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

June 17, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Jun-17 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 17 June 2003 Mardi 17 juin 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

JACK BURROWS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

CRIME PREVENTION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

BSE

RESIGNATION OF MINISTER

WIARTON FLY-IN

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KAWARTHA HIGHLANDS

SIGNATURE SITE PARK ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE PARC

DE LA RÉGION CARACTÉRISTIQUE

DES HAUTES-TERRES DE KAWARTHA

CABINET MINISTERS'

AND OPPOSITION LEADERS'

EXPENSES REVIEW

AND ACCOUNTABILITY

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'EXAMEN

DES DÉPENSES DES MINISTRES

ET DES CHEFS D'UN PARTI

DE L'OPPOSITION DE L'OBLIGATION

DE RENDRE COMPTE

CHRIS STOCKWELL ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 CHRIS STOCKWELL

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT LE CONSOMMATEUR

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

HIGHWAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'AUTOROUTE

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

TENANT PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN RENT INCREASES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES

(AUGMENTATIONS ÉQUITABLES

DES LOYERS)

TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC

MATTERS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

DES QUESTIONS D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

ABOLITION OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ABOLITION

DE LA COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES DE L'ONTARIO

KEEPING WATER IN

PUBLIC HANDS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 VISANT À MAINTENIR L'EAU DANS LE DOMAINE PUBLIC

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PROVINCIAL PARK

ORAL QUESTIONS

FORMER MINISTER'S EXPENSES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

FORMER MINISTER'S EXPENSES

INSURANCE RATES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PUBLIC SAFETY

WASTE DISPOSAL

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

NORTHERN ECONOMY

FORMER MINISTER'S EXPENSES

BSE

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

IMMIGRATION POLICY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

IMMIGRATION POLICY

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

EDUCATION FUNDING

HIGHWAY 518

LONG-TERM CARE

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

HOME CARE

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

HOME CARE

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

HIGHWAY 69

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Tuesday 17 June 2003 Mardi 17 juin 2003

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My statement today is to the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services. Minister, I have

been a member of the Hastings Children's Aid Society for over 25 years. Thanks to some good changes in legislation, we have the most children in care ever, but at the same time we have the worst

funding challenges we've ever experienced.

Your ministry funds the number of workers employed by the agency based on the volume of caseload. That makes perfect sense, although they now spend most of their

time filling out the forms that your ministry has generated. On the other hand, your ministry does not properly fund places for children to live. It is you who sets the rates for what outside, paid

institutions can charge, but you then have the nerve to give the children's aid society less than that to pay for these outside, paid resources.

Workers have to drive to do their investigation. They cannot accomplish child safety in the office. Your ministry funds mileage for workers at a dismal rate.

Last, you need to know that when you hire new workers, they need to have an office and a desk. You provide no capital funds. CAS in Belleville is forced to rent

a number of office spaces -- extremely inefficient. At the same time, you have the opportunity to save money by putting some upfront capital money to allow all of the workers to work in the same

place -- better protection for the children and, from your government's viewpoint, better use of the money.

I am demanding, Minister, that you do the right thing: fund the Hastings Children's Aid Society so that they can do the right thing efficiently and quickly. Our

children should be our number one priority.

JACK BURROWS

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): I'd like to speak today about a friend of mine, the mayor of North Bay, Jack Burrows. Last week it was announced

that Mayor Burrows has decided to retire and not to seek a fourth term as mayor. I had both the honour and the privilege to work with Jack while I was a member of the municipal council and in my

role as deputy mayor.

Jack Burrows has accomplished many things for the city of North Bay. He has worn many different hats over the years, such as the Rotary Club president, member of

the YMCA board, the Nipissing University board, chair of the North Bay Hospital Commission and the North Bay and district health care centre, and he currently serves on the North Bay Hydro

commission, the North Bay Police Services Board, the North Bay Economic Development Commission and the Rail Lands Development Committee.

Jack is well known in North Bay for Burrows Country Store and Garden Centre, a business in which he was hands-on until he took a semi-retired role when he became

the mayor of the city of North Bay.

It's been said that Jack is truly a prince of a man, a very honest and decent man to work with. I can honestly say that no truer words have been spoken about

this individual.

During his years as mayor, he had a vision for North Bay's downtown and waterfront which led him to initiate the purchase of the CP Rail lands, and now the

results of that vision are beginning to materialize. His dedication to North Bay has been commendable and he will be greatly missed in office.

He will now have the time to enjoy his retirement and share his free time with his wife, Elaine, and his nine grandchildren. Elaine has always stood by her man,

and they form quite a team together. I'm sure he'll even find the time to take in a round of golf or two, one of his favourite hobbies.

On behalf of all MPPs in this Legislature, I want to wish Jack and Elaine the very best for the future.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is listening.

"Fair Deal Is No Deal for Municipalities," said the press release, and frankly, we in the Liberal caucus couldn't agree more. Cities, AMO, and municipal finance

officers have warned that the Eves government referendum proposal, like Proposition 13 in California, will lead to reductions in municipal service levels, infrastructure deterioration, more user

fees and debt rating downgrades, but you don't seem to care.

You've received a very reasonable request from the Large Urban Mayors' Caucus for an independent review of municipal finances, but you were quick to reject that

too. You'd rather download costly referenda. It's estimated that in the city of Toronto alone, the cost of a referendum would be almost $6 million; in Mississauga, almost $1 million; in the city of

London, $700,000. Who's going to pay for that? The property taxpayers in these communities through more service cuts.

No one seems to have summed it up more clearly than former Toronto mayor and Tory activist David Crombie. At a recent meeting of the Toronto City Summit

Alliance, he said, "In the last five or six years, the provincial government has basically humbled and hobbled municipalities. Municipalities don't have a sense they have partners. This government

is more interested in gimmicks than in delivering public policy."

Minister Young and Premier Eves are clearly unwilling to listen. I want to reassure our municipal partners that a Dalton McGuinty government will strike a real

new deal with you, sharing our tax room, not tying your hands. You deserve better than what Ernie Eves and David Young are offering you.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): A Dalton McGuinty government? That's like Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumber. My God. Don't want to go

there.

Je veux amener l'attention du gouvernement à une situation qui s'établit, j'imagine, pas seulement dans mon comté mais dans d'autres comtés

à travers le nord et d'autres parties de la province. C'est une lettre qui a été écrite par M. Richard Boucher, qui écrit :

« Le 26 mai dernier un appel d'urgence a été placé au service 911. Mon petit neveu s'était étouffé en avalant un bonbon

et il était en train de s'asphyxier. Sa grand-mère a appelé le 911 pour finalement tomber sur une téléphoniste unilingue... »

C'est-à-dire qu'il y avait des problèmes quand une madame qui ne pouvait pas s'exprimer en anglais a téléphoné le 911 pour dire qu'il y

avait une urgence à sa maison et que le jeune était en train de s'étouffer -- qu'il y avait un problème.

Je veux dire au gouvernement très clairement que vous avez besoin de comprendre qu'à travers la province il y a beaucoup de francophones, et, comme le

Je vous demande très simplement comme gouvernement de vous assurer d'avoir en place les téléphonistes nécessaires pour être capable de

Je veux dire à M. Boucher à travers cette déclaration qu'on demande au gouvernement de s'assurer qu'on ait le "staff" adéquat pour s'assurer

que cette situation-là ne se répète pas et qu'on va surveiller de très près les actions de ce gouvernement.

CRIME PREVENTION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I rise to report on the recent completion of a series of community crime forums that I was very

pleased to host in my home riding of Scarborough Centre.

Once again I want to thank our public safety and security minister, the Honourable Bob Runciman, for consenting to be a special guest. My constituents were

pleased he took the time to visit us in Scarborough.

What we learned is that my constituents continue to be concerned about crime in our communities. Plainly and simply, they want their governments to crack down on

crime. I agree with them.

My constituents applauded the Premier's announcement in Scarborough that 1,000 new police officers would be hired to increase public safety. This is of course on

top of the 1,000 additional police officers who are already on our streets thanks to this government -- something, by the way, that the Liberals failed to support. I suspect they would have also

applauded recent news from the minister. Especially in light of the Holly Jones tragedy, I too applaud the announcement that $700,000 is being given to the Toronto Police to keep closer tabs on the

city's known sex offenders.

The government is able to make our streets safer in this way because of this government's foresight in creating the Ontario Sex Offender Registry. Too bad I

cannot say the same thing about the government in Ottawa, where the Liberals put their summer vacations ahead of creating a national sex offender registry. Shame on them. I suspect, given what I

heard at my community crime forums, that my constituents would say the same.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My comments are for the Minister of Finance and they're about skyrocketing auto insurance premiums. We're ready to sit

here all summer, if she wants to do that, to take care of the business of this province.

This is a promise made but not kept. Last August I wrote to the minister and I reminded her that in her 2002 Ernie Eves budget she said, "Mr Speaker, when we

were elected in 1995, Ontarians were facing double-digit increases in auto insurance rates -- the flawed policies of previous governments. As a result of our 1996 auto insurance reform legislation,

rates fell for a number of years. However, the market has changed." Has it ever. She went on to say, "We will address pressures on the system and also consider longer-term solutions to ensure that

automobile insurance remains available and affordable to Ontario citizens."

I told her how my auto insurance rates had gone up 47.6%, and they're going to go up another 20% this year. That's neither fair nor is it affordable. What did

the minister write back in October? It took her a few months. She said that "increased reinsurance costs resulting from the events of September 11, 2001" are the reason. "Our government is

dedicated to maintaining a fair, balanced and cost-effective auto insurance system." I haven't seen it yet.

BSE

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to tell my fellow members of a public meeting I hosted along with my newly elected federal

counterpart, Gary Schellenberger, to give farmers of our riding an opportunity to ask questions about BSE, mad cow disease, and tell us their concerns.

We held this meeting in Mitchell at 10 am last Saturday. We had more than 90 farmers, agricultural leaders and others whose businesses have been impacted by the

trade ban on beef and cattle. They came to listen to representatives from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food,

and to tell Mr Schellenberger and me what they need.

