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

February 15, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Feb-15 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 15 February 2005 Mardi 15 février 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GREENBELT LEGISLATION

TSUNAMI RELIEF

COMMUNITY SAFETY

TSUNAMI RELIEF

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHINESE NEW YEAR

HEALTH CARE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

VISITOR

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR DUFFERIN-PEEL-WELLINGTON-GREY

SPEAKER'S RULING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HOUSE SITTINGS

MINISTER'S LETTER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

FOOD SAFETY

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

FOOD SAFETY

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

FOOD SAFETY

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

FOREST INDUSTRY

GREENBELT LEGISLATION

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOBACCO CONTROL STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GREENBELT LEGISLATION

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Members of the opposition and the general public, concerned citizens, are getting increasingly upset with the lack

of science and the government's failure to produce the environmental science used to set the greenbelt boundaries as part of their greenbelt legislation. In fact, you wonder why they've set aside

and are stopping urban sprawl in Beaverton, stopping a Tim Hortons in Brock, but leaving wide-open sprawl all the way up to Barrie, making that long snake of traffic up the 400 even longer.

Group after group at the committee hearings told the McGuinty Liberal government to put the science out for the public for their purview, for their inspection,

but they have yet to do so. They want to see the LEAR studies, the wetland studies that inform the decisions in the green-botch plan. But, sadly, there's a growing realization that these decisions

are based on political science by the Liberal campaign team and not at all on environmental science.

To give the government its due, the one LEAR study I did receive, the agricultural study, was for Ottawa-Carleton -- far, far away from the greenbelt area, but

at least they came forward with a LEAR study for Ottawa-Carleton.

And worse comes to worst: When we did a freedom of information request, an FOI, for the science behind the plan, they said, "You have to fork over $1,400 to pay

for the science." Taxpayers can't afford that. The government is hiding the lack of science behind this plan. Shame on them. Put it out in the public for public review.

TSUNAMI RELIEF

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I rise today to say a word of thanks to those in my riding of Scarborough Southwest and all of

Ontario who assisted in the relief effort for South Asian countries affected by the tragic tsunami.

My riding and all of Scarborough is home to a significant population of South Asian immigrants. Even though they now call Ontario and Canada their home, they

still maintain strong connections to their roots, and in a time of desperate need they have come together to assist those affected by the tragedy. Truckloads of clothes and goods have been

collected and transported overseas. Thousands of dollars in contributions, which have been matched by our federal government, have been made to aid agencies working hard to this day, and our own

government provided an immediate infusion of $5 million to the relief effort.

All this generosity and sacrifice is a testament to how well our province values, nurtures and draws strength from our diversity. Diversity is our province's

greatest strength, and, as our Premier says, Ontario is a demonstration project for the world.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank those in my riding and those across the province who have contributed in any way to the tsunami relief effort.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I stand in the House today to raise an important issue: the lack of attention by the McGuinty Liberals to

community safety since their election in October 2003. Bills have been introduced by Minister Kwinter --

Interjection.

Mr. Dunlop: Very similar to agriculture, the lack of attention.

But none of these bills have been passed. None of these bills have received even one second of debate time in the Ontario Legislature: 17 months, and not one

second of debate. As community safety and corrections critic, I look forward to the opportunity to debate Bill 110, Bill 128 and Bill 159, but I don't think the government has any idea whatsoever

of bringing this forward.

Announcements have been made by Monte Kwinter, but almost every one of these announcements is what I like to call a zero-dollar announcement: It involves no

money whatsoever, but it sounds good. Take, for example, the Premier's announcement back in October. That's the one about adding 1,000 new police officers. Not only is there no dollar amount in it;

there's no mention of when we'll see even one of these new officers on the street. It appears that the McGuinty government has written off both the policing and firefighting communities, choosing

instead to focus on areas like bringing your own wine to restaurants.

Minister Kwinter's stalling tactics are starting to wear thin on the stakeholders for which he is responsible. These people are tired of being stuck at the back

of the bus when it comes to the priorities of the McGuinty government. So now that the House is back in session, let's hear some law-and-order bills debated, and let's hear some real announcements,

like adding the 1,000 new police officers that this government promised in their election platform.

TSUNAMI RELIEF

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I am pleased to bring to the attention of this House the excellent work of the Lord Mayor of

Niagara-on-the-Lake, Gary Burrows, through the community's annual Lord Mayor's fundraising dinner. Over the last 10 years, this event has raised over one quarter of a million dollars to support

such diverse groups as the Theatre Beyond Words, the Niagara-on-the-Lake Historical Society, the Royal Canadian Legion, their new community arena and many more projects.

This year's project that they are working on is in support of Niagara College students' efforts to showcase the college's school of hospitality and tourism as

they reach out to help the tourist area of Sri Lanka recover from the disastrous Christmas tsunami. The college's project involves sending a team of students to participate in the rebuilding of two

communities and their tourism infrastructure. With extensive experience and expertise in international development projects, Niagara College is uniquely equipped to assist victims of this

catastrophic event. The students will assist with hotel reconstruction, tourism development and environmental reconstruction plans.

