and look at those who

have made important contributions that should be recognized, perhaps in this way, with this bill. I have three First Nations communities in my riding, two in the north part of the riding, one

adjacent to a non-native community. All those communities made very significant contributions very early on to the development particularly of northern Ontario. They are communities that certainly,

in some cases, could use more support from the federal government in terms of what they're trying to do -- building a child care centre in one of them, for example. But by and large, it would be

important for us to acknowledge our very first Canadians in a very significant way.

Secondly, I have a very large Franco-Ontarian population in the riding of Nickel Belt. In fact, the communities adjacent to the one I live in, Capreol, will be

celebrating their 100th anniversary in 2004. The heritage committee that has been involved in Valley East has done tremendous work over the last 18 months to two years documenting the history of

the families who came to Blezard Valley, to Hanmer etc, talking about their significant contribution. They were primarily involved in agriculture and then became involved in mining in our community

and made many other significant contributions. There's a great deal of activity underway with respect to that celebration. Again, this is a community, a population that has made a tremendous impact

and a tremendous contribution, not only in northern Ontario, where there are many communities with large francophone populations, but right across the province.

If you look at the composition, you'll see that many others came, primarily because they were involved in the mining industry and the development of that in

the Sudbury basin. I think about the very large Finnish population we have, the very large Ukrainian population, the very large Italian population, Greek population, that have been members of our

community for many, many years. We are lucky in our community that we have a wonderful association, the Sudbury Multicultural/Folk Arts Association, that celebrates our diversity and is responsible

for many multicultural events that occur across our community, efforts made to have people become involved in the celebrations, the language, the art, the culture, the history of all these

communities, to make our community much more tolerant. We have a much newer wave of immigration now that has occurred in recent years, many people of Indian descent, many more coming from places in

South America, all of whom together are making our community an incredible place to live.

I think each MPP has a similar story they could relate with respect to the composition of their own ridings and the contributions that have been made. If this

is an appropriate way to celebrate all that, to recognize it in a very formal way, then I am supportive of that.

In the short time I have, because I said our party had been very interested in two statutory holidays, I should make mention of a resolution debated recently

at the Ontario Federation of Labour that had to do with a statutory holiday we should consider on April 28, now recognized as a day of mourning in the province of Ontario but not recognized as a

statutory holiday. The April 28 event marks the contributions that have been made by Ontario working men and women, acknowledges and calls all of us to remember those who have died as a result of

their workplace, those who have suffered industrial disease as a result of their workplace, those who suffer from ongoing injuries as a result of accidents in their workplace. That particular day

-- and I think the many members who have participated in the April 28 day of mourning ceremonies in their own ridings recognize that it calls us to remember those who have died and to fight for

better occupational health and safety so that we reduce the number of workplace accidents, deaths and disease. The title of that has been "Mourn for the Dead, Fight for the Living," and it seems to

me it would be appropriate for us to consider at one point making that day, April 28, a statutory holiday as well.

Mrs Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I am proud to support the motion put forward by the member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. I tried

to think of a way that I could speak about this recommendation in a personal way. The first thought that came to my mind about how important it would be to my community was the fact that in

Brampton we've been known as the Flowertown of Canada for many, many years. That's changed over the years. I think part of our aim is to celebrate the rich, diverse and proud heritage of Ontario,

and that's something I'd like to encourage people to think of when they think of Brampton.

From the 1800s until the 1970s, roses, tulips, orchids, violets, daffodils, carnations and chrysanthemums made Brampton famous around the world. We were dubbed

the Flowertown of Canada. We were once home to dozens of acres of greenhouses, and at their peak in the 1950s we produced more than 20 million blooms a year. Today there's very little left of

Flowertown. In fact, there are just some small retailers that are left from that proud heritage.

It had its start in the small market gardens of Edward Dale. He arrived in Brampton from England with his family and created a small dugout type greenhouse to

raise produce. Like other market gardeners, Mr Dale would peddle his produce door to door. According to the family legend, his son was not interested in producing the produce; he was more

interested in the flowers that were growing wild in the neighbourhood. With each vegetable order, he ensured his dad included a rose for the lady of the house. By the time they went into business

together in 1869, Harry had developed a cut rose variety of roses that convinced his father to add flowers to his greenhouse. The enterprise grew rapidly, with roses exceeding the popularity and

profitability of the vegetables. Soon the roses were being shipped all over North America and England. After the death of Sir John S. Macdonald in June 1891, as many as 800 roses were shipped to

Ottawa and Montreal from the Dale greenhouses.

By 1915, 3.75 acres had become 25 acres, with over 1.25 million square feet of glass, making Dale the largest employer in Brampton, according to The Brampton

Sesquicentennial Historical CD-ROM.

Looking for ways to expand the estate, Duggan visited England, where he examined similar industries. He was inspired by what he saw, and by the mid-1930s the

Dale estate owned and operated 250 acres, employing more than 350 workers, with 132 greenhouses and approximately 1.5 million square feet of glass covering 40 acres of the estate. You don't see

that now; that history is gone. Although the flower market in England was larger, the Dale estate's became the largest under glass, encased in greenhouses.