First and foremost, they need the border reopened. At the same time they need compensation now. That compensation should be considered disaster relief and not

loans, and not be tied to the federal government's agricultural policy framework, the APF. Farmers support Minister Johns's stand against signing the APF. They're afraid any federal compensation

will be held hostage, made contingent on the signing of the APF, and they don't want our government to cave in to that tactic.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the individuals who gave up their Saturday morning to speak at this meeting. They are Jim Wheeler, assistant deputy

minister in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food; Dr Nina Szpakowski, veterinarian with the CFIA and animal products program network director for Ontario; Dr Dan DeWit, regional veterinarian with

the CFIA; as well as Gord Hardy, Middlesex farmer from near Lucan and a member of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association board of directors.

RESIGNATION OF MINISTER

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Chris Stockwell's semi-resignation raises a lot more questions than it answers. This issue goes

right to the heart of Ernie Eves's standards for integrity in his government. We now have confirmation that Ernie Eves has no standards.

It was wrong for Chris Stockwell to funnel expenses through private corporations, where they are hidden from the taxpayer. He should have resigned for that. It

was wrong for Chris Stockwell to change his story from one day to the next and hide the truth from taxpayers. He should have resigned for that. But we learned today that Chris Stockwell doesn't

have the decency to resign because of his poor judgment and inability to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. No. He resigned for political reasons, certainly not for ethical

reasons.

Why is it that Ernie Eves didn't ask for Chris Stockwell's resignation last week, or even today? Ernie Eves thinks it's OK for a cabinet minister to funnel

expenses through a private corporation. Ernie Eves thinks it's OK for a cabinet minister to tell ever-changing stories. Well, Ontario Liberals have news for you, Ernie. It's not OK. We will form a

government that has moral and ethical standards. We will have cabinet ministers who have integrity. Chris Stockwell should not be in cabinet, because what he did was wrong. He should never be

allowed back.

WIARTON FLY-IN

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I rise in the House today to let my fellow colleagues and their friends know about an upcoming event in

my riding called the Wiarton Fly-In.

Wiarton, home to Canada's foremost weather forecaster, Wiarton Willie, is the gateway to the Bruce Peninsula, with its towering limestone bluffs and the blue

waters of Georgian Bay. The fly-in is based on an idea by Brian Reis, a member of the Great War Flying Museum. This is a brand new event landing in Wiarton on August 9.

The Bruce Peninsula Festival of Flight will host a fly-in and a static display of amateur-built vintage aircraft at the Wiarton-Keppel airport. There will be

exact full-size replicas of World War I aircraft, and the Canadian Harvard Aircraft Association will have a vintage World War II Harvard on-site, ready to take people for rides.

There will also be a vintage motorcycle show with a special display of the British Ariel motorcycle. For all of you automobile admirers, there is a classic car

show presented by the Bluewater Region Antique Car Club and the Owen Sound Classics Car Club. While you are there, take time to enjoy the exhibits at the Gallery of Early Canadian Flight, a museum

strictly dedicated to displaying Canada's aviation past.

This is a true celebration of humanity's passion for moving at great speed in great style. Congratulations on the first annual Wiarton Fly-In, and I look forward

to many more to come.

VISITORS

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today we're privileged to have two students of

democracy visiting with us. Mr Gordon Albini and his daughter Amanda have travelled down from Hamilton to watch the proceedings in the people's place, and I'm sure all members of the House would

like to join in welcoming them.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Also here in this chamber witnessing democracy, if you will, is my good

friend Earl Manners, the candidate in Victoria-Haliburton and former head of OSSTF.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Thanks to technology, my mother, who is 92 years old, is probably watching this show and also

watching democracy in action.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): And a special welcome to all mothers.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue; I would like to welcome two

students from my riding who are here today on an educational program. They'll be spending the week. The two students are Amélie Laflèche de l'école Ste-Trinité de Rockland and

Melissa Laflèche de l'école St-Paul de Casselman. Bienvenue à Queen's Park.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KAWARTHA HIGHLANDS

SIGNATURE SITE PARK ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE PARC

DE LA RÉGION CARACTÉRISTIQUE

DES HAUTES-TERRES DE KAWARTHA

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 100,

An Act respecting the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Park / Projet de loi 100, Loi concernant le parc de la région caractéristique des

Hautes-Terres de Kawartha.

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

The Premier for a short statement?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I'll give my statement during ministers' statements.

CABINET MINISTERS'

AND OPPOSITION LEADERS'

EXPENSES REVIEW

AND ACCOUNTABILITY

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'EXAMEN

DES DÉPENSES DES MINISTRES

ET DES CHEFS D'UN PARTI

DE L'OPPOSITION DE L'OBLIGATION

DE RENDRE COMPTE

Mr Duncan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 101,

An Act to amend the Cabinet Ministers' and Opposition Leaders' Expenses Review and Accountability Act, 2002 and the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act / Projet de loi 101, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2002 sur l'examen des dépenses des ministres et des chefs d'un parti de l'opposition et l'obligation de rendre compte et

la

Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): This bill will amend the Cabinet Ministers' and Opposition Leaders' Expenses Review and Accountability

act by eliminating the loophole created by the Premier last year by exempting cabinet ministers' expenses paid for by crown corporations and crown agencies.

It will also make requests under freedom of information with respect to cabinet ministers' expenses subject to freedom of information which you excluded last

year, and it has cost you one minister already.

The Speaker: The member for Niagara Centre in the rotation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Niagara Centre has the floor.

CHRIS STOCKWELL ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 CHRIS STOCKWELL

Mr Kormos moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 102,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Act / Projet de loi 102, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le financement des élections.

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

The member for a short statement?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. And the worst

part is, we're not even into question period yet. This is introduction of bills. I appreciate all the

co-operation. The member for Niagara Centre has the floor.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This bill amends the Election Finances Act to prevent constituency associations from paying the expenses of

members of the Legislative Assembly, unless the expenses are incurred during an election period. The

short title of the bill is the Chris Stockwell Act.

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT LE CONSOMMATEUR

Mr Cordiano moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 103,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act / Projet de loi 103, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les renseignements concernant le consommateur.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I am forced to reintroduce my private member's bill that passed second reading as moved by the

standing committee on finance and economic affairs but of course died on the order paper when the Legislature was prorogued.

This bill is a very important bill, I believe, for all consumers. It will increase the accountability of credit report agencies to disclose information and to

correct mistakes that appear on a person's credit history. It will also provide consumers better access to information that might be used in the reporting of a credit-worthiness statement and it

will also ensure that consumers are not penalized every time a report is conducted.

I would also like to thank the many organizations and agencies that have supported this bill, including the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa and the

newly formed Consumer Federation of Canada.

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

HIGHWAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'AUTOROUTE

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

Mr Lalonde moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 104,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act to name Highway 417 the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Highway / Projet de loi 104, Loi

modifiant la

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

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The member for a short statement?

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

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

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

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

TENANT PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN RENT INCREASES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES

(AUGMENTATIONS ÉQUITABLES

DES LOYERS)

Mr Caplan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 to ensure fairness to Ontario's tenants / Projet de loi 105, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la

protection des locataires en vue d'assurer un traitement équitable des locataires de l'Ontario.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): This bill, if passed, would amend the Tenant Protection Act in two major ways. First, the bill would ensure

that rents are not increased beyond the guideline if there are outstanding work orders.

Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, the bill would ensure that above-guideline rent increases are rolled back if the landlord either ceases to incur

the costs that justified the increase -- capital repairs or utility costs, for example -- or if mutually-agreed-upon increases meet those conditions, so-called costs no longer borne.

This bill will provide some fairness and balance for tenants to ensure that they do not pay for capital improvements, increases in utility costs and other such

increases in perpetuity.

This bill is the right step toward building some fairness back into the rental market for tenants in Ontario who have been attacked by all sides from this

government, and I look forward to debating it in this Legislature.

TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC

MATTERS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

DES QUESTIONS D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

Ms Di Cocco moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 106,

An Act to require open meetings for provincial and municipal boards, commissions and other public bodies / Projet de loi 106, Loi exigeant des

réunions publiques pour des commissions et conseils provinciaux et municipaux ainsi que d'autres organismes publics.

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

The member for short statement?

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I introduced this same bill in 2001 and 2002. This open meeting act is needed, according to the latest

report of the privacy commissioner. The bill requires specific provincial and municipal councils, boards, commissions and other public bodies to hold meetings which are open to the public. The

public can only be excluded from meetings of the body when certain specified types of matters are going to be discussed. Minutes of the meetings open to the public have to be made available to the

public in a timely fashion and must contain sufficient detail.

Section 8 imposes a penalty for failure to comply with the requirements for notice, minutes and rules.

ABOLITION OF THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ABOLITION

DE LA COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Colle moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 107,

An Act to restore local control over planning by involving citizens and ensuring decisions are made by democratically elected officials / Projet de

loi 107, Loi rétablissant un contrôle local de l'aménagement du territoire par la participation des citoyens et veillant à la prise des décisions par des représentants

élus démocratiquement.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The member for short statement?

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): The bill provides that the government of Ontario has a duty to strengthen planning in the province and

should exercise that duty by ensuring there is local control over planning decisions and by considering abolishing the Ontario Municipal Board. Too many communities across Ontario have had their

rights to be heard on crucial development issues taken away by an unelected, appointed Ontario Municipal Board. This act, if passed, would end the Ontario Municipal Board's monopoly on planning

decisions in Ontario.

KEEPING WATER IN

PUBLIC HANDS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 VISANT À MAINTENIR L'EAU DANS LE DOMAINE PUBLIC

Mr Caplan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 108,

An Act to prevent the sale of municipally-owned water works / Projet de loi 108, Loi visant à empêcher la vente de stations de purification

de l'eau dont les municipalités sont propriétaires.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The member for short statement?

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): Retaining public ownership of our water utilities is fundamental to protecting our drinking water. This

bill evolves from Justice O'Connor's recommendations from the Walkerton inquiry. He said the following:

"In not recommending the sale of municipal water systems to the private sector, my conclusion is based on several considerations: the essentially local

character of water services; the natural-monopoly characteristics of the water industry; the importance of maintaining accountability to local residents; and the historical role of municipalities

in this field." This is found in part two, page 323 of his report.