I'm asking this House to join with me in wishing Lord Mayor Gary Burrows and the students of Niagara College, under the leadership of its energetic president,

Dan Patterson, much success in this exciting venture.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): A catastrophe has hit my fast-growing riding of Cambridge: The new wing and expansion of Cambridge Memorial

Hospital has again been postponed by the McGuinty government. This project was approved back in 2002, and the good people of Cambridge and the region of Waterloo have already contributed their

share of the project. The money is in the bank.

It is increasingly obvious that the McGuinty government has no health plan and that the expansion of Cambridge Memorial Hospital and about 35 other hospital

capital projects around Ontario will be postponed indefinitely.

The impact is severe. Our hospital is fast becoming crowded with the ever-expanding population. This means poor service. The lack of an expanded hospital will

make it increasingly difficult to attract new doctors to our city, compounding the severe shortage we have now.

We now know that this government is spending new health tax dollars and federal funds in non-health areas, contrary to its promises. I want to know when this

project will proceed and will fight for the new wing and expansion of Cambridge Memorial Hospital. This is what Cambridge deserves and this is what we were promised.

I demand that the McGuinty government re-examine its priorities and put health care at the top of its list. Premier McGuinty, do the right thing: Keep your

promises and restore capital funding for our hospitals in Ontario.

CHINESE NEW YEAR

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): As our Chinese community celebrates the beginning of the year 4702 of the lunar calendar, on behalf of

the New Democratic Party I'd like to extend our warmest wishes to our friends in the Chinese community for a happy, healthy and prosperous Year of the Rooster and to the many other cultures who are

also celebrating their lunar new year at this time.

I am proud to represent a riding with a strong Chinese presence. I'm also honoured to be invited year after year to celebrate the new year together with my

friends and neighbours at WoodGreen community centre; Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre; SEAS Centre; the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, East Toronto; other associations in the greater Chinese

community; and the seniors at Frances Beavis Manor, WoodGreen Seniors' Residence, Ray McCleary Towers, Greenwood Towers and Blair Court.

As the community celebrates its heritage and culture, we too have the opportunity and pleasure to celebrate the diversity and recognize the achievements of the

community.

The Year of the Rooster signifies a year of spirit and vigour. The sign of the rooster indicates a person who is hard-working, confident and unwavering. This

year, the roosters and the community can really crow about their accomplishments.

To all our friends who celebrate the lunar new year: Gong Hay Fat Choy.

Remarks in other Asian languages.

Happy New Year.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Our government is concerned about better health care, and we continue to take steps to achieve

shorter wait times for key services and more access for primary health care. Preventing illness and promoting wellness is key to keeping Ontarians productive workers and active citizens.

As part of our plan, we recently invested dollars to provide better patient care. We're improving patient care and employee health and safety by investing over

$340 million for new and upgraded medical equipment in hospitals and long-term-care homes. The residents in my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore are benefiting from these dollars.

In Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the Ivan Franko Home is receiving $93,500, and $50,700 is going to Garden Court Nursing Home. This investment will mean that the

residents of Etobicoke will have better access to the equipment they need and the care they deserve. Facilities like Westburn Manor, which received over $200,000, will now have the funding they

desperately need for diagnostic medical equipment, new lifts and education initiatives.

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit Ivan Franko Home, the Garden Court Nursing Home and Westburn Manor, and I know that these additional resources will be

put to great use to improve and expand the care residents receive.

Deana Bennett, the administrator for Garden Court Nursing Home, had this to say: "We are very excited about this announcement. This funding will directly improve

the quality of life for our residents." I could not agree more.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): The culture in our hospitals is changing, with hospitals making a concerted effort to find efficiencies and, for

the first time, looking at administrative, non-clinical cuts before simply slashing nursing jobs.

Government is doing things differently as well, for the first time encouraging and rewarding efficiency instead of simply propping up an unsustainable system.

Our bridge strategy will help reward and encourage innovation and efficiency and also address the needs of small rural hospitals. The steps we've taken have lowered the hospital cost curve, and

we'll continue to work to lower it further.

This process will stabilize the system and lead to predictable multi-year funding of the type that hospitals both need and have requested.

Our government has supported the Peterborough Regional Health Centre and we'll continue to work with them, with over $21 million invested in the Peterborough

area. We have committed to providing over $176 million toward building their new 500-bed facility. We have provided $15.6 million to the hospital, since forming government, for nurses, new

equipment and increases to base funding.

Today, there's a story in the Peterborough Examiner about how the CCAC and the hospital are working together to increase access to home care for patients who are

recovering from joint replacements. This reduces the stress on hospitals and allows them to focus on what they do best.

There are also new opportunities for family health teams and other health care initiatives in Peterborough to help ease the doctor shortage. With all the

different parts of the system working together, the future is looking brighter and brighter indeed for health care in Peterborough, not the sorry Tory version of running health care in Ontario like

the 407: a big rip-off.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I'd like to say something about John Tory's hidden health care agenda. Mr. Tory has criticized our plan to

improve public, universally accessible health care for all Ontarians. But when questioned about his health care plan, Tory is "short on concrete alternatives."

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): You had your chance to say your statement. Could I hear the member for Scarborough Centre?

Mr. Duguid: John Tory criticized our plan to improve public, universally accessible health care for all Ontarians. But when questioned about his

health care plan, Tory is "short on concrete alternatives." This is according to the Guelph Mercury.