Following the war, Brampton's Flowertown began to feel the effects of a massive population boom, reliable air travel and skyrocketing oil prices. The demand

for land increased, and nearby businesses such as AVRO/Orenda Engines and Dixie Cup soon were offering higher wages. An increasingly fast world, where air travel was more reliable and flowers could

be more cheaply shipped from South America, also left Flowertown behind. In 1961, there were 61 flower growers in the Brampton area. In December 1974, there were 13.

In an attempt to revive the flower spirit, the city, the Dales and other local businesses sponsored Brampton's first Flower Festival in 1963, including a

parade and a concert band in our Gage Park. The festival, renamed in 1981 as the Pine and Rose Festival, ran for 26 years before the board of directors disbanded in 1988 over financial

difficulties.

Although 81 businesses are listed under "florist" in the Brampton area Yellow Pages, the closest greenhouses are in Huttonville. Only two flower retailers

remain from Flowertown days.

I support this bill; I think it makes a lot of sense. It's important to recognize your history. You can't understand where you're going if you don't know your

past.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): It's a pleasure to rise today in the House to speak to Bill 16,

An Act to proclaim Ontario Heritage Day and to

amend other Acts to include Ontario Heritage Day as a holiday.

I guess it's laudable to recognize the importance that heritage plays in our society, and I think we should, from time to time, take time to stop and think of

that. I commend the member opposite for bringing this bill forward.

Having said that, I'll start off by saying that I won't be able to support the bill. I have some real concerns, and they have to do with what the impact of

doing this will be, not only on our heritage but on our economy and on the very people whom we want to help.

The member brought forward the situation we've had in the past year, where we had problems with our tourist industry because of some of the things that have

happened in our society. We need to do something to bring more tourists in to help those people in the tourist industry recover from the SARS and other impacts. Yet we are going to be asking those

same people to pay half as much again for the people who are working on that day in order to bring these people in.

I don't think the declaration of the holiday will bring people from outside Ontario into the province, because declaring the day will have no impact in other

provinces or in other countries. The impact will just be here. So what it's really going to suggest, as I see it, is that we are going to ask all the people who employ personnel in this province to

pay people so they can go out and enjoy a holiday. Of course, the cost of doing that will be tacked on to the products or the deficit of products or the lack of products produced that day in our

society, which will make all our exports and all our products that we produce more expensive on the markets. So again, it will be a disadvantage to our economy.

I think a lot of people would appreciate a signal as to when the heritage appreciation and the summer holidays start -- starting in mid-June as opposed to the

end of June may be a good idea. As we all know, our summer holidays, when people take time off and travel the province and go and visit these tourist attractions, traditionally start the first part

of July as opposed to mid-June. This may very well encourage them to start earlier. I don't expect them to do it much longer, because they will not have generated much more revenue.

I have a bit of a question to the member, and maybe he could answer it in his responses. I did get a printout of some of the information, as it relates to the

act, and some of the pluses and minuses of introducing this piece of legislation. I was very much impressed with the fact that we would be recognizing the contribution of our settlers, their

descendants, our First Nations and new Ontarians.

I'm not quite sure I understand how new Ontarians fall into that category, as to how their heritage would be recognized. I know we have a lot of special days

declared for new Ontarians who come from offshore and immigrate to Ontario, and I happen to be one of those. We have special days for nationalities to recognize their heritage and their

contribution to our society, and I'm not sure declaring an Ontario Heritage Day -- at least I'm not clear as to how the member opposite would see that as coming out in this bill. So I'm not sure

that that has a great impact.

As I said, I'm a new Canadian myself -- I'm not sure whether we can call it "new"; it was 51 years ago that we arrived in this great country -- and we

celebrate that each and every year. In fact, I'd just like to relate that I came here in 1952. We landed at pier 21 in Halifax with 14 siblings and my parents. Last year, we had the great

opportunity to celebrate our arrival in this great country and having spent 50 years here. We invited just the immediate family of those descendants. Incidentally, we don't have a special day to

recognize this, but it was in April we arrived, so maybe we could move this day to April if the legislation passes.

This year we invited all the people to come back and celebrate with us our good fortune to be Canadians. We had to send out invitations to 236 direct

descendants of our family, and 197 of them came to the celebration -- since that time, of course, this heritage has moved out; one of them came from as far away as Australia to visit -- because

they were part of that family that arrived here in 1952. As I say, I take great pride in the heritage, in being an Ontarian and in being a Canadian, but I'm not sure that this legislation will deal

with that at all.