The government has had two major opportunities to act on this warning from the Walkerton report; since they haven't, this bill will do that. However, this bill

will not prohibit municipalities from entering into partnerships relating to the construction and operation of their utilities.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PROVINCIAL PARK

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It gives me pleasure to rise today to speak about a very important piece of

legislation. Ontario is known around the world for its extraordinary natural environment and its beauty. I believe that each generation of Ontarians has an obligation to protect our precious

natural assets so they can be passed on to future generations.

In 1999, our government embarked upon the largest expansion of parks and protected areas ever with the launch of Ontario's Living Legacy. Ontario's Living

Legacy is creating 378 new parks and protected areas in the province. In addition, Ontario's Living Legacy identified nine signature sites because they exemplify Ontario's unique natural heritage.

One of these sites is the Kawartha Highlands.

Today I am pleased to announce that we are keeping the promise we made in this year's throne speech by introducing legislation to protect the Kawartha

Highlands signature site. This bill is the culmination of extensive public consultation over the past four years. It builds upon the valuable work done by the Kawartha Highlands local stakeholders'

committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague Chris Hodgson, the MPP for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, who has worked hard to create a

made-in-the-Kawarthas solution. This will protect and manage the area for future generations. Thank you, Chris.

Four key stakeholder organizations have also worked hard to create a made-in-the-Kawarthas solution and have signed a charter outlining a shared vision for the

future of this unique natural environment. As recommended by these organizations, our government will establish the Kawartha Highlands signature site as an operating provincial park.

This bill, if passed, would set the ground rules for the planning and management of the park based on the directions in the stakeholder charter.

I would like to acknowledge some people in the gallery today who are from the organizations that helped make this happen. Thank you to Jim Faught and Monte

Hummel from the Partnership for Public Lands; Andy Houser, of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters; Rick Meridew, from the Stakeholder Groups of the Kawartha Highlands; Sissy Tanner, from

the Local Stakeholder Committee; as well as Kim Dunford, of the local stakeholder groups. I would also like to take a moment to thank Gail Beggs, assistant deputy minister from the Ministry of

Natural Resources, and her team for all of their hard work in making this project a reality. Thank you, Gail.

The Kawartha Highlands signature site encompasses more than 36,000 hectares and would be the largest protected area in Ontario south of Algonquin Park.

Situated along the southern edge of the Canadian Shield, this relatively undisturbed area features a rugged, rolling landscape of rocky barrens, scenic lakes, sensitive wetlands and dense

forests.

This bill, if passed, will protect the ecological integrity of this semi-wilderness area.

Our government is determined to preserve the natural heritage of the Kawartha Highlands while maintaining traditional uses and providing the opportunity for

compatible recreational activities.

In addition, this bill would allow private property owners and affected crown land tenants to continue to enjoy free access to their property or lands through

an approved road and trail system.

Finally, the proposed legislation would also establish a management advisory board to provide advice about the planning and management of the park. We intend

to appoint a board reflecting the diverse interests of the local and provincial stakeholders and park users.

I am also pleased to announce that our government is planning to invest $6 million over four years to help build park infrastructures such as roads, signs,

boat launches and recreational facilities such as trails and campsites.

By protecting the Kawartha Highlands signature site, we intend to create a living legacy that will be enjoyed by residents and visitors to this part of Ontario

for many generations to come. I know all the members share in the ideals of stewardship, and I urge them to join me today in supporting this important legislation to conserve this very special

feature of our natural environment.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): It is my pleasure to respond on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals. I would first

like to read you a letter from our House leader to the acting government House leader which states: "The Liberal caucus is pleased that the government will be introducing the bill this afternoon.

We look forward to having the opportunity to assess its content with stakeholders prior to passage. I see no reason why the bill cannot be passed before the end of this session, once review is

complete."

This bill has been a long time coming to this House. There was consultation held over the last several years, as has been mentioned -- consultation that cost

the taxpayers $500,000 and resulted in the ill-fated Bill 239, introduced the last day before the House rose for Christmas and a bill that managed to incorporate virtually none of the

recommendations of the advisory committee. That was consultation at its worst.

I do compliment the member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, who undertook real consultation. It has resulted in a bill that appears to incorporate what all the

parties want. What an innovative approach: to truly go out and talk to all of the stakeholders and listen to them. This is a wonderful example that this government could pursue in the short time

left.

If I refer back to a statement by the Ministry of Natural Resources for Ontario on August 10, 2000, it says: "Ontario's Living Legacy announced by the Premier

in 1999 features the single biggest expansion of parks and protected areas anywhere. It will add 378 new parks and protected areas in Ontario totalling 2.4 million hectares."

With the addition of this new park, the total of new parks created is one -- that's one -- since it was announced in the year 2000.

For the stakeholders that are here, for the people of Ontario, you have not crossed the last hurdle in making this park work. I would refer you to an excellent

document called the 2002 Annual Report of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario. Here's what the auditor has to say, once it becomes a provincial park: "The ministry had management plans in place for

only 117 of the 277 provincial parks. Such plans are essential if animal and plant life resources are to be managed and protected." That's the future that this park potentially has with this

government.

"The ministry did not have an overall strategy in place to manage species at risk of extinction in the province even though the Endangered Species Act has been

in force since 1971." The only species of animal in Ontario that appears to be safe are the animals that are not managed by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

"Although the ministry had identified" -- and this isn't me saying this; it is the Provincial Auditor. You need to read the document -- "a set of outcomes

related to its objectives, it had not defined performance measures to assess the overall effectiveness of the program." They are saying "plans," but they don't know whether they work or not.

"According to the ministry, the majority of the existing capital infrastructure, including buildings, roads, bridges, docks and water distribution systems, is

between 20 and 45 years old and is approaching the end...." There's no money going into it to manage it.

We state that "park resources are not adequately protected and that enforcement efforts needed to be improved."

To introduce a bill and pass it is only the very small first step. You have literally a hundred other parks that you're not managing that need to be

managed.

"Overall, three quarters of the park superintendents who responded stated that the parks that they are responsible for had not been adequately maintained to

ensure that natural resources were protected." If there is no money allocated by you now, where are you going to get the money for a new park? Let's see some action and not just words.

On moveable assets, the auditor is very clear: "However, many of the parks we visited had not maintained an inventory list since 1998." That means the ministry

doesn't even know how many half-tons it owns, let alone how to manage the system.

Certainly the announcement of this park is good news for the people of Ontario, but we need to see some action. When it comes to the Ministry of Natural

Resources, this government talks the talk, but the auditor very clearly demonstrates that they don't walk the walk.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): While I welcome the announcement today, I want to remind people across Ontario that what we have here

is a government that is trying to rewrite some of its own bad history.

There already was a very good stakeholders' group that presented a report to the government, calling for the creation of this park and setting out the kind of

protection that was necessary. In fact, this stakeholders' report was available in the fall of 2001. But what did the government do with that? The current Minister of Natural Resources tried to

totally ignore that report, and through his incompetence and his desire to listen to a few of his friends, wanted to turn this very good stakeholders' report into something that was much less than

that. He almost would have succeeded but for the activities of a number of local activists, outdoor enthusiasts, environmental groups and, if I may say, New Democrat candidates Earl Manners and

Dave Nickle, who were part of that very activist process to make sure this wrong would be righted.

I understand why the Minister of Natural Resources isn't introducing this today, because he was the culprit. He wasted the efforts of those stakeholders, he

wasted time and he wasted money. It was necessary for the government to cover its tracks, so a second stakeholder group was brought together and, I say again, I thank Earl Manners, Dave Nickle and

those activists who participated.

This is important. New Democrats want to review the legislation. We want to give the stakeholders a chance to review the legislation. And I want to

congratulate Mr Hodgson for getting this back on track after the Minister of Natural Resources totally botched the process.

In saying that this is important and that pending a review of the legislation by ourselves and the stakeholders we want to support this process, I also want to

point out some other things.

Before the government give themselves a pat on the back, I want them to recognize that over 80% of the lands that have been designated under the Lands for Life

process have yet to be regulated. Over 200 so-called Living Legacy sites have not been regulated as parks, and the parks and conservation areas that have been regulated in Ontario are not being

fully protected. The privatized parks customer service is abysmal, park infrastructure is deteriorating and most parks have no operating plans or enforcement. The result is that natural features

and the beauty of our parks are being neglected and destroyed by careless people taking advantage of the lack of park protection and enforcement.

While Ontario's park visitor numbers have increased by 60% over the last 15 years, the parks management budget has been slashed by 62% by this government. The

MNR staff has been decimated to the point where the ministry simply doesn't have the people to do the job. Since 1995, over 3,000 jobs have been cut in the Ministry of Natural Resources. Lack of

management plans for parks in Ontario is the issue. There are plans for only 117 of the 277 provincial parks. This has resulted in the deterioration of the parks, habitat destruction and a lack of

information for properly protecting the parks. Customer service standards at parks have become woefully inadequate. The private company that now operates the computer reservation and registration

accounting system didn't answer 65% of the phone calls from the auditor; 65% were not answered. The capital infrastructure, including buildings, roads, bridges, docks and water distribution

systems, in parks is deteriorating. The majority is now between 20 and 45 years old and is in bad need of replacing.

So I say to the government, it's a good thing you overruled your Minister of Natural Resources, because he had this process headed in exactly the wrong

direction. But New Democrats call upon you to start making reinvestments in our provincial parks. Stop the deterioration that's happening.

Hon Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for second and third reading of this bill today. The opposition House

leaders indicate they want the approval of the stakeholders. They're sitting right there and they approve, and they see no reason why this can't proceed today. So perhaps the opposition members

would like to explain to us why it can't.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A number of stakeholders have indicated they have not had a chance to read the legislation. After

they've had a chance to read the legislation --

The Speaker: I'm afraid that's not a point of order.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask the Premier if he would agree to use the

section of the

standing orders that his government put in to refer the bill to committee immediately for a quick review after first reading and immediate passage. Will you refer it to committee?

The Speaker: The Premier has asked for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FORMER MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question today is to the Premier. Chris Stockwell resigned from cabinet yesterday,

apparently of his own accord. We've learned a lot about Mr Stockwell's standards in the last few days, and today I would like to ask you very directly about yours.

Here are three important facts in this matter. Mr Stockwell ran some $5,000 to $10,000 of his expenses through OPG. He said that he himself paid for his

family's expenses when he in fact did not. Thirdly, he ran those family expenses through his riding association. Mr Stockwell maintains that he did nothing wrong and that he stepped aside because

this was becoming a distraction for the government.