The Guelph Mercury went on to say, "When reminded of specific Conservative policies under his predecessors Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, his stock answer was, `I

wasn't part of the decision-making in the past.'"

What a copout. He seems to have missed the fact that health care suffered its steepest decline on his party's watch.

Tory does have one thing in mind, however, and we all know what it is. He wants a for-profit, privatized, two-tier health care system. When he spoke to the

Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, Tory said this: "On the particular issue of non-governmental sector involvement in health care, I am aware of your position of being in favour of

non-profit health care, and this may be an area where we agree to disagree."

Can you believe that? I read that correctly. John Tory wants more for-profit health care, more privatized health care. It's coming out bit by bit in what he

says. We're paying attention, the people of Ontario are paying attention, and we're not going to let him --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Given that there has been no by-election called, I'd like to ask for

unanimous consent to --

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

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): We have with us in the gallery today Mr. Murad Velshi, a former member of provincial Parliament representing

the riding of Don Mills. He was in the 34th Parliament. Let's join in welcoming him this afternoon.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR DUFFERIN-PEEL-WELLINGTON-GREY

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that during the adjournment a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by

reason of the resignation of Ernie Eves as member for the electoral district of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, effective February 1, 2005.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could I have some order, please?

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): On December 16, 2004, the member for Whitby-Ajax, Mr. Flaherty, rose on a question of privilege to allege that

ministry political staff had made unauthorized audio tapings of briefings given by civil servants to opposition members and their staff. The member claimed that the actions amounted to a breach of

the privileges of individual members and of the House and that they also amounted to a contempt of the House. The member for Erie-Lincoln, Mr. Hudak, the member for Burlington, Mr. Jackson, the

member for Niagara Centre, Mr. Kormos, the member for Toronto-Danforth, Ms. Churley, and the member for Timmins-James Bay, Mr. Bisson, also spoke on the matter.

According to the member for Whitby-Ajax and the member for Erie-Lincoln, the taping of the briefings they attended was conducted openly. According to the

member for Burlington, the taping of the briefing he attended was conducted without his knowledge or consent.

The government House leader, Mr. Duncan, and the Minister of Finance, Mr. Sorbara, responded to the allegations.

I've had an opportunity to review the Hansard for December 16 as well as the assembly's precedents and the relevant parliamentary authorities.

Members made submissions on various legal matters, on access to information, on freedom of speech, on intimidation and obstruction, and on the authority and

dignity of the House and its members. I shall address each issue in turn.

First, with respect to the legal issues, the member for Whitby-Ajax indicated that

section 184 of the federal Criminal Code "has prohibitions with respect to

tape recording and other interception of private communications...." In addition, the member for Burlington indicated that the Speaker should examine certain ministry legal opinions that would

assist the Speaker in making a ruling on the question of privilege.

In response, I have to say that the Speaker cannot deal with legal issues in a ruling or give legal advice concerning the laws of Canada; courts are better

equipped to address such matters. For examples of the many Speakers' rulings that stand as authority for this proposition, I refer members to rulings by Speaker Stockwell on January 28, 1997 -- at

page 6538 of the Hansard for that day -- and again on February 26, 1997 -- at pages 510 and 511 of the Journals for that day -- and a ruling by Speaker Carr on April 30, 2001 -- at page 36 of the

Journals for that day. Speakers have avoided addressing legal issues in rulings. It follows, therefore, that examining legal opinions is not necessary in order to determine whether a prima facie

case of privilege has been established.

The second issue raised by the question of privilege deals with members' access to government information that is provided by the civil service. Various

members indicated that they have a right to such information and that the government cannot specify how civil service briefings are to be provided to members.

Let me begin my response to this submission by indicating that there are two kinds of parliamentary privilege. There is a set of individual privileges; for

example, freedom of speech and freedom from arrest in civil actions. There is another set of collective privileges that belong to the House as a whole; for example, the power to discipline, the

regulation of its own internal affairs, and the right to institute inquiries.

Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 71 that "the rights, privileges and immunities of individual members of the

House are finite, that is to say, they can be enumerated but not extended except by statute or, in some cases, by constitutional amendment, and can be examined by the courts." In other words, the

Speaker cannot create a brand new privilege where none now exists.

My review of our precedents and the parliamentary authorities suggests that there is no discrete category of parliamentary privilege that accords to members a

right to information from the government or civil servants. I note, for example, that at page 427 of the Journals for December 13, 2000, Speaker Carr ruled on a question of privilege dealing with

allegedly intimidating information on a government Web site, as follows:

"The right of members to government information is limited to what the standing orders provide. The standing orders do not provide members with a right to

information, reliable or otherwise, from a government Web site."

I do not want to leave the impression that members cannot access information. On the contrary, the standing orders give members certain rights to seek and

receive information, and the Speaker has the duty to uphold those rights as a matter of order. However, an entitlement to a ministry briefing is not one of these rights.

This brings me to the third issue, freedom of speech, which is related to the previous issue because, according to various members, their right to government

information is a component of members' freedom of speech. On this issue, the member for Burlington said the following:

"My freedom of speech, my voice in Parliament, and, by extension, the voice of my constituents on the floor of this Legislature is predicated on my ability and

my right to access information that the government is obliged under the law to share, and public servants take an oath in order to uphold that."