I would be much more comfortable in supporting the bill if the member opposite had brought forward some information that he had contacted the business

community, the retail sector, the people who will be impacted, hopefully not negatively impacted, by this legislation. It would be nice to know what they thought of that and whether this was, in

their estimation, going to improve their economy and their lot in life, or whether in fact it is going to be a hindrance. I would be much more comfortable if I had that type of information to help

me in my deliberations. I strongly support the need to celebrate our heritage and the need to recognize the positives in our society, but I don't believe we should do that at the expense of our

society. I really believe that this is going to do that.

Lastly, I would just like to again ask the member who proposed this legislation -- on the other side of the information page, in listing where the statutory

holidays are in different jurisdictions, we have listed that a number of them have nine paid holidays; Ontario and Quebec have only eight, and of course that is the second-highest in Canada. But

then when we look at the next slide, in fact it suggests that there are 10 in Ontario too. I was just wondering if maybe we could get clarification on that.

With that, I will turn my time over to my colleagues. I thank you very much for allowing me this opportunity to speak to this bill.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Just before I get into the details about why I support this and what kinds of comments I have in regard

to this particular bill, I just want to say it's interesting that the previous speaker says we should go out and consult with the small business community, because after all they're the ones who

are going to have to foot the bill for the holiday.

I understand that as far as logic, but the inference I thought the member meant was that maybe we have too many holidays now. I just want to point out that

other jurisdictions in the world are much more progressive when it comes to dealing with the issue of holidays than we are here in North America. Quite frankly, North America is probably one of the

worst jurisdictions when it comes to statutory holidays for their citizens.

If you go into powerhouse economies like Germany, France and many other European economies, it is standard there in the first year to get four or five weeks'

holidays. The interesting

part is, people don't see that as a cost of business; they see that as a benefit. Because what it has done, quite frankly, is to create a culture in Europe where people

actually take their holidays, take their savings and go on a little trip somewhere, within the European common union more times than not. It has created a tourism industry in Europe that is far

outpacing anything that we're doing here in North America.

We seem to have this attitude in North America, "Nose to the grind wheel. Work 14 hours a day, seven days a week, 365," and if you don't do that, somehow

you're not as good as the rest of the people in the economy. I remember reading the book Future Shock when I was a teenager in high school. I'll tell you, the year 2000 isn't at all what I expected

it to be, because I thought we were going to get a lot smarter and we were going to learn how to really build in, by way of legislation, the ability for people to take time off and enjoy their

lives so that they could be more refreshed and better able to contribute to the workplace that they work in.

I think in North America, quite frankly, we have some of the worst legislation when it comes to mandatory holidays. So on the basis that this is an additional

holiday for people, I support it. I just want to say that out front. But I just think at one point it would be interesting -- actually, I'm thinking of bringing such a bill into this Legislature --

that we look at the jurisdictions of Sweden, Denmark, Norway -- Holland is quite progressive, to my good friend across the way here. I've been there a number of times. People in Europe are quite

progressive when it comes to this whole issue of the concept of holidays and statutory holidays.

To the issue of this bill being called a heritage -- what are you calling it? -- heritage day, I guess is what you're calling it? I just want to point

something out. A couple of First Nations friends of mine were here the other day. You might have noticed them in the gallery. We were having a bit of a chat about this bill when you were

introducing it. They were a little bit taken aback. Not to be negative toward what you're doing, but they're saying, "Heritage? God, we were here first. What do you mean? We come from here. We

didn't come from anywhere else. You're the immigrants. You all came from over there and came to Canada and North America; we were here. If you want to signal in some way the heritage our country

has gained from First Nations people" -- I think their comment is a good one -- "maybe we deserve a holiday of our own." I just put that on the record, because I know among my First Nations friends

across the province, as I think of people I deal with, everyone from the chiefs of Ontario to the local communities in my riding, there is a real sense within the aboriginal community that they are

different, in their own minds and their own rights, from the rest of Canadians; that they are not founding fathers, they are not immigrants to this great nation, that they are the people who were

here before, and we're the people who came after. I just signal to you that there is a little bit of uneasiness in comments I got from some of my First Nations friends on this.

I was also talking to -- it's funny how these things go -- another gentleman, a francophone from my riding, who happened to be in the gallery on the day this

bill was introduced. I thought it was kind of interesting. I had First Nations friends from the James Bay coast and a friend of mine from Timmins here when the bill was put in place. He raised the

point -- I don't necessarily agree with him, but I think the member needs to respond to his point -- that francophones and anglophones see themselves as founding members of our country, and maybe

the bill should have been called multicultural day. That was the question he was asking: Are you trying to celebrate the multiculturalism of Canada, all the people who emigrated from all the

various nations of the world vis-à-vis what their cultural background might be? He wondered why you didn't call it multicultural day. I said to my buddy, "Don't get hung up on it, because I'm

sure the member is doing this for all the right reasons and he'll respond to that in his speech."

But I will support it. It's a step in the right direction. I would just echo what my friend from Sudbury said: It would be nice to do a workers' day on April

16 to mark those workers who have died in the workplace.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to rise in support of this bill from my colleague from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. I

think my colleague has given a very good historical perspective as to why this bill is important, as to why as a province we need to celebrate and remember our history, our heritage.