Premier, what I'm wondering today is, according to your standards, did Mr Stockwell do anything wrong?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm kind of surprised that the leader of the official opposition would stand

in the House today and be talking about Minister Stockwell's expenses when Minister Stockwell has done the admirable thing and stepped aside until the Integrity Commissioner rules on his

expenses.

There are important issues before the people of Ontario today. There are issues in health care, there are issues in education, there are issues in legislation

before this Legislature, such as the seniors' property tax credit, and the honourable member doesn't want to address any of those issues.

Mr McGuinty: I can understand why the Premier doesn't want to talk about this, but I think it's very important. This is now bigger than Chris

Stockwell's judgment; it's about your judgment, Premier, and your standards.

To my way of thinking, to be very direct about this, it was wrong to run expenses through OPG, where they're not public. It is wrong to say that you paid for

your family expenses when you did not. It is wrong to run some $25,000 in family expenses through the riding association. To my way of thinking, Premier, you should have fired Chris Stockwell,

because what he did was wrong.

So I'm asking you, Premier, how low are your standards if you maintain that what Chris Stockwell did in all three instances was not wrong?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable leader of the official opposition knows better than perhaps any other member in this Legislature that we changed

the rules for the better with respect to expenditures of cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants and leaders of opposition parties. We now have received the input, as he well knows, from the

Integrity Commissioner into what those rules should be. Those rules are incorporated with the advice of the Integrity Commissioner. The Integrity Commissioner, Mr Justice Coulter Osborne -- I'm

sure the honourable member is not questioning his integrity -- is looking at Mr Stockwell's case, as he should be.

My question to the honourable member is very simple: will the leader of the official opposition submit his $25,002.29 that he paid on junkets to Chicago and

Washington, with taxpayers' dollars, to Bill Clinton image consultants in the United States of America? Does he think that's an appropriate taxpayers' expense? Why is he trying to hold Mr Stockwell

to a higher standard than he holds himself?

Mr McGuinty: Your attempt to change the subject is weak. My expenses were public and approved. You cannot fob this matter over to the

Integrity Commissioner. It's about you, your judgment and your standards. At what point in time are you, as Premier, going to exercise some leadership, at least some modicum of leadership, and tell

your caucus and cabinet ministers that in your government, there are some things that are right and there are some things that are wrong, and what Chris Stockwell did was wrong? When are you going

to have the courage, the intestinal fortitude, the conviction to stand up and condemn this minister for what he did as wrong?

Hon Mr Eves: We did do the right thing. We reformed the system. It's going to the Integrity Commissioner, where it should go.

Why won't he come to the House today with clean hands and his certified personal cheque for $25,002.29 to the taxpayers of Ontario? You took their money,

Dalton; pay it back.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the Premier: three weeks ago, we revealed that your top fundraiser struck a very,

very unusual deal with your party's top donor involving millions in taxpayer-backed funds from the Ontario Pension Board. Every time that we have tried to ask you about this deal, you have decided

to duck it.

I believe the people of Ontario have a right to know something about the nature of your ethical standards that you set for your caucus, your cabinet and others

who work for you.

Don't you think that it was wrong for an individual to have worked simultaneously at both the fundraising wing of your party and the pension board, and do you

not think that it's wrong for that very same individual to then change the rules and lend your party's biggest backer tens of millions of dollars?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Chair of Management Board has answered this question, as indeed the

Deputy Minister of Management Board has. What is important is that there are rules and guidelines that are followed and that preferential treatment is not shown.

Now, will the honourable member stand in his place and come to question period with clean hands about expenses and his certified cheque for $25,002.29 to the

taxpayers of Ontario? Yes or no?

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you can run from this but you cannot hide. Here are the facts -- I can understand why you don't want to listen to this.

Your party's biggest fundraiser lends your party's biggest donor millions in pension fund dollars. The deal is very, very unusual, not only for the Ontario pension fund but for the pension industry

itself. It is so unusual that the Ontario pension fund has never done this kind of deal, neither before nor after this particular one. Mr Weiss, for nine months, worked both as a fundraiser and as

a member of the Ontario pension fund.

This has everything to do with your standards that you're setting for your government, your cabinet and your caucus. I may be a little bit old-fashioned about

this, but I think your responsibility is to inspire confidence in the people of Ontario. What I want to know is whether you approve of what happened over at the Ontario pension fund and whether you

approve of what Chris Stockwell did. I think the people of Ontario are entitled to know where you stand on these issues.

Hon Mr Eves: The Integrity Commissioner will rule on Minister Stockwell's expenditures, as he should. Talk about old-fashioned; whatever

happened to paying your own way? Why are you ripping the taxpayers off for $25,002.29?

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you may not have recognized this, but your caucus and cabinet take their cues from you. What does it say when you as

Premier say, "You know what Stockwell did? There's not a damned thing wrong with that. You know what happened over at the Ontario pension fund? There is nothing wrong with that either." You know

what it says? It says you lack the moral courage, the conviction, the strength to say in your government that some things are right, some things are wrong, what Stockwell did was wrong, what

happened over at the Ontario pension fund was wrong, and you're not going to stand for it. The people of Ontario are entitled some modicum of leadership, some moral courage and some conviction in

these matters. When are you going to provide that?

Hon Mr Eves: He talks about my standards. My standards were that despite the fact that I was not required to do so and despite the fact that

there was no conflict, I repaid the amount of severance money I was given to the taxpayers of Ontario. You won't pay for your US consultants, Ontario taxpayers' money that you used, and you sit

therelike a smug, arrogant person. You took $25,002.29 of Ontario taxpayers' money and spent it at the Bill Clinton democratic image agency in the United States of America. Did you get the cigar at

least to go with it, Dalton?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier in the session, the Premier referred to Monica Lewinsky. Now he

has referred to --

The Speaker : Just before you continue, if it's going to be a debate, I'm going to get up quickly. Could you explain under what standing orders

you are rising, please?

Mr Colle: I think the Premier should withdraw the statement he made about the cigar and Monica Lewinsky in this House.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order.

FORMER MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. The Premier should recognize that smoking cigars is bad for your

health.

Premier, if a private hydro company like Northland Power secretly paid for an energy minister's vacation to Europe, most people would call for a criminal

investigation, but under your government, when a cabinet minister gets Northland Power to funnel the cash into his riding association, and then the riding association pays for the energy minister's

vacation to Europe, you tell us that's OK. But to people across our province, it's not OK. To people across our province, it seems like ministers can be bought.

Premier, what is your response to people across Ontario --

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the member is going to have to withdraw the comment that ministers can be bought. You'll have to withdraw.

Mr Hampton: Yes, but people across Ontario see this as wrong. What's your response?

The Speaker: No, you must --

Mr Hampton: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr Hampton: The people across Ontario see this as wrong. What's your response to them?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, nobody said it was right or appropriate. The Integrity Commissioner is going to rule on that aspect. Minister

Stockwell has asked him to take a look at that as well, and the information has been supplied, as I understand it, to the Integrity Commissioner to comment on.

Mr Hampton: Premier, this is not about the Integrity Commissioner. In fact, looking at the legislation, I don't think the Integrity

Commissioner has the capacity to rule on that question. It's really about your integrity and your government's integrity.

The public knows that Bay Street money from private power corporations, from Adams mine developers and from Oak Ridges moraine developers poured into Mr

Stockwell's riding association bank account. The public knows the then minister dipped into that account to take his family and friends on a five-star tour of Rome, Paris and Glasgow last year, and

Moscow and Helsinki the year before. You seem to be saying that's OK. Premier, I don't think it looks OK, and at the heart of it, I don't think it's OK.

I think there is a solution. We should ban corporate and union contributions to political parties and political candidates. Will you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: I am interested that the honourable member is following Jean Chrétien's lead in Ottawa and believes the taxpayers should pay

for everything, but the way our system works is that individuals, and individuals who lobby corporations or unions, are entitled to donate to election campaigns and to donate to riding associations

and individual candidates. If he wants to have a debate whether or not taxpayers should pay 100% of all that, as opposed to private donations, I'd be happy to engage him in that debate. At least

that's an issue of substance.

Mr Hampton: In this case, the money didn't go for political debate; the money didn't go for public discussion of issues. It was pretty

transparent. Corporations that wanted certain results from the Minister of Energy and, as he was then, the Minister of the Environment, contributed all kinds of money to the riding association and

the minister used that for his personal benefit, to pay for a five-star junket to the capitals of Europe. Now I say to you, that looks very bad to the public out there. That looks as if all you

have to do is launder the money through the riding association, and what would otherwise be directly illegal is suddenly, under your terms of reference, allowable. I think to the majority of the

people across Ontario this is not OK, and I've pointed out a solution. We should ban corporate and union contributions. We should take the big money out of politics and these kinds of junkets. Do

you agree or disagree, Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: I don't agree. I believe the way our system works is that individuals are entitled to contribute to the individual candidate or

the party of their choice. I believe that's the appropriate amount. We have discussed in this House, many times over the years, changes to the limits that individuals and corporations or unions can

contribute. I'm quite happy to engage him in that discussion.

But no, I don't agree with his statement that taxpayers should pick up 100% of the tab. It's very interesting that he finds himself agreeing with Jean

Chrétien, the Prime Minister of Canada, on this issue.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Try Gary Doer.

Mr Hampton: In fact, Premier, I agree with Premier Gary Doer of Manitoba, who I think has it right.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My second question is also for the Premier. Ontario drivers are angry and frustrated with the huge

increases in the cost of auto insurance. They've also had it with the arbitrary cancellation of their auto and home insurance.

Just today, a self-employed Ottawa resident wrote to me because, for the flimsiest of excuses, the auto insurance company cancelled his auto insurance and his

home insurance. That's despite the fact that he has a 20-year clean driving record and no traffic ticket record. The insurance company, as I say, used the flimsiest of excuses, and they say now

that if he wants his auto insurance renewed, he'll have to pay a substantially higher rate.

Premier, do you think that's acceptable in the province of Ontario, and what are you going to do about insurance companies that do that very thing?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm not going to comment on any individual circumstances obviously. I

certainly wouldn't do that without their permission, and I don't believe it's appropriate, unless I know all the facts in any event.