In response, let me say that members of this House do enjoy freedom of speech, which is often said to be the most important of members' individual privileges.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, page 74, that "freedom of speech permits members to speak freely in the chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoying

complete immunity from prosecution for any comment they might make."

The same text indicates at page 71 that "privilege does not exist `at large' but applies only in context, which usually means within the confines of the

parliamentary precinct and a `proceeding in Parliament.'"

In the case at hand, the briefings did not revolve around words spoken by members in the House or in one of its committees. The briefings, then, are not

parliamentary events capable of being protected by the privilege of freedom of speech. For this, let me add that members were able to exercise their freedom of speech and hold the government to

account on this incident because, in the question period that followed immediately after the question of privilege on this incident, they were able to place oral questions about the very same

subject matter.

The fourth issue raised in the question of privilege deals with the allegation that the taping of the briefings amounted to an attempt to intimidate and

obstruct members and the civil service. In response, let me say that the obstruction and intimidation of members in the exercise of their parliamentary duties is a matter of contempt. Erskine May

states at page 128 of the 23rd edition the following:

"Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or

impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt even though there is

no precedent of the offence."

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 84 that "Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its members free

from intimidation, obstruction and interference," and that, quoting a ruling by Speaker Lamoureux, "parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a

member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation."

The same authority at page 84 refers to a 1986 ruling by Speaker Bosley of the Canadian House of Commons, where he indicates that for there to be a prima facie

case, "the threat or attempt at intimidation cannot be hypothetical, but must be real or have occurred."

It also indicates at pages 91 and 92 as follows: "In some cases where prima facie privilege has not been found, the rulings have focused on whether or not the

parliamentary duties of the member were directly involved. While frequently noting that members raising such matters might have legitimate complaints, Speakers have regularly concluded that members

have not been prevented from performing their parliamentary duties."

In our own assembly, I note that on June 19, 2001, Speaker Carr made the following ruling dealing with freedom of information requests by opposition members:

"I understand that the member for Niagara Centre and the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London contended that their effectiveness as members of provincial Parliament was being compromised by delays in

receiving information that they had requested from the government. However, it is very clear to me that the government's management process on contentious issues did not obstruct the members in

their strictly parliamentary duties in this chamber."

Thus, while I do agree that ministry briefings enable members to carry out their parliamentary duties in this House and its committees, the tenor of the

authorities I have just referred to suggests that the briefings themselves do not amount to a parliamentary proceeding.

Furthermore, in respect of the alleged conduct in the case at hand, the member for Erie-Lincoln made a helpful reference to a 1984 ruling from the Canadian

House of Commons. In that case, Speaker Francis had ruled that a prima facie case was established when a member alleged that his office had received threats and insults in an abusive telephone call

from an employee of a crown corporation, because the member had not pre-cleared with the employee an oral question that he had placed to a government minister on the previous day. In the case at

hand, however, no member alleges that this kind of threatening language was uttered. I note that the member for Erie-Lincoln refers to the taping as an "implied threat"; he also indicates that at

one of the briefings a tape recorder was turned off when objection was taken to its use. In other words, there does not appear to have been a real, overt or demonstrated threat.

As for the allegation that civil servants were being intimidated or obstructed, there is no evidence to support the allegation. In any event, while there are

rare circumstances when civil servants are entitled to the protection of parliamentary privilege, for example, when testifying before a committee of the House, such circumstances do not exist in

the case at hand.

The fifth and final issue, raised by the member for Burlington and the member for Niagara Centre, was that the taping of the briefing was inherently offensive

to the authority and dignity of the House and its members.

In response, let me first refer to the applicable authorities. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 52 as follows: "Any conduct which offends

the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be

an act or an omission; it

does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a member, it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results."

In addition, Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada states, at page 250 of the second edition, the following: "There are actions that, while not directly

in a physical way obstructing the House of Commons or the member, nevertheless obstruct the House in the performance of its functions by diminishing the respect due it. As in the case of a court of

law, the House of Commons is entitled to the utmost respect...."

In the case at hand, given that the briefings were not parliamentary events, a prima facie case of contempt of the House on the basis that the tapings were an

offence to the inherent authority and dignity of the House is not established.

Although I find that neither a prima facie case of privilege nor a prima facie case of contempt has been established, I do not want to leave the impression

that the government of the day should do as it pleases when it comes to providing information to members of this House. The government is entitled to establish reasonable ground rules for briefings

that it sponsors or provides. In some instances, Speakers of this assembly have not intervened when a member has complained about the denial of access to government information or about the

government's imposition of certain conditions concerning a briefing. In other instances, however, Speakers have stated that the member who raised the matter had a grievance or complaint of which

the government should take note.

I am inclined to take the latter approach in the case at hand. When it comes to electronically recording information, members, like most people, have a

heightened sense of awareness or concern because of the purposes to which the recording could be used. In retrospect, it would have been prudent for the government to predict or better address the

concerns of members attending the briefings. In any event, it is unlikely that there will be another occasion on which similar concerns will be raised, because the Premier has indicated that the

practice of taping briefings given to opposition members is not acceptable and that it will be discontinued.