Speaking as someone who was not born in Canada, coming to Canada as a child, admittedly I very much appreciate the multiculturalism, the embracing of diversity

that we have in this great province of ours. With that, I think many young people may tend to lose a little bit of the historical perspective of this province, may tend to lose the value or not

understand it because we're doing such a great job of integrating and working together and showing the world how we can come together from all countries around the world to Canada, to Ontario in

particular, the biggest focus of immigration in the country, and really show the world a model of understanding and acceptance and working together. But in that, we possibly tend to lose a little

bit of our history of this province.

I look at Ontario Heritage Day as a celebration, a day on which we can celebrate the wonderful contributions over the years of people in this province:

natives, francophones and other Canadians and Ontarians from all walks of life, some who have been spoken of today in the House. It's an opportunity for the schools to become involved as part of

this program. I can envision the schools actually doing much more than they should be doing to help young people understand the heritage of this province.

We should be very proud. We have a very rich history in Ontario. We have a history we should be proud of. We have a history of pioneers. We have a history of

inventors, of people who have stretched the limits, of people who have gone beyond the call of duty in making this province a better place to live over the years. This opportunity of celebrating

Ontario Heritage Day would give us that. It would give us an opportunity to highlight some of these individuals. It would give us an understanding of where we came from as a province. I believe

that is extremely important, because if we are not careful, we are going to lose some of that. If we are not careful, we are going to lose some of the historical perspective, as a province and as a

country, that I think is valuable and is as rich any country in the world, any province in the world.

The other aspect of this bill that I certainly support is the fact that it would be a statutory holiday. I find it a passing fascination that some of my Tory

friends across the floor are saying, "Well, who have you consulted? Have you consulted the chamber of commerce? Have you consulted the Canadian Federation of Business?" But none of them have said,

"Have you consulted working men and women who may like another statutory holiday to spend with their family and friends?" The fact is that in this fast-moving society of ours, this fast-moving

world of ours, there's often not enough time for family and friends. I think many working people who would benefit from this would very much appreciate the opportunity to have another day in June

that they can spend with their family and friends.

Again, work the schools into this. Use it as an opportunity to educate young people as to why it's not just a day off but, "Here's what we're celebrating

today."

So I believe that this is a very worthwhile piece of legislation. I am hopeful that all my colleagues in the Legislature will support it. It is important to

celebrate our multiculturalism, it is important to celebrate the Ontario we have today, but it's also important to celebrate the history of this great province. This bill will help us do that.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): It's a privilege to speak on this bill for a few minutes and mention that this has been talked about

before in the House, and in Ottawa they talked about a Heritage Day across Canada. I think it might even be better if we had it in February. I think February is when people need a break. Christmas

is gone and spring's not there. In February they need a break --

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Groundhog Day.

Mr Murdoch: -- and we could call it Groundhog Day. Yes, the member for St Catharines knows what I'm going to talk about. Of course, in Wiarton

we have the most famous groundhog in the world, called Wiarton Willie.

Interjection.

Mr Murdoch: Wiarton Willie has caused some problems here before when he had that untimely death and we had to find some of his predecessors. I

believe that we had to go all the way to Ottawa. I believe Wiarton Willie had visited Ottawa somewhere along the line and he had some offspring there that we were able to bring back. So the

bloodlines of Wiarton Willie are still there.

That's when we celebrate in Wiarton. Wiarton Willie comes out and tells us what's going to happen, when we're going to have spring. Sometimes he's right;

sometimes he's wrong. It took our last mayor quite some time to learn groundhogese. It's another language we have in Wiarton. Not many people can speak that, but that's one of the things the mayor

has to do. Carl Noble was the new mayor the first time, and he did get it mixed up. He had spring coming early and Willie had it coming late. The two of them just didn't get together on that.

So I would suggest that if we're going to have a Heritage Day, that's when it should be, in February when people are feeling the winter blues and maybe need a

holiday.

The other thing we'd have to look at, that Mr Miller mentioned, is the economic impact of another holiday on businesses and things like that. It is quite

expensive and it's something we would have to look at. As I said, my colleague the MP Ovid Jackson from my riding is supporting this in Ottawa too, that there may be a Heritage Day, but we would

call it Wiarton Willie Groundhog Day and that would go right across Canada. We could probably support something like that.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): It is a great honour for me to speak in favour of my colleague's bill, Bill 16,

An Act to

proclaim Ontario Heritage Day. Just before I address this bill, I would like to congratulate the member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh for his first election victory to the Ontario

Legislature. It has been only two months since the provincial election and my colleague from the riding next to mine is already demonstrating that residents from his riding made the right choice in

sending him to Queen's Park.