With respect to auto insurance, yes, it is indeed a concern of average Ontarians. The Minister of Finance is bringing forward a proposal with respect to

regulation, assisted by her colleague Mr Sampson, and you will see in short order some method of protection of Ontario consumers with respect to auto insurance.

But I must say that since 1996, the average premium in auto insurance in the province has fallen by 12% to date. I wouldn't want to point to the NDP record

when they were in power. His colleague sitting to his right certainly knows more than needs to be said about that issue, seeing as how he lost the debate with former Premier Rae with respect to

publicly owned auto insurance in the province.

Mr Hampton: I am quite willing to say that I believe Premier Rae made the wrong decision then, and now it's time to make the right decision.

The reality you have, Premier, is that for drivers across Ontario, premiums have gone up by over 40% over the last two years. Your finance minister admitted yesterday that what she has in mind will

not roll back any of those premium increases. It may moderate them in the years going forward, but it's not going to reduce them.

In Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, what they have found is that a not-for-profit public system of auto insurance has provided for a 20% reduction

in auto insurance premiums. Why not implement a driver-owned, not-for-profit insurance system in Ontario when we know from experience in other provinces it can reduce premiums by 20%?

Hon Mr Eves: I am rather surprised by the admission here in the House today that while he sat in Bob Rae's cabinet, he actually disagreed with

a basic matter of principle of the government. At least the member for Niagara Centre had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and be counted for his beliefs.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Premier, I want to speak to you as well about the matter of

skyrocketing auto insurance rates.

You promised exactly one year ago today, in your 2002 budget, that you would get rates under control. That was your very promise. Auto insurance rates continue

to go through the roof, drivers with clean records are seeing double-digit increases, and some people are being refused insurance altogether.

Premier, there's a growing crisis in Ontario. While you sit on your hands, drivers are suffering. Why have you broken your promise? Why have you failed to

protect Ontario's drivers?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We have not. Up to this year, as I just pointed out to the leader of the

third party, auto insurance rates in this province since 1996 have fallen, where in fact they have been going up dramatically in other jurisdictions across the country.

The Minister of Finance will be bringing forward, in short order, a proposal of regulations to control auto insurance premiums in Ontario.

It might be interesting to know if the honourable member opposite agrees with his leader colleague in the province of New Brunswick that there should be public

auto insurance in the province of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you made a very specific promise. You said you were going to get rates under control. You said that in the budget of

2002. Since then, you have done absolutely nothing. Your commentary here reveals that once more you are out of touch with what ordinary Ontarians are experiencing. Their premiums are going through

the roof, and they are looking to you for help.

Yesterday your Minister of Finance said that if it were up to her, these regulations that you've been talking about would be in place by now. That's what she

said. I can only presume, then, that the only thing that stands between her and the regulations having force of law is you.

So I'll ask you again: since the budget of 2002, why is it that you have sat on your hands, you've done nothing, while premiums have skyrocketed in the

province? Why is it now that you are standing in the way of regulations which presumably will help provide some kind of assistance to Ontario drivers?

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, he should wait until he sees the package of reforms that the Minister of Finance brings forward and then comment on

it. But I'm quite happy to compare Ontario's record in auto insurance premiums with those of a lot of other provinces, and I'm quite happy to compare them with the Liberal record the last time you

guys were in power in the province.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question today is for the Minister of Public Safety and Security.

Minister, I saw your announcement last week on the new Web site launched by the repeat offender parole enforcement unit, also called the ROPE squad. It is not

often that we publicly see or hear about the ROPE squad unless they have made one of their newsworthy captures.

My understanding is that this new Web site will highlight those individuals who are not only criminals but are also in this country illegally.

Minister, can you please inform the members of this House of the work done by the ROPE squad in Ontario and the reason for such a tool?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): Thanks to the member for the question. The ROPE squad has been very busy in

keeping our communities safe. To date, they've captured over 230 criminals who are unlawfully at large from correctional facilities.

Unfortunately, because of the federal Liberal government's lax approach to public safety, the ROPE squad has had to expand its mandate. The Eves government has

provided money to fund special apprehension teams that focus on those who have immigration warrants against them. We're doing this without any financial help from the people whose policies create

these high-risk challenges: the federal Liberal government.

Mr Gill: Thank you, Minister, for that response. I know the funding of our government has gone to create special apprehension teams whose main

job is to focus on those types of individuals who are represented on the ROPE Web site. I also know how frustrated our government is by the federal immigration system. Minister, why exactly does

our government focus our resources on a federal government problem?

Hon Mr Runciman: Regrettably, the McGuinty Liberals see themselves as apologists for their federal cousins.

We are investing our resources to fix a federal government problem because we care about public safety. We care enough to have Canada's only sex offender

registry. We care enough to have Canada's only Office for Victims of Crime. And we care enough to invest Ontario tax dollars in ROPE squads to try to cope with issues like 36,000 individuals

ordered out of this country that the federal Liberal government has simply lost track of. We're doing the federal government's dirty work because, unlike them, public safety is a key priority for

the Ernie Eves government.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): That's a hard act to follow, no doubt.

I have a question to the Premier today. Last year during his leadership bid, former Minister of the Environment Chris Stockwell vowed to make Kirkland Lake the

waste mecca, as he said, for Toronto garbage, and at every opportunity he continued to promote the Adams mine as a waste solution. On May 26 of this year, he called a secret meeting with Toronto,

Peel, Durham and York representatives to discuss garbage problems. He offered no help for Toronto's 2010 zero waste initiative, but he actively pushed the Adams mine at that meeting. A few weeks

ago, when I stated in this House that his brother asked for and received a package of information on the Adams mine from Mario Cortellucci, he corrected me to say, "That was my father." When the

Adams mine land deal story broke early in April, Chris Hodgson attended an all-day meeting at Cortellucci's office with other Adams investors to deal with this crisis.

Premier, can you assure this House today that no member of your government, in cabinet or in the backbench, or any of their immediate family has any interest,

direct or indirect, in the Adams mine dump project?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Certainly not to my knowledge.

Mr Ramsay: Ten weeks ago your government was about to sell 2,000 acres of crown land for $22 an acre to your biggest contributor, Mario

Cortellucci, in order to complete the certificate of approval requirements for this dump project. Even though this is almost twice the land required, you were attempting to do this without notice

or tender or EBR posting or any First Nations consultation. In fact, the regional MNR manager phoned one of our dump opponents at home to ask him how he found out about this secret land deal when

he found out that you initiated a 60-day review of this transaction that has long since expired. Weeks ago the Deputy Premier stated in this House that the government would commit to giving us a

status report as to that review.

Premier, is it your intention, as last year with the nursing home rate increase, to wait until the Legislature rises for the summer before you announce this

dirty little land deal?

Hon Mr Eves: I'd be happy to look into the undertaking that the Deputy Premier made and find the information for the honourable member as soon

as possible.

With respect to the nursing home rate increase, he will know that this government limited increases last year to 3% and this year to 1.16%, which is exactly

the same amount that every senior's pension was increased this year, and the same is in effect for next year as well, so out of pocket it will cost seniors nothing.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Ontario is seeing a diversity of

new immigrants who find the promise of a better future in our province. Many of these new immigrants are vital in addressing the skilled labour shortages in underserviced areas of the province.

In order to maintain our economic strength and prosperity, it is important that we have a plan to attract skilled immigrants and to make sure that they can

contribute their skills to society. What is the government doing to train skilled immigrants and help them find jobs?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm very pleased to have a

question from my colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka. This is an area that our government has been totally committed to, and we have had a plan.

When we first became the government, we realized that nothing had been done about a whole generation of new Canadians who never in fact had a chance to

practise their trades and professions. So we began very quickly with programs to assist them -- bridging programs -- and now we're starting to see the results.

We have committed $15.5 million over four years to the development of bridge training programs to speed access to the labour market for qualified,

internationally trained individuals. Very early in our tenure as government, we authorized WES, the World Education Service's academic credential assessment service, to assist our new immigrants in

looking at their secondary and post-secondary education qualifications, from over 180 countries in the world.

Mr Miller: Minister, I'm happy to hear our government offers a variety of opportunities for new immigrants to hone their skills, as well as

employ their skills. I know that two government initiatives -- Job Connect, which helps prepare immigrants for the job market, as well as our bridge training program, that helps train immigrants to

acquire the additional education they need -- help new immigrants play a significant role in strengthening the economic prosperity of our province. Could you tell me more about the bridge training

program and the Job Connect program?

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I should perhaps ask my critic if she would like to ask the question. She's asked five questions in almost three years. I

don't really think this shows interest in this area. We have to ask our own people.

I will also say that in our own book, the next stage is this: the federal government, with regard to our immigrants, should, in fact, be giving opportunities

to prospective immigrants to see if they do qualify before they come here. That is a promise we have in The Road Ahead. We will ask our new immigrants to get their qualifications accredited before

they come here and help them before they come.

What have we done? In September 2003, I say to the Minister of Health, there will be almost 300 internationally trained nurses who have worked so hard to bring

their pass rates from 30% to 70% --

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

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, my colleague the member for Timmins-James Bay and I toured

northern Ontario. Things are beyond desperate. It's the perfect storm, and it's flattening the north's economy. Skyrocketing hydro rates are killing jobs, and then you've got US actions on softwood

lumber. Dubreuil Forest Products cut over 300 jobs. In White River, the sawmill will close its doors on Friday. This Sunday, the people in Wawa are holding a rally to save their town, and they've

invited you. Will you come to Wawa this Sunday and explain why your government has abandoned the north?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The member does make a very valid point with respect to hydro rates in Wawa,

and indeed, that issue has to be addressed to benefit the people in Wawa who find themselves in a very extraordinary situation. I would agree with him that action has to be taken to protect those

people.

With respect to northern Ontario generally, I hear what he's saying. A lot of those issues he raises, like softwood lumber, he certainly understands are beyond

the purview of a provincial government. However, we have been very supportive of the industry, and it's exactly why we declared all of northern Ontario to be a tax incentive zone, to provide

incentives for businesses that aren't there now to locate there and provide jobs for northern Ontarians so they can be full participants in the economic benefits of Ontario.

Mr Martin: So I take it that the answer is no, you won't come to the rally on Sunday.