In closing, I thank the member for Whitby-Ajax, the member for Erie-Lincoln, the member for Burlington, the member for Niagara Centre, the government House

leader, the Minister of Finance, the member for Toronto-Danforth and the member for Timmins-James Bay for their thoughtful and helpful submissions on this matter. Thank you.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In an unusual moment, I'd like to welcome, in the east gallery, the president of the

The Speaker: Order. I suggested before the adjournment of the House that those who want to introduce anyone should pass it through the

Speaker. I'd much prefer that.

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I just have a quick question for you. Has your clock been cleaned in

the interim?

The Speaker: Thanks for your observation. It has been cleaned and repaired.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that during the adjournment the Clerk received the report on intended appointments

dated January 11, 2005, from the standing committee on government agencies, pursuant to standing order 106(e)9.

The report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and move its

adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 132,

An Act to amend the Dog Owners' Liability Act to increase public safety in relation to dogs, including pit bulls, and to make related amendments to

the Animals for Research Act / Projet de loi 132, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la responsabilité des propriétaires de chiens pour accroître la sécurité publique

relativement aux chiens, y compris les pit-bulls, et apportant des modifications connexes à la

Loi sur les animaux destinés à la recherche.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1410 to 1415.

The Speaker: Mr. Delaney has moved the adoption of Bill 132. Will all those in favour please rise one at a time to be identified by the

Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kular, Kuldip

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise one at a time to be identified by the Clerk.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Dunlop, Garfield

Flaherty, Jim

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 61; the nays are 25.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its

adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 135,

An Act to establish a greenbelt area and to make consequential amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the Oak Ridges

Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 and the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 / Projet de loi 135, Loi établissant la zone de la ceinture de verdure et apportant des modifications

corrélatives à la

Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement de l'escarpement du Niagara, à la Loi de 2001 sur la conservation de la moraine d'Oak Ridges et à la Loi de 1994

sur la planification et l'aménagement du territoire de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice

regarding committees.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent to put forward this motion? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I move that notwithstanding the order of the House dated Thursday, June 17, 2004, regarding the

schedule for committee

meetings, the standing committee on public accounts may meet at the call of the Chair on Thursday, February 17, Thursday, February 24, and Thursday, March 3, 2005.

The Speaker: Mr. Duncan moves that notwithstanding the order of the House dated Thursday, June 17, 2004, regarding the

schedule for committee

meetings, the standing committee on public accounts may meet at the call of the Chair on Thursday, February 17, Thursday, February 24, and Thursday, March 3, 2005.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice

regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Is there unanimous consent for the member to put forward -- agreed? The government House leader.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I move that Mr. Racco and Mr. Wong exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr. Racco assumes ballot item 72 and Mr.

Wong assumes ballot item 50.

The Speaker: Mr. Duncan moves that notwithstanding standing order 96 (d) --

Interjections: Dispense.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move that pursuant to standing order 9 (c)(i), the House

shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 15, 2005, and Wednesday, February 16, 2005, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Mr. Duncan has moved government notice of motion 299. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion

carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1423 to 1428.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be counted.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Chudleigh, Ted

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Flaherty, Jim

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise one at a time.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 82; the nays are 7.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

MINISTER'S LETTER

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I brought to your attention a point of privilege on the last day before

the House rose, and I'd like to present my arguments at this point in time. I rise, pursuant to standing order 21, on a point of privilege, as I mentioned, with respect to which I gave notice in

writing earlier today and brought to your attention on the last day of the last session. You may recall that I raised this matter and indicated that I would file the necessary documents regarding a

contempt of this Legislature by the Minister of Education.

I quote from the 22nd edition of Erskine May, which explains the concept of contempt in the following terms: On page 108, Erskine May indicates, "Generally

speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the

discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence. It is therefore

impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to a contempt, the power to punish for such an offence being of its nature discretionary."

It goes on, on page 117, to state, "Indignities offered to the House by words spoken or writings published reflecting on its character or proceedings have

been" constantly "punished by both the Lords and the Commons upon the principle that such acts tend to obstruct the Houses in the performance of their functions by diminishing the respect due to

them."

On page 120, we read, "Other acts besides words spoken or writings published reflecting upon either House or its proceedings which, though they do not tend

directly to obstruct or impede either House in the performance of its functions, yet have a tendency to produce this result indirectly by bringing such House into odium, contempt or ridicule or by

lowering its authority may constitute contempts."

I offer a further definition of contempt from Marleau, edition 2000, in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice. It states, "Any conduct which offends the

authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt...."

On November 29, 2004, the Minister of Education wrote a letter addressed to school board chairs and directors and sent copies of that letter to members of the

Ontario Teachers' Federation. In that letter, he stated that the government will fund salary increases for all education workers "of 2% for 2004-05, 2% for 2005-06 and, for four-year agreements,

2.5% in 2006-07 and 3% in 2007-08."

Further, in the same letter, the minister states that the boards would be guaranteed multi-year funding "once they enter into either a two- or four-year

agreement."

On December 7, 2004, the Minister of Education held a press conference. He issued a press release at that time to publicly announce the new set of guidelines

that had been outlined to school boards and unions across the province a week previously.

This was raised during question period in the Legislature on December 15, 2004. The Minister of Education was at that time asked how he could outline the

government's plan in a written letter and a public announcement without, at the very least, first introducing legislation that would in fact permit those actions.