Ontario is a beautiful province, a province that is rich in diversity and with a history that is worth celebrating. What better way to recognize the important

contribution made by generations of settlers and their descendants, as well as First Nations, than to proclaim the second Monday of June in each year as Ontario Heritage Day in the province of

Ontario?

premiers francophones qui se sont installés dans le territoire de l'Ontario furent les missionnaires qui établirent la mission de Sainte-Marie-au-pays-des-Hurons en 1639. La

Canada. En Ontario, il jouit du statut de langue officielle devant les tribunaux, dans l'éducation et à l'Assemblée législative. Il y a présentement environ 540 000

francophones et environ un million de francophiles en Ontario. En juin 2001, l'emblème de la communauté francophone de l'Ontario a été officiellement reconnu par l'Ontario

à l'unanimité dans cette Assemblée législative.

Ma circonscription, tout comme l'Ontario, a une histoire riche. Je suis fier que Samuel de Champlain est passé par ma région. Certains disent que

Champlain aurait lui-même changé le nom d'un village de ma circonscription, le village de Grande-Chute, à Chute-à-Blondeau, en mémoire de Blondeau, un ami cher de Paris,

mais selon la toponymie la plus récente, ce petit village n'aurait obtenu son nom qu'en 1875, pour d'autres raisons qui ne ressemblent pas du tout à celles mentionnées ci-dessus.

Également, les historiens savent que Cartier a exploré le territoire de ce qui est aujourd'hui la ville d'Ottawa, mais peu de documents étoffent

l'histoire de Samuel de Champlain en Outaouais. Son séjour s'avère de courte durée, de quelques jours, tout au plus quelques semaines.

This is but a fraction of Ontario's rich history. Ontario Heritage Day is a wonderful idea. On behalf of all Ontarians, especially Franco-Ontarians, I thank my

colleague from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh for introducing this bill, a bill that would go a long way in sparking the pride Ontarians feel for this wonderful province. I urge all members of

this Legislature to support this bill.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join in the debate today. I think it's a good idea, to the member from

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh.

I just wonder about this. I think he did good research on it with respect to the other jurisdictions. I noticed he indicated what the other provinces were

doing and what statutory holidays we have. Certainly I think it should be reviewed. It's been quite a while since we've looked at the statutory holidays, and it's probably a worthwhile review. I

don't know whether that's going to be a part of the Minister of Labour's review with respect to statutory holidays. I would say that obviously the Minister of Labour will have a major say in this,

and I note that this is a private member's bill. It's not one that has been brought forth by the minister, it's not a government bill, so I don't know whether there's support there from the

Minister of Labour. I haven't seen anything in writing with respect to their support.

Consultation is important and you have to have that -- there are certainly stakeholders that are going to be impacted by this, employers, to name a few, the

tourism industry and other stakeholders -- in terms of what their thoughts are.

I think the member from Owen Sound and the member from Muskoka-Parry Sound mentioned the timing of this. You have a statutory holiday in May, you have another

statutory holiday in July, another one in August, and another in September. The timing of this, in terms of being in June, may be something that could be reviewed. Perhaps it's more beneficial to

the general public having it in February, when it may be of more use to them in terms of having not had any holidays.

But certainly this could be a great benefit for tourism, and I would look at supporting this.

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I stand to support the measure from the member from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. Most of us in this

legislative chamber count among the most rewarding and enjoyable of our community tasks the reaching out to our ethnic communities. Many of us have helped groups get organized to raise money among

their membership, to celebrate the connections they have to their countries of origin, and to assist newcomers with settlement and integration issues.

Especially here in Ontario, which continues to be the engine of growth in Canada, we need to look at our vibrant body of newcomers and to ask ourselves if

there is a good reason we should not celebrate their continuing and vital contribution to Canada and to the rich fabric of diversity that drives our province's prosperity.

If we gather with members of individual ethnic communities to celebrate with them the events that are significant to their country of origin, I say it's time

to gather together to establish a Canadian event that commemorates the contributions of those who leave their country of origin to settle in Ontario and to build our country.

The sacrifices made by newcomers can be recognized annually at an Ontario Heritage Day. Newcomers who apply to their Canadian embassy at home or who arrive

desperate on our shores as refugees from ethnic, religious or political persecution abroad would benefit, as would Canadians, from a knowledge of their culture and their heritage.

Other jurisdictions in Canada have statutory holidays to celebrate aspects of heritage. Curiously, Ontario, the most diverse province in our confederation,

does not. The member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh asks, with this bill, why not? Even the United States, the traditional yardstick by which new initiatives are measured in Ontario, has one

more statutory holiday than does Canada. Let's open up one day each year to celebrate Ontario's diversity, to know one another better and to enjoy a day off while the weather is good.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh has two minutes to reply.

Mr Brownell: It's certainly an honour for me to stand today in the House to make the presentation on this bill, a bill that's very near and

dear to my heart, as I've explained.