According to Statistics Canada, hydro rates for large users are up 75%. That's about to kill whole towns in the north. Today we learned that you just

downgraded your northern development minister to part-time status when these communities need his full attention. We met with the mayors and mill managers in four towns. The message is the same:

these communities have no future unless something is done quickly. The people of northern Ontario have been abandoned by you and your Liberal counterparts in Ottawa. Will you do at least one thing:

will you cancel the deregulation of hydro that's killing jobs in the north, or do you plan to turn the north into an economic graveyard?

Hon Mr Eves: I have told him we would address the situation in Wawa and we will.

With respect to the economy of northern Ontario, it would be very interesting to know whether the honourable member and his caucus are supportive of the tax

incentive zone for all of northern Ontario to stimulate job creation in the north, to benefit people in the north. It's also a little strange that there haven't been any questions about the amount

per kilowatt hour that hydro costs in the province this month. For your edification, it is now at 3.89 cents to date this month in Ontario.

FORMER MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday I asked the Deputy Premier about the review you promised

regarding Cam Jackson's expenses. You will remember, that promise was made last fall, but you wouldn't tell us who was doing the review, what the context of that review was or when it would be

complete. Yesterday your Deputy Premier said this: "I've been informed that the Premier's office has done a review, and my understanding is that they are presently in discussion with Mr Jackson on

this particular subject."

Premier, I'd like to give you an opportunity to report to this House on the results of the review. What was part of that review? Did you in fact set a new

standard for your cabinet and your caucus? Please give us that report now.

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We did in fact change the system, as she knows, the way expenses of cabinet

ministers are reviewed. Certainly a lot of individuals, not just the particular minister she refers to, found the pre-existing rules rather ambiguous. That's why we asked for the Integrity

Commissioner's input into drafting new rules, and he's agreed graciously to take on that responsibility as we go forward. It's my understanding that the expenses she speaks of are being reviewed by

the Integrity Commissioner as well.

Ms Pupatello: We know that Mr Jackson billed the taxpayers, for example, $842 for a meal at Soul of the Vine, and then in that same time frame

he billed the riding association $842 for a meal at Soul of the Vine. There're countless examples of these bills then being run through the riding association.

Did you, as Premier, go through this review to suggest that your cabinet ministers in fact should take those receipts and run them through the riding

association? When it's been determined those bills were for a personal nature and therefore taxpayers shouldn't be footing that bill, did you then tell them to put that through your riding

association? Are you setting any kind of standard for how these monies are being spent or who should be recouped for that money? You have an opportunity now. We've had several examples where money

for apparently personal reasons -- these receipts are being put now through the riding association. Are you telling your colleagues this is OK? Have you in fact set any kind of standard?

Hon Mr Eves: She obviously hasn't got the point that a new system has been put in place. We tabled all the expenses of ministers and

parliamentary assistants that were under review or request under the freedom of information act all at once. It's the first time any government has ever done that in the history of the province of

Ontario. Certainly, when the Liberal government was last in power -- we can rhyme off all the names, if you wish, of cabinet ministers who had to resign under David Peterson's regime for conflicts

of interest, for misappropriation of funds, for other activities that weren't exactly up to date, but I'm not going to go there.

Suffice it to say that we have set a new standard in the province for the first time. We are quite confident that the Integrity Commissioner, Mr Justice

Coulter Osborne, will make appropriate rulings with respect to expenses as we go forward.

BSE

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. For the life of me I can't understand why the

opposition aren't asking about The Road Ahead and the strong economy to remain competitive in this province.

Minister, this past Saturday I hosted a meeting in Mitchell to discuss BSE, mad cow disease. We had more than 90 local farmers, agricultural leaders and

business people there to hear from representatives of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ontario Cattlemen's Association.

As you are aware, the restrictions imposed by our trading partners are having a significant effect on the numerous farmers and farm-related operations across

my riding. Minister, could you please explain what our government's position is on compensation for farmers affected by BSE?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'd like to thank the member and congratulate him on his meeting this weekend. I know he

pulled almost 100 people out to this meeting. It shows real interest in his community and rural interest from him.

Let me say very clearly that this government is concerned about rural issues. Ernie Eves speaks hard and long about rural issues and how important they are to

the economic engine of this province.

We are also speaking to the BSE issue specifically. We are concerned about the people not only in the beef industry but in all of the spinoff industries of the

beef industry and how they will make a livelihood with this imposed trade restriction that we have.

On June 6, I wrote to Minister Vanclief and brought to his attention the important things that need to be done by the federal government to provide adequate

compensation. As everyone in this House knows, this is a national issue and it demands national attention. So we asked that the federal government fund this with new dollars --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister's time is up. We have a supplementary.

Mr Johnson: I'm impressed with the work that you do in your ministry, acting for a strong economy, ensuring the road ahead and what we need to

get to where we're going. I know you had planned to attend the meeting in my riding last Saturday but you had to go to Vancouver to meet with your provincial colleagues and the federal Minister of

Agriculture, Van something, on Friday to discuss the possible assistance packages to those affected by BSE and related trade restrictions.

Could you tell the farmers in my riding and across Ontario what your position was at that meeting and where we're going from here?

Hon Mrs Johns: Our position is clear. It was laid out in The Road Ahead. It talks very clearly about compensation for the agricultural

community in this province.

The Premier wrote a letter to the Prime Minister and asked the federal government to move forward with compensation for this industry. He agreed with the

western Premiers that this compensation should be based on a disaster relief program of 90-10, or 90% federal and 10% provincial, as the western Premiers had done, and he suggested that that

funding should come immediately because this industry is in crisis.

He also asked that the federal minister work quickly to lift the ban on this industry, because this is providing incredible problems to this industry. He

supported the western Premiers. We stood with them, and we expect the federal government to come out immediately --

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

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask why immigration in The Road Ahead is under the

crime part of your --

The Speaker: Order. It's not a point of order.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. You will know that the children's

heart surgery program at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario is very, very important to families in eastern Ontario. You will recall that when you originally decided that you were going to

shut that down, over 183,000 people signed petitions and many, many thousands took lawn signs. In fact, if you were to drive through the Ottawa area, you would still find lawn signs in support of

maintaining that program in our community.

Since you first announced that you would cancel this program, we lost two surgeons, and a couple of weeks ago we lost a third, this one to Texas.

A short while ago, the Premier came to Ottawa and said the matter was under review. I think this matter should be a no-brainer. I think a province of 12

million people deserves to have two centres of excellence when it comes to children's heart surgery, one here in Toronto and one in Ottawa.

Will you now lift the cloud and guarantee to people living in eastern Ontario, families in particular, that you will assure them that they will not lose the

children's heart surgery program from the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm surprised the honourable member hasn't mentioned London in his remarks. It

appears that the audience is different here, so he doesn't mention London. When he goes to London, he mentions London, but that's a different issue.

In answer to the question, I can only say to the honourable member that I hope he agrees, as I do, that we should make these decisions based on the best

clinical information that will save as many children as possible who have some desperate situations and diseases. I can commit to you that this review is all about ensuring that we act on the best

possible clinical information.

Mr McGuinty: Why not just admit that this is not about acquiring further information? This is all about buying some more time until after the

election, when you intend to proceed with your unequivocal plans to shut down the children's heart surgery program at CHEO in eastern Ontario. Why not just admit that?

This is nothing more than a cynical ploy. If you were committed, if you understood what was happening in eastern Ontario, if you understood the value of this

program to those families, then you would stand up and say that in our province we're going to have at least a second centre of excellence that will be located in Ottawa. It is already there at the

Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. Why don't you stand up now, put politics behind and guarantee us that we'll be able to hang on to this program in our community?

Hon Mr Clement: I'm trying to accord the honourable member the respect his office deserves. But when he accuses this side of the House of

cynicism on this issue when his activities could smack of the same action, I would only say to the honourable member, let's put aside the issues of accusations and the issues of politics. I'd be

happy to include the honourable member in a decision or a review where we look at the very best, most modern information, the best information that is supplied by clinical experts and scientists in

the field, to make a decision as a matter of public policy. The honourable member doesn't know a lot about being a Premier if he says no to that.

IMMIGRATION POLICY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. The federal Minister of Immigration, Denis Coderre,

is on record as saying that Ontario has shown little if any interest in signing a deal to select smaller numbers of immigrants first, as Ottawa has asked it to do. Minister, why has Ontario not

signed such a deal?

Hon Carl DeFaria (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I thank the hard-working member from Scarborough Centre for the

question.

The honourable member is referring to the provincial nominee program. This program gives provinces the ability to nominate a limited number of economic

immigrants for entry into Canada. As you know, Ontario receives almost 60% of Canada's immigrants. What Ontario needs is an efficient and effective system for selecting newcomers. Under the

provincial nominee program, only 2,000 immigrants came to Canada last year. Compare that to the more than 130,000 immigrants who settle in Ontario each and every year. You see, for Ontario that is

a drop in the bucket.

We want the federal government to fix the main selection system. We are not interested in the federal downloading of its responsibilities through nominee

deals. We say to the federal Liberals, either fix it or get out of the way.

Ms Mushinski: I know that immigration is very important to this province. Indeed, I believe it's vital to its future, and Ontario truly

deserves a hand in shaping the policies that bring newcomers to our province.

I know, as I'm sure you do, Minister, that members of the Ontario Liberal Party, who are nothing more than apologists of course for the federal government,

claim that we are scapegoating immigrants and insulting all Ontarians by supporting a made-in-Ontario immigration policy that's clearly outlined in our great plan, which is called The Road Ahead.

Minister, how else has the federal government let down Ontario's newcomers?

Hon Mr DeFaria: One of Mr Coderre's priorities was to encourage immigration to small and medium-sized communities as a further lack of federal

Liberal responsibility, if you can say "Liberal responsibility"; that's an oxymoron. They have committed only $3.8 million over two years to this program. Now Mr Coderre says that it's up to the

provinces and municipalities to pay for the bulk of the federal initiative. Well, the government of Ontario is already doing its part. Recently Premier Ernie Eves announced an initiative that

increases opportunity for foreign-trained doctors to become licensed to work in underserviced communities. Mr Coderre says that immigration is about sharing. Well, we are doing our share; the feds

are not.