On December 16, 2004, the Minister of Education, apparently realizing that he had shown disrespect for members of the Legislature and the legislative and

democratic process, introduced Bill 167. That was the act to repeal and re-enact

section 277.11 of the Education Act.

That announcement was brought forward in such a way as to lead the public, and the stakeholders to whom it was directed, into believing that all that was

required was a minor regulatory change, or in fact that the government was already acting with the necessary legislative authority, which would allow school boards to begin negotiating four-year

contracts with their local unions. It also led the public and the stakeholders to believe that the government could simply dictate the salary increases for each of the four years.

Whether or not the government indeed has the authority to overrule and interfere with the collective bargaining process is a debate for another day. I do note

that the OSSTF has taken exception to this action and has filed a labour board complaint against this minister as directly interfering with the bargaining process.

Speaker, I submit to you that these actions constitute a matter of contempt of the Legislature. It occurs in two separate and distinct ways, and we ask the

Speaker to rule on both.

First, the minister anticipated legislation that had not yet been introduced to the House, and he presumed that when introduced, it would in fact be approved

by the Legislature.

Second, the minister anticipated the budget and presumed that the budgetary measures required to fund his announcement -- which upon further calculation would

amount to in excess of $1 billion over and above the current education budget, to fund the announcement that he made.

The government cannot in fact fund four-year contracts because

section 277.11 of the Education Act states very clearly that collective agreements shall be for

a term of three years. We can only conclude, therefore, that in making his announcement on December 7, 2004, the minister was in fact aware that existing legislation precludes the very negotiations

that he directed the school boards and the unions to undertake. Nevertheless, he chose to ignore that legislation until the 16th day of December, when he finally introduced Bill 167.

While government announcements on legislative activity regularly occur on the day that legislation is introduced, this was a full nine days from the date of

the public announcement and 17 days from the date on the letter to the school boards and to the teachers' federations.

In fact, previous Speakers have ruled that announcements may indeed take place outside the Legislature. On February 1, 1983, Speaker Turner stated, "Although

it is a courtesy to the assembly for a minister to release information in the assembly before releasing it to the press or the public, it is not a breach of the privilege ... of the assembly if

this does not happen."

One would think that Speaker Turner at that time could not have conceived of an occasion where the minister would contact stakeholder groups 17 days in advance

and make a ministerial announcement nine days in advance of the introduction of enabling legislation.

The language of Minister Kennedy's announcement is specific. It does not contain a qualifying or conditional statement such as, "If passed, the legislation

will allow," but states unequivocally that the government "will fund." That's a direct quote from his letter. The contempt by this minister, I submit, is that he presupposed legislation that had

not even been introduced to the House for full debate and he presumed that honourable members here would approve the legislation. In fact, he rushed the legislation into the House to avoid a

contempt motion, as he was advised by the official opposition on the previous day that his actions and statements could not be achieved under the current, existing legislation.

Had the legislation been introduced on December 7, the minister would be in contempt, because his announcement still presupposed and presumed the passage of

the legislation. His letter to the boards of education dated November 30, 2004, instructing the boards and federations to proceed is full indication of this. The minister presupposes and prejudges

the results of the Legislature by his actions.

Other Speakers have ruled that contempt of the Legislature occurred in similar circumstances. Speaker Fraser, on September 25, 1989, chastised the government

over advertising that presupposed the passage of the GST. He stated:

"This advertisement may not be a contempt of the House in the narrow confines of a procedural definition, but it is, in my opinion, ill conceived and it does a

great disservice to the great traditions of this place. If we do not preserve these great traditions, our freedoms are at peril and our conventions become a mockery. I insist, and I believe that I

am supported by the majority of moderate and responsible members on both sides of the House, that this ad is objectionable and should never be repeated."

On March 28, 1994, Speaker Warner, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, stated:

"On Monday of last week, the member for Nepean (Mr Daigeler) rose in the House on a question of privilege concerning an advertisement that had appeared in

certain newspapers in the Ottawa-Carleton area." These advertisements were about Bill 77, which was before the House at that time at first reading -- "remarks which can be interpreted as suggesting

that the bill would become law by a specified time even though the bill had only received first reading."

Mr. Warner goes on to say that he had reviewed the ad that appeared on February 8, 1994, in the issue of the Ottawa Citizen in light of parliamentary

authorities. He then refers to Speaker Fraser and states the following:

"In the course of ruling that there was no case for breach of privilege or for contempt, Speaker Fraser of the House of Commons found that the advertisements"

that were referred to in the federal House "were essentially informational in nature and that there was no intention to infringe the privileges of the House."

He states finally: "In view of these rulings and ... careful consideration of the present circumstances, I find that a prima facie case has not been made

out.

"However, I want to say to the minister that this action has come very close to contempt, and in the future the minister should exercise more caution and

exhibit greater respect for the proprieties of this House."

Finally, Speaker Stockwell, in Hansard, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, January 22, 1997, when presented with a very similar situation, ruled on his concern

related to wording of government documents, stating as follows:

"I am very concerned by the ministry pamphlet, which was worded more definitely than the commercial and the press release. To name but a few examples, the

brochure claims that `new city wards will be created,' that `work on building the new city will start in 1997,' and that `the new city of Toronto will reduce the number of municipal

politicians.'"