At the outset, in my wrap-up, I would like to thank the members from my side of the House from Brampton Centre, Hamilton East, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and

Mississauga West for their comments of support. As well, I would like to thank those on the other side of the House -- the members from Parry Sound, Nickel Belt, Oxford, Timmins-James Bay,

Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound and Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford -- for their comments and for, in most cases, their support of the concept. With this bill, there is and there will be an opportunity for further

debate, a further opportunity to look at economic impacts, to look at the stakeholders and to consult with those stakeholders.

I have to say, though, that we must look at the working people of our province. We must listen to the working people of our province in that, yes, they are

saying that time off to celebrate, time off to bring heritage to that higher level, is what is needed. As I listened today to the debate, I saw Ms Jeffrey bring history to a higher level. She

talked about flowers from her riding coming down to my riding to be used when the Honourable John Sandfield Macdonald, our province's first Premier, was laid to rest in the municipality I live in,

South Stormont.

That's what this bill will do. It will give Ontarians that chance to celebrate, that chance to link history, as it should be in this great province, with our

First Nations people and new Ontarians.

I thank you for your support and I look forward to the vote on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: There being no further debate, and pursuant to standing order 96, the business of this House is suspended until noon. So

don't go away.

The House recessed from 1150 to 1200.

DEBT RETIREMENT PLAN

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): First, we will deal with ballot item number 3, in the name of Mr Arnott.

All those in favour, say "aye."

All opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

There will be a vote on this, and we will deal with this matter after the second item.

ONTARIO HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): On ballot item number 4, standing in the name of Mr Brownell, is it the pleasure of the House that the

motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. It's carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96 --

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I request that this bill,

An Act to proclaim Ontario

Heritage Day and to amend other acts to include Ontario Heritage Day as a holiday, be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour?

I heard a no. It will be referred to the committee of the whole.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. We'll learn this as we go along.

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed will stand and be counted.

The majority is in favour, so the bill is referred to the standing committee on general government.

DEBT RETIREMENT PLAN

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Call in the members. I remind you that this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Arnott has moved private member's notice of motion number 1.

All those in favour will stand until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Yakabuski, John

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will stand until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Arthurs, Wayne

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Caplan, David

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gravelle, Michael

Jeffrey, Linda

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Martel, Shelley

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Mitchell, Carol

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Phillips, Gerry

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 16; the nays are 41.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

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

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHRISTMAS EVENTS IN DURHAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to share with the House today just one of many outstanding Christmas events taking place in my

riding of Durham. If the opportunity arises, I'd be pleased to recognize more of these events.

On December 5, close to 2,000 people gathered at the community Christmas tree in historic downtown Bowmanville for the annual Moonlight Magic and Tree-Lighting

Ceremony; a Just for Kids concert by entertainers Terri and Rick; and performances by the Bowmanville Handbell Choir from the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Volunteers from St John's Anglican

Church, led by George Webster, are playing Christmas music on the church carillon each weekend throughout the festive season.

The Moonlight Magic evening also included a message by Pastor Paul Vanstralen of Rehoboth Christian Reformed Church. Charles Taws, curator of the Bowmanville

Museum, invited everyone to the nearby Edwardian Christmas celebration at the museum. Ron Hooper, chair of the board of management, served as master of ceremonies.

A highlight of the evening was the lighting of the 40 strands of lights on the Christmas tree by Mayor John Mutton. Some of the many people who contributed to

the success of the evening were Garth Gilpin, Shane Hastings, Paul Watson, Paul Morton, Bob Gilbank and Mike Burke. The Bowmanville Kinsmen Club warmed the evening with hot chocolate.

This is but one shining example of yuletide in my riding of Durham.

SHIRLEY EIDT

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to pay tribute to Shirley Eidt, born Shirley Pickle in Leamington, Ontario, in 1927. Shirley

succumbed to cancer Saturday, November 29.

Over the course of three decades she served the people of Scarborough, particularly the Scarborough Centre area, as school trustee, alderman, councillor and

Metro councillor. A registered nurse by profession, Shirley has been called "the mother of public health in the old city of Scarborough" and was a driving force behind the creation of the

Indianapolis-Scarborough Peace Games, originating in 1972.

Shirley was the epitome of the community volunteer. An elder at St Stephen's Presbyterian Church, she assisted the developmentally handicapped children at the

local elementary school, served on the boards of the Canadian Cancer Society and the Jack Goodlad Seniors' Residence, and was a long-time volunteer for the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

Predeceased by her husband, Tom, Shirley is survived by her children Cathy and Jim, their spouses Brad and Nancy and her three grandchildren, whom she fondly

referred to as her "kidlets": Chris, Casey and Caley.

When Shirley first retired from public life in 1991, she said her goals were "to help people with their problems and to promote public participation in local

government. We now have public participation in local government and I am still helping people with their problems," she said.

Shirley touched people's lives. She'll be sorely missed. I wish to extend condolences to her and her family and her many, many friends.