The good people of Ontario have had enough. Ontario deserves a hand in shaping the policies that bring newcomers --

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is for the Deputy Premier. I don't think the Premier is still here. Is he gone? If he's gone,

I'll direct it to the Deputy Premier.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The Deputy Premier can handle it, thank you.

Mr Prue: The question, then, is to the Deputy Premier. Madame Deputy Premier, the trickle-down theory for housing does not work in this

province, or anywhere. This is not just the NDP talking. Today TD Economics released a report, Affordable Housing in Canada: In Search of a New Paradigm. They say very much the same thing: that tax

breaks given to developers don't work. The TD says the same thing the New Democratic Party has been saying for years: to build affordable housing through direct government grants. If you won't

listen to the New Democratic Party, will you at least listen to the TD Bank when they're talking about housing?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I appreciate the question, and I refer it to the Associate Minister of Municipal

Affairs and Housing.

Hon Tina R. Molinari (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I am pleased to address the question today. Housing in Ontario has

increased, and due to the policies of this government is in a much better state than it has been in the past.

I take great issue with the member across the way for bringing such questions to this House, which really have to do with the increase we've had in affordable

housing in this province. We are doing more in the province of Ontario for housing than any other government ever has. We've signed an affordable housing agreement with the federal government.

It took a long time to reach that agreement because the federal government was not co-operating with some of the unique issues in Ontario. Everyone in Canada

has had difficulty reaching an agreement with the federal government.

Mr Prue: Madame Associate Minister, there are 90,000 families in Toronto alone who are on the list for affordable housing. We're not talking

about housing for the rich; we're talking about housing for the poor. Former Premier Harris slandered non-profits, and the Chrétien government put them at a disadvantage with this new housing

policy. We believe that non-profits work. They know the needs of the community, and they are affordable in the long term. The TD Bank has written, "There is no compelling reason to think that tax

breaks would work more effectively than grants targeted at affordable housing."

My question is quite simple: will you do what the TD Bank and the New Democratic Party have suggested and undo the boondoggle of the Harris years, when not one

affordable housing unit was built in this province?

Hon Mrs Molinari: When we raise the issue of boondoggles, I want to let the member know that this government knows that hard-working families

won't benefit from returning to the social housing boondoggles of the previous Liberal and NDP governments.

Real progress comes from removing the barriers that stand in the way of the private sector building affordable rental units and new homes. That's why this

government has invested in effective tools, not costly failures. We've also cut taxes and helped create one million new jobs since taking office. This has played a big role in the booming growth of

the housing sector in Ontario. New single-family homes alone have grown by 11% in Ontario. This means more families leaving the rental housing market and pushing vacancy rates up.

IMMIGRATION POLICY

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question originally would have been for the Minister of Public Safety, but he has denied

coming with me on debate on this immigration issue and told me it was the Minister of Citizenship, so I'm afraid I'll have to ask you the question. Why is the immigration policy under the crime

section of your Road Ahead program?

Hon Carl DeFaria (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): My friend is wrong. The immigration policy in The Road Ahead is

under "Safe Communities."

Ontario is a welcoming province. Ontario is the most diverse jurisdiction on the planet, with over 200 cultural communities living side by side raising their

families and speaking some 70 or 80 different languages.

Ontario continues to be a land of opportunity. Everywhere I go throughout this great province, I hear from people who arrive in this province, worked hard and

built their families here and built their professions and careers. I'm so proud to be the minister responsible for immigration and to interact with all our diverse communities of Ontario.

Mrs Bountrogianni: For the last few weeks, I've been honoured to go to flag-raising ceremonies and other ceremonies for our ethnic

communities. You've been proudly there. How do you think they feel when you have their issues under "Safe Communities"? Perhaps you're trying to divert the attention from your sorry record -- from

the sorry record of the Minister of Public Safety: 10,000 arrest warrants outstanding, according to the Provincial Auditor's 2002 report, many for serious violent offences, not from illegal

refugees, not from immigrants.

Four out of five sex offenders are not receiving proper rehabilitation after being released into the community -- from the Provincial Auditor's 2002 report --

not illegal refugees, not immigrants.

Forty percent of serious offenders being released into the community go unsupervised or unmanaged by the ministry -- Provincial Auditor, 2002. Those are the

facts you would like the people of Ontario to --

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Scapegoat.

Mrs Bountrogianni: Thank you. You want to scapegoat the immigrants so that people will be diverted from the real facts --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the member's time is up. Minister?

Interjections.

Hon Mr DeFaria: Do you want to hear the answer?

The Speaker: Order. We'll stop the clock and let you finish.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We've stopped the clock so he can finish and wrap up. Minister?

Hon Mr DeFaria: It is here under "Public Security": the federal government lost connection with 36,000 illegal people and doesn't know where

they are. Those are the people under "Public Security."

I'll answer the question of my friend. I know exactly what the diverse communities think. Do you know why? Because I'm there, day in and day out.

Just this weekend I was in eight different communities celebrating Father's Day with people of diverse communities. I know they love our platform; they love

our tax credits for seniors; they love our tax deductibility; they just love waving Ontario flags.

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the Premier, in response to an opposition

question earlier today regarding the accommodation co-payments in long-term-care facilities, referred to percentages and not dollars. The Premier is asking to correct his record today. He intended

to say that this government limited increases last year to $3.02 and this year to $1.16, not 3% and 1.16%.

The Speaker: I appreciate it. It's not a point of order. I thought he was correcting his record, but he slipped the Premier in. I apologize; I

should have been quicker on my feet. Actually, the table is much quicker and did catch it. I should have listened to them.

Mrs Bountrogianni: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to register my dissatisfaction with the answer of the Minister of Culture, and I

would like to submit the proper paperwork.

The Speaker: I thank the member. She will know to file the appropriate papers with the table, and she may do that.

It is time for petitions, and the member for Sudbury. Sorry. Before we start the clock, a point of order.

Hon Mr DeFaria: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If they want me to answer the question more, I'd love to.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, please. Question period is over. We're now going to petitions. I would ask all members for their co-operation.

We've had our fun for the hour. Now we move on to the next order of business, and it's petitions. The member for Sudbury, who is getting tired, can lead us off -- I guess he's not going to lead us

off.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe I heard the member for Hamilton East tell my caucus

colleague the member for Mississauga East to go back where he came from.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We're at the stage now where we are going to say something we're all going to regret. The member for Hamilton East, please

come to order. We're at the point where somebody is going to say something they'll regret. I ask all members to please cool it.

It is now time for petitions, and the member for Sudbury.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It might be best if members decide on their own to move out, because we are going to get into something I think we're all

going to regret that won't reflect well on any of us. I don't need to remind any of the members that we still have a class sitting up there. You should see the faces of those children -- they're

young adults -- looking at the behaviour down here. I ask all members, please -- question period is over. If you need to, and you feel your temperature is up, I would ask you all to please just

remove --

Interjections.

The Speaker: That's it. The member for Hamilton East is named and the Minister of Finance is named. Both of you are out. I name both of you:

Mr Agostino and Janet Ecker are out. You can go outside and yell at each other for five hours, as far as I'm concerned. You just won't shut up, either of you. I gave you ample warning and I was

very reasonable with all of you. But no, you can't do it, you've got to keep yapping, so you'll both be out -- disgraceful.

Mr Agostino and Mrs Ecker were escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Now we're going to get to the member for Sudbury on petitions.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'd like to congratulate Bridget, who is from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, on being very patient while she was

waiting. Well done, Bridget.

This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas modern highways are economic lifelines for the north; and

"Whereas the stretch of Highway 69 from Sudbury south to Parry Sound is a treacherous road with a trail of death and destruction; and

"Whereas the carnage on Highway 69 has been staggering; and

"Whereas the ... Eves government has shown gross irresponsibility in not four-laning the stretch of Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas immediate action is needed to prevent more needless loss of life; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of" any "government to provide safe roads for its citizens, and the Eves government has failed to do so;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Eves government to begin construction immediately and

four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

Of course, I affix my signature to that petition.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I have hundreds of names of petitioners. It reads: "Petition Against the Continuing Actions of

Supervisors in Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto District School Boards.

"To the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the government has cut over $2 billion from public education over the past seven years;

"Whereas the provincial funding formula does not provide sufficient funds for local district school board trustees to meet the needs of students;

"Whereas district school boards around the province have had to cut needed programs and services, including library, music, physical education and special

education;

"Whereas the district school boards in Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto refused to make further cuts and were summarily replaced with

government-appointed supervisors;

"Whereas these supervisors are undermining classroom education for hundreds of thousands of children;

"We, the undersigned" members "of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, call on the government to restore local democracy by removing the supervisors

in the Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto district school boards."

I support this petition very strongly

HIGHWAY 518

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition from my riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the ministry immediately proceed with the reconstruction of Highway 518 between Highway 69 and Highway 11.

"This highway is in a deplorable condition. Those who have to travel this corridor to their jobs, shopping, medical services etc have been promised by the MTO

that this highway would be upgraded to allow for safe and problem-free travel.

"We request the ministry to commence reconstruction as soon as possible."

I affix my name to this petition in support of it.

LONG-TERM CARE

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

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities by 15% over three years, or

$3.02 per diem in the first year and $2 in the second year and $2 in the third year, effective September 1, 2002; and

"Whereas this increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 a month after three years; and

"Whereas this increase is above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario for 2002; and

"Whereas, according to the government's own funded study, Ontario will still rank last among comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a

resident for nursing and personal care; and

"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based upon government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need;

and

"Whereas the government needs to increase long-term-care operating funding by $750 million over the next three years to raise the level of service for

Ontario's long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan back in 1999; and

"Whereas this province has been built by seniors who should be able to live out their lives with dignity, respect and in comfort in this province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We demand that Premier Eves reduce the 15% increase over three years in accommodation costs to no more than the cost-of-living increase annually and that the

provincial government provide adequate funding for nursing and personal care to a level that is at least at the average standard for nursing and personal care in those 10 jurisdictions included in

the government's own study."