Speaker Stockwell's concerns are the same as mine, as I raise this point of contempt. He goes on to state in his ruling:

"How is one to interpret such unqualified claims? In my opinion, they convey the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was not necessary or

was a foregone conclusion, or that the assembly and the Legislature had a pro forma, tangential, even inferior role in the legislative and lawmaking process, and in doing so, they appear to

diminish the respect that is due to this House. I would not have come to this view had these claims or proposals -- and that is all they are -- been qualified by a statement that they would only

become law if and when the Legislature gave its stamp of approval to them...."

"Considering the fact that Speaker Warner issued this very stern warning to the very ministry that I am dealing with today," Speaker Stockwell goes on to say,

"I would consider this ministry to have been given fair warning.

"It is not enough for yet another Speaker to issue yet another warning or caution in circumstances where the wording and circulation of the pamphlet appear on

their face to cross the line. I say in all candour that a reader of that document could be left with an incorrect impression about how parliamentary democracy works in Ontario, an impression that

undermines respect for our parliamentary institutions.

"For these reasons, I find that a prima facie case of contempt has been established."

The November 29 letter written by the minister to the boards of education does not state that the legislation, if passed, will provide for four-year collective

agreements. The letter states, under the heading of "Multi-Year Funding Guarantee," "We want to make clear that multi-year funding is guaranteed at the above levels to all boards once they enter

into either a two- or four-year agreement."

Under a further subheading, entitled "Stability Terms," the minister advises that "the government intends to introduce legislation to change existing mandated

three-year terms to two- and four-year terms for all teacher agreements."

Nowhere in this letter telling the boards to begin working on four-year collective agreements does it state that the enabling legislation, if passed -- nowhere

is there that qualification. It says simply that the government will introduce legislation. It gives no timetable for such an introduction and certainly gives no indication that it must be approved

by this Legislature. It counsels school boards to begin negotiations in contravention of the Education Act which was in force at the time the minister wrote the letter and is still in force

today.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that when you consider the actions of the Minister of Education in the matter before you, you must find that his actions have

similarly undermined respect for the role of honourable members in this House and have indeed left the public and stakeholders of the ministry confused about how parliamentary democracy works.

The second contempt by this minister occurs when he announces future spending by this government. I quote from his letter to the school boards and directors of

education dated November 29, 2004: "2% for 2005-06 and for four-year agreements, 2.5% in 2006-07 and 3% in 2007-08."

The letter goes on to say that "funding is guaranteed at the above levels to all boards, once they enter into either a two- or four-year agreement."

The minister is anticipating future budgets not yet introduced or even contemplated until the spring of 2005. Recently the Minister of Finance himself said

that he would not speculate on what is in the budget when asked if he would raise taxes. How, then, can this minister not only speculate but guarantee specific funding to school boards?

The precedent for this is the Carr ruling against the government of the day for presenting its entire budget outside the Legislature and in advance of tabling

of same. While this is not a budget, it is a future budget item and the parallel is exactly the same.

Legislatures have long held the privilege of reviewing and debating all government expenditures and revenues, and they expect it. The tradition goes back

centuries where the crown appears before the Commons to beg leave for the raising of taxes and expenditures in the person of the minister of the crown.

Speaker Carr stated on May 4, in a ruling citing many references, "Ontarians are rather fond of their traditional parliamentary institutions and parliamentary

processes, and they want greater deference to be shown towards the traditional parliamentary forum in which public policies are proposed, debated and voted on.... A mature parliamentary democracy

is not a docile, esoteric or one-way communications vehicle; it is a dynamic, interactive and representative institution that allows the government of the day to propose and defend its policies --

financial and otherwise. It also allows the opposition to scrutinize and hold the government to account for those policies. It is an open, working and relevant system of scrutiny and

accountability. If any members of this House have a problem with the concept of parliamentary democracy, then they have some serious explaining to do."

Finally, in coming to his ruling, Speaker Carr poses several questions, one of which stands out and is particularly apt in this case: "If left unchallenged,

will this incident not embolden future governments to create parallel, extra-parliamentary processes for other kinds of events that traditionally occur in the House?"

He then wonders to what extent the process undermines "the representative, scrutiny and accountability functions of Parliament."

In his response to Speaker Carr's ruling and speaking in the ensuing debate in this House, the current Minister of Education, who was then the education

critic, stated the following: "Why is this room at all special? Why do the people who come here have any rights on behalf of the rest of the people of Ontario? Why do we have people who arrive in

pointed hats and a Speaker sitting in a chair? Because there is something in this room that is bigger than our individual concerns, the political parties that employ us, the petty agendas we

sometimes can fall prey to. That's this place." He goes on in the course of his remarks to state how important this place is, and the procedures and the rights of individuals to have an opportunity

to vote on these issues.

The minute that we make light of this place, the minute that a minister of the crown presumes the actions of the Legislature, that is the point at which we not

only lose the respect of our constituents who have sent us here to do the business of government, but we undermine the very premise of this place.

Speaker, I would ask you to consider seriously the matters that I have put before you and to rule in favour of the argument that I make that will in fact

establish and re-establish the important role that we, as legislators, have in this place and that will ensure that no ministers of the crown of any government would ever conduct themselves the way

this minister has done.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): On the same point, the government House leader.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've had the opportunity over the recess to review

the appropriate correspondence and I would like to address the member's point of privilege at some length today, to ensure that you have a number of other rulings in your possession and have all of

the information that will be important to your decision.