VIOLET HIPGRAVE

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I rise today to recognize Violet Hipgrave. Violet is a long-time resident of Huntsville in my beautiful

riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. Vi, as she is known to everyone, has been a dedicated volunteer for many years at Fairvern Nursing Home in Huntsville. Vi attends to her regular commitment of

wheeling residents from the their rooms to breakfast once a week, often starting as early as 6:30 am. Vi's commitment to the residents at Fairvern doesn't end there. She is also involved in their

breakfast club program and can be counted on to help whenever the need arises. Vi also visits palliative care residents at Fairvern. Fortunately, Vi lives only a block away from Fairvern. Violet is

well known to patients who require ambulance service to out-of-area hospitals. She accompanies patients to provide support while they're being transported, and will do this several times a week.

She is much loved by the residents there. Violet is also a member of Huntsville Hospice. She is a recipient of the Queen's Jubilee Award in recognition of her selfless volunteerism.

I've witnessed Vi's volunteer work at Fairvern first-hand, and I was moved by her caring touch. I would like to personally congratulate Vi on her 80th

birthday, which she will celebrate on December 13, 2003, at Fairvern Nursing Home.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IN BRANT

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): It's a new era for municipalities in this province. Signals of hope and resources are already flowing to our municipal

partners, telling them they are no longer creatures of the province, but real partners. To that end, I want to congratulate the new mayor of Brantford, Mike Hancock, on his election victory. His

inaugural address earlier this month spoke of a commitment to openness, co-operation, transparency, inclusiveness and team-building. I also want to congratulate the returning councillors and the

newly elected members who make up the rest of the team that works with the staff and officials to provide services our community needs.

I also congratulate the re-elected mayor of Brant, Ron Eddy, along with the entire council returning, acclaimed and newly elected members. Best wishes to both

councils as you continue to build communities that truly respond to the needs of the people.

As we in the riding of Brant tackle such challenges as downtown renewal, continued growth and development of Laurier Brantford, Mohawk College, Nipissing

teachers' college -- Brantford campus, brownfield redevelopment and infrastructure renewal, let it be known that it will be done in co-operation and partnership with the government of Ontario and

Finally, I want to pay special tribute to the outgoing members of the previous councils for their dedication and willingness to serve the public, which they

did with dignity and honour: former mayor of Brantford, Chris Friel; councillors Vince Bucci, Paul Urbanowicz and Wally Lucente; councillors of the county, Bob Van Sickle, Ron Dancy, Art MacKenzie,

Diane Cooper and Barbara McMillan. Thank you very much for your dedication to your community.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): The government's broken promise to remove the 4.3-cent electricity rate cap will devastate many seniors,

single mothers, disabled and vulnerable persons.

No one believes that the average consumer will only see a $6-a-month increase. What the government hasn't told voters is exactly who is profiting from this

hydro rate hike. Well, it's the local distribution companies that will now be permitted to collect over a billion dollars in deferred asset charges and guaranteed 10% profit margins, not on the

backs of large, industrial consumers, but on the backs of residential and small business consumers, seniors living on fixed incomes like Mr and Mrs Hawkins of Woodstock, who face a 32% increase in

their monthly hydro bill. They can't cut back on their energy consumption due to a chronic illness requiring oxygen and air purification systems 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The Liberals refuse to listen to the Hawkins. In fact, the Minister of Energy yesterday told this House that he had instructed his Liberal members to reject

amendments from consumer groups before they were even tabled. Why waste taxpayers' money on three hours of public hearings to hear six people, when the government had predetermined it had rejected

their advice. Today I will table a private member's bill amending the Electricity Act to protect our frail elderly, poor and disabled citizens. These utilities, about to collect a billion dollars,

should not be able to cut off the hydro of vulnerable persons during the dead of winter.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY IN LONDON

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I want to rise today to bring attention to a recent comment by Mr Dennis DesRosiers. He is the leading

automotive industry analyst.

My riding of London-Fanshawe has a large industrial base, and in London, the automotive industry alone employs one out of every five people. The automotive

industry is very important in Ontario's economy and in London. It's one of the fundamental pillars of our economy.

While the automotive industry has seen a slight decline overall, DesRosiers pointed out that London's automotive-based economy is surging. The reason for this

is the work of the mayor of London, Anne Marie DeCicco, and the London Economic Development Corp, who foresaw what sort of automotive industry would work in London and then went out and brought it

there. They convinced leading automotive industries in Europe to come to London and open bases and factories to employ the people of London.

Without a strong automotive industry, the London economy would not work. I'm proud to stand today to recognize the efforts of Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco and the

London Economic Development Corp on behalf of the people who are prospering in my riding.

REPORTING OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Earlier today I tabled a resolution calling on the government to introduce legislation to require

hospitals and physicians to report gunshot wounds and knife injuries to their local police service. Recently this has become a major irritant in terms of police relations with hospitals and

physicians, especially, I think it's fair to say, in the Toronto area. Some Toronto police officers have described a number of Toronto hospitals as "virtual safe havens for injured gunmen on the

lam."

The Ontario Medical Association has recognized the gravity of the situation and last month issued a position statement urging action by the provincial

government.