I will affix my signature to this petition as I am in full agreement.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is my distinct pleasure to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on behalf of my constituents

for the riding of Durham. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the province of Ontario has delayed the second phase of the equity in education tax credits for parents who choose to send their children to

independent schools; and

"Whereas, prior to the introduction of this tax credit, Ontario parents whose children attended independent schools faced a financial burden of paying taxes to

an education system they did not use, plus tuition for the school of their choice; and

"Whereas the equity in education tax credits support parental choice in education and make independent schools more accessible to all Ontario families;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, respectfully request that the government of Ontario introduce the second phase of the tax credit forthwith and continue --

without delay -- the previously announced timetable for the introduction of the tax credit over five years."

I am pleased to endorse this in support of Knox Christian School and other schools in my riding. The parent choice comes first.

HOME CARE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition concerns the cut in homemaking services in the Manitoulin-Sudbury area by the CCAC.

"Whereas we are outraged by the community care access centre's decision to cut homemaking services to seniors;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"

(1) Provide enough resources to the Manitoulin-Sudbury Community Care Access Centre so that they can provide homemaking services; and

"

(2) Instruct Associate Minister Dan Newman to attend a public meeting with MPP Rick Bartolucci to hear stories about what will happen when homemaking services

are cut off."

I affix my signature to this petition, as I did last week and yesterday, and give it to Brittany and ask her to take it to the table.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Bob Wood (London West): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario has delayed the second phase of the equity in education tax credit for parents who choose to send their children to

independent schools; and

"Whereas prior to the introduction of this tax credit, Ontario parents whose children attended independent schools faced a financial burden of paying taxes to

an education system they did not use, plus tuition for the school of their choice; and

"Whereas the equity in education tax credit supports parental choice in education and makes independent schools more accessible to all Ontario families;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully request that the government of Ontario introduce the second phase of the tax credit forthwith and continue --

without delay -- the previously announced timetable for the introduction of the tax credit over five years."

HOME CARE

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): "Whereas well-managed and adequately funded home health care is a growing need

in our community; and

"Whereas the provincial government has frozen community care access centre budgets, which has meant dramatic cuts to service agency funding and services to

vulnerable citizens, as well as shortened visits by front-line workers; and

"Whereas these dramatic cuts, combined with the increased complexity of care for those who do qualify for home care, has led to an impossible cost burden to

home care agencies; and

"Whereas the wages and benefits received by home care workers employed by home care agencies are well below the wages and benefits of workers doing comparable

jobs in institutional settings; and

"Whereas front-line staff are also required to subsidize the home care program in our community by being responsible for paying for their own gas and for

vehicle maintenance; and

"Whereas other CCACs and CCAC-funded agencies across the province compensate their staff between 29 cents and 42.7 cents per kilometre; and

"Whereas CCAC-funded agency staff in our own community are paid 26 cents a kilometre, with driving time considered `hours worked';

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To act now to increase funding to the CCAC of Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington in order for it to adequately fund service agencies so they can fairly

compensate front-line workers."

I will affix my significant to this petition as I am in full agreement.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the province of Ontario has delayed the second phase of the equity in education tax credit for parents who choose to send their children to

independent schools; and

"Whereas prior to the introduction of this tax credit, Ontario parents whose children attended independent schools faced a financial burden of paying taxes to

an education system they did not use, plus tuition for the school of their choice; and

"Whereas the equity in education tax credit supports parental choice in education and makes independent schools more accessible to all Ontario families;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully request that the government of Ontario introduce the second phase of the tax credit forthwith and continue --

without delay -- the previously announced timetable for the introduction of the tax credit over five years."

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition concerns the four-laning of Highway 69. Speaker, I know it will upset you to hear that that road

was again closed near the area you represent, Killarney, once again today.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas modern highways are economic lifelines for the north; and

"Whereas the stretch of Highway 69 from Sudbury south to Parry Sound is a treacherous road with a trail of death and destruction; and

"Whereas the carnage on Highway 69 has been staggering; and

"Whereas the Eves government has shown gross irresponsibility in not four-laning the stretch of Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas immediate action is needed to prevent more needless loss of life; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of any government to provide safe roads for its citizens, and the Eves government has failed to do so;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Eves government to begin construction immediately

and four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

Again I give this petition, after I sign it, to Aja to bring to the table.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is indeed again my pleasure to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and to present it to the

page Caitlyn. What riding are you from, Caitlyn? Brantford? She will take it to the table when I'm finished.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario has delayed the second phase of the equity in education tax credit for parents who choose to send their children to

independent schools; and

"Whereas prior to the introduction of this tax credit, Ontario parents whose children attended independent schools faced the financial burden of paying taxes

... to an education system they did not use, plus tuition for the school of their choice; and

"Whereas the equity in education tax credit supports parental choice in education and makes independent schools more accessible to all Ontario families;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully request that the government of Ontario reintroduce the second phase of the tax credit forthwith and continue --

without delay -- the previously announced timetable for the introduction of the tax credit over five years."

I'm pleased to endorse this on behalf of Knox school and other Christian schools in my riding of Durham.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it states as

follows:

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities by 15%," and the member from

Niagara Falls remembers that quite well, "or $7.02 per diem, effective August 1, 2002; and

"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 a month; and

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the increase in the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day;

and

"Whereas, according to the government's own funded study, Ontario ranks last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a resident for

nursing and personal care; and

"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need;

and

"Whereas government needs to increase long-term-care operating funding by $750 million over the next three years to raise the level of service for Ontario's

long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan in 1999; and

"Whereas this province has been built by seniors, who should be able to live out their lives with dignity, respect and in comfort in this province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Demand that Premier Eves reduce his 15% fee increase on seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities and increase provincial government

support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I'm handing this petition over to Bridget, one of our pages. I agree with it entirely and have signed it accordingly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order

of the House relating to Bill 53,

An Act respecting the equity in education tax credit, when Bill 53 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose

of the second reading stage of the bill, without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called on that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading is called, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or

amendment; and

That the vote on second and third reading may, pursuant to standing order 28(h), be deferred; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Clark has moved government notice of motion number 53. We split the time evenly. Minister?

Hon Mr Clark: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to the time allocation motion on Bill 53, The Right Choices for Equity in

Education Act. The Right Choices for Equity in Education Act is so named for two important reasons: first, because it's the right thing to do for the parents of children in independent schools;

second, because it's the right thing to do in terms of fulfilling our budget commitments.

When my colleague Finance Minister Janet Ecker introduced the 2003 Ontario budget, she noted that the people of Ontario had delivered one overarching message

to her during our government's pre-budget consultations: they wanted the government to stay the course, cutting taxes and continuing investments in priority areas, such as health care, education

and strong communities, and on ensuring accountability for the dollars that we spend.

Mr Speaker, let me remind you and the members of the House and the people watching at home what Bill 53 is all about. There's been a great deal of debate and

discussion. The bill is entitled The Right Choices for Equity in Education Act. It's all about supporting parental choice. We want to give parents the flexibility to decide whether to send their

children to an independent school. We believe that parents and not government officials or bureaucrats are in the best position to make that particular decision. So we've introduced this tax credit

which allows parents that flexibility to make the right decision, the right choice, for their families. Parents may choose an independent school with a particular religious focus, whether it be

Christian, Jewish, Muslim or some other denomination. Perhaps it's a school with a particular academic style or educational focus, like Montessori or Waldorf. Whatever parents decide, the important

thing is that it is their decision, not ours.

For 2002, the tax credit reimbursed 10% of the first $7,000 of tuition fees, for a maximum tax credit of $700 per child, and 10% of the first $3,500 of tuition

fees for a child of kindergarten age, for a maximum tax credit of $350. If the Legislature passes this bill, the tax credit rate will rise to a maximum of $1,400 or 20% for the child for 2003, 30%

in the year 2004, 40% for 2005, 50% for 2006 and beyond. At the same time, independent schools where parents claim the tax credit will now be required to assess student progress in core areas of

reading, writing and mathematics. They will need to ensure that parents and legal guardians are informed of how schools monitor and assess the progress of their children in the core subjects.

Independent schools will need to enhance student safety by verifying the status of their instructors with the Ontario College of Teachers and share the results of this verification with parents.

They will need to inform parents and guardians where they can find information about consumer protection from the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services.

It's important to point out as well that we have delivered on this important commitment just as we have made the historic investments in public education.

Education funding for the upcoming 2003-04 school year will be a record $15.3 billion. We recognize that education is a top priority for all Ontarians. By 2005-06, multi-year-based funding for

school boards will be 14%, or almost $2 billion higher than the funding level provided in the 2002 budget.

As I've said, education is one of the top priorities for the people of Ontario, and therefore this provincial government has invested wisely in public

education. It's been very confusing for members in this House, especially on the government side, to watch the dithering of our opposition members on this particular tax credit.

There has been a lot of discussion about the United Nations and whether or not we're following what the United Nations had recommended. The United Nations at

one point had recommended full funding for all denominational schools, but we recognize it is very difficult in this type of society to provide that type of full funding. So we came up with a

novel, innovative approach, one that we thought all sides of the House would respect. It's with great interest that I watched to see the opposition, specifically the Liberal Party, try to portray

this as somehow fragmenting society.

I'd like to read into the record, if I may, a pastoral letter that was written in 1989 -- that's quite some time ago -- by the Ontario Conference of Catholic

Bishops. This is what the bishops of the province of Ontario had to say to their people:

"Our commitment to the best education for all students impels us to respect and support the wishes of parents in other faith communities for religious

education in the public school system or for alternative schools which will reflect their values and beliefs. The primacy of parental rights in education is a value which should be realized not

only by Catholic parents but also by others. We have publicly committed ourselves to support the concept of the development of alternative schools for people of other faith communities."

The Conference of Catholic Bishops clearly put into the record what their position is for parental choice, for education of this particular description. So

when the opposition and specifically the Liberals stand up in their place and rail that somehow we're fragmenting society by doing this, that somehow we're being punitive --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Give the whole thing.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Kingston, come to order.

Mr Gerretsen: Very selective.

Hon Mr Clark: The member opposite would suggest that we're being selective; I would suggest that we're not. As a matter of fact, from your own

opposition platform, you stated that you believe in free votes. Then I'd suggest that the member for Vaughan-King-Aurora, the member for St Paul's and the member for York Centre might want to

exercise that free vote and vote for the education tax credit, since they actually believe in it and have actually stated that on the public record. However, the leader of the loyal opposition has

whipped that whip, and they will, in f