Most Ontarians would find it difficult to believe that physicians and hospitals are required to report patients considered unfit to drive, but when dealing

with a wounded and possibly fleeing felon, they have no obligation to inform, let alone co-operate, with the police.

This is an untenable situation and I encourage the government to move quickly to institute a law requiring reporting and, at the same time, provide physicians

and others with a comfort level regarding their ethical and statutory duties to patients.

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): Last night the Toronto ceremony for the 2003 Volunteer Service Awards was held at the Toronto Centre

for the Arts.

The Ontario Volunteer Service Awards honour those Ontarians who have committed their time and energy to organizations for five years or more and youth who have

volunteered for one organization for two years or more. Volunteers fill in the gaps in our society, they keep people from falling through the cracks, but often they're not recognized. These awards

give people an opportunity to be recognized for their work.

At this year's ceremony, 51 residents of Don Valley West were honoured. I'd like to bring the Legislature's attention to five of them who have volunteered for

25 years or more with one organization: Ruby Chapman, who has volunteered for 30 years at the Bloorview MacMillan Children's Centre; Jalou Kooper, who has volunteered for 25 years with the

Zoroastrian Society of Ontario; Kassamali Ahmed Dawood, who has volunteered for 30 years with the Ismaili Muslims home and hospital visitation committee; Marjorie Ribble, who has volunteered for 30

years at Nisbet Lodge; and Ethel Wakayama, who has volunteered for 25 years with the art and culture program at the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre. I don't think we can underestimate the

contribution that these people make, and I'd like to thank all Ontarians who volunteer their service.

FEDERAL LIBERAL

CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): It's a great privilege for me to rise in my place and announce that our caucus is going to induct the

first lifetime achievement award in the Liberal promise-breakers club. This is awarded to someone who has made a career of breaking promises and not fulfilling election campaign commitments.

Could I have the envelope please, Mr Runciman? Thank you. Who will this be?

Interjections.

Mr Baird: Just pay attention. The winner is the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien on his last day in office. This individual has made a

career of misleading voters and not fulfilling campaign commitments. He has broken his promise to renegotiate the free trade agreement. He has broken the promise to scrap the GST. He has broken his

campaign promise to "appoint an independent ethics commissioner." He has broken his campaign commitment to say, "My decision to cancel the" --

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): On a point of order, Speaker: I don't want to catch the member in full stream, but

I heard the words "misleading voters." I wondered whether that terminology is parliamentary or not.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I didn't hear the word, but if the word is there and you would like to withdraw it, that's fine.

Mr Baird: I did use the word, but he's not a member of the House. The rule says, you're not allowed to mislead -- could I speak to the point

before you rule?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Go ahead.

Mr Baird: There were 30 seconds on the clock.

The Speaker: You go ahead. I'll tell you when the time is up.

Mr Baird: He broke his campaign commitment when he said, "My decision to scrap the EH-101 and Pearson Airport deals won't cost taxpayers a

cent." He said that he would want a scandal-free government and that he would sell the government's flying Taj Mahal.

Congratulations to 40 years of breaking promises in Ottawa. Thank goodness Mr Chrétien is on his way out the door. We're beginning to see a brighter

future in Ottawa thanks to my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville.

SUDBURY REGIONAL HOSPITAL

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): In the spirit of Christmas I ask the Liberal government: Ho, ho, ho, where's the dough for the Sudbury

Regional Hospital? That's right, where's the money to pay for 85% of the construction costs for the Sudbury Regional Hospital as advocated by the member for Sudbury during the election

campaign?

On September 9, the member told the Sudbury Star, "Our job is to advocate what we believe in, which is an 85/15 split. We will not deviate from that." I agree,

just as I agreed with the member when he told the Sudbury Star on August 22, "We will be back here, demanding that this government" -- Conservative at the time -- "live up to an 85/15 split." Both

the member for Sudbury and I are on the public record on more than one occasion calling on the previous Conservative government to recognize our hospital as a regional hospital and fund an

increased share of construction costs. Both of us have specifically referenced an 85%/15% split of the costs.

The member's party got elected to government, and now it's time to deliver. Our community was asked to raise $17.5 million, and we raised $23 million. We can't

afford to fundraise any more, nor should the hospital be forced into a mortgage scheme to cover higher construction costs, because I believe that finding the money for mortgage payments will come

at the expense of hospital jobs and programs for patients.

Christmas is upon us. I say to the Liberals, give our community something to celebrate. Announce that you will fund 85% of the construction costs of the

Sudbury Regional Hospital.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

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

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 2,

An Act respecting fiscal responsibility / Projet de loi 2, Loi concernant la gestion responsable des finances.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Shall the report be adopted? I heard a "no."

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1354.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise to be counted by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arthurs, Wayne

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Mitchell, Carol

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Dunlop, Garfield

Flaherty, Jim

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Jackson, Cameron

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 53; the nays are 24.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to t