I would, first of all, like to address the correspondence in question, which I have reviewed at great length. I'd like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the

purpose of the letter is very clear in its intent from the beginning. It states, "I am pleased to write to you today to convey information about ways the ministry wants to bring more support and

more clarity to school board spending decisions in this school year." The letter goes on to say -- and I think this is important to note, as the member did note -- "As you know, since coming to

office, our government has increased education funding by $1.1 billion."

The Speaker: Order. I'd just like the member to respond to the point of privilege. It's not a speech to the audience here. Could you please

Hon. Mr. Duncan: This goes to the intent of the letter and the wording in the letter, because the member raised in his point the conditional

nature of the verbs that he alleges weren't used. In fact, a number of conditional verbs and the conditional tense were used throughout the letter. So I will go on to refer to the other ones,

then.

Again, "the ministry wants to bring more support and more clarity to school board spending decisions in this school year and beyond." Again, the letter uses

words like "intends," "proposes," "wants," and concludes by expressing the minister's hope for feedback. We want feedback to these items and to these initiatives. The tone is certainly not

definitive, and it neither indicates a presumption of passage, nor does it dismiss the Legislature's superior role.

Further, the target audience for this correspondence is limited to the stakeholders who would be affected by this legislation, not the general public.

Stakeholders need not only to be consulted, but also to be made aware of the proposed changes.

I refer to Speaker Carr's ruling on September 25, 2000, and let me begin again by giving context to that particular ruling. The then assistant Deputy Minister

of Education sent out a memorandum to directors of education across the province on a bill that was currently before a standing committee of the Legislature. It was argued that the terminology used

in the memo was definitive on the outcome of the bill in committee and in the House.

Mr. Speaker Carr ruled that it did not constitute a prima facie case of contempt or a violation of members' privileges on three grounds: First, he ruled that

the audience was not, strictly speaking, a public one, which is the same as the current case we are now considering. Secondly, he ruled that the group involved needed to commence plans to implement

the proposed changes, even if only on a contingency basis. Finally, Mr. Speaker Carr ruled that the Ministry of Education was obliged to share proposed changes with their partners in education to

ensure that prudent planning would take place. I believe the same logic applied to that ruling should apply to this situation.

Next, I refer you to a ruling in the House of Commons on October 10, 1989, concerning government advertising that suggested certain fiscal measures, which had

yet to be passed by the House, would become law. Speaker Fraser of the House of Commons found that the advertisements were essentially informational in nature and that there was no intention to

infringe on the privileges of the House. I would submit that the correspondence in question was informational in nature, too. This government consults, this government is transparent, this

government wants to work with the people in the education sector, unlike previous governments.

Further, I refer to Speaker Carr's ruling on June 25, 2001. In this case, a private member issued a press release which advised his intention to introduce a

bill. It was argued the release implied not only that the bill had already been introduced, but also that the bill was law and binding on the government. Speaker Carr ruled that in no way was the

ability of members to continue debate on the issue affected.

Speaker, I see no basis for the member's point of privilege. The tone of the correspondence does not presume the passage of the legislation, but instead seeks

feedback and allows for planning. As illustrated in numerous precedents, in no way are the members' privileges compromised. This point of privilege, in our view, was an inappropriate use of the

Legislature's time today.

The Speaker: Thank you. Further response on the same point of privilege?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): On the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I appreciate very much the contribution from the

learned House leader on the points of process, and I would add only two small points of relevant context, which would be that, in the Ministry of Education, there is ample precedent for giving

boards an indication ahead of time of where funding is coming from. For example, the previous government made promises both through the budget and subsequent communications for three-year funding,

and all our government has done is express an intent based on the budget, and at the time of the budget we had already made this indication. In fact, if you look at the budget tables, it supports

multi-year funding to different ministries, including the Ministry of Education. I would submit that that should be separated out from any note of complaint from the member opposite.

Further, I would just note that the previous government did set a term in legislation for contracts, but I would just ask you to be aware that the term has a

certain application. In other words, it does not apply to all the contents of the contract, and the labour act and other pieces of legislation actually supersede anything that is in the Education

Act having to do with that. So in fact boards are required to enter into terms that last for three years, but the actual contents don't have to match those three-year terms. All I'm saying to you

is that the audience for this particular communication, information about the government's intent, was aware of those kinds of sophisticated elements and it would put all of the information in

context.

Finally, I would just say that there have been a number of occasions when the member opposite has been trying to impute motive or assign motive for various

actions. All I would say is that our motive was very clear, and expressed in the communications that we intended to introduce on the appropriate legislation. We did that; we did exactly what we

said we would do in that respect, and we are contributing thereby to the better functioning of education and labour peace in that sector.

The Speaker: I want to thank the member from Oak Ridges for giving me notice of the point of privilege. I'll take this under consideration and

get back to you. I want to thank the Minister of Education and also the government House leader for their contribution toward this. I will get back to you as soon as possible on this matter.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm seeking unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the standing orders,

there be one hour dedicated to question period today.

The Speaker: You're raising a point of order --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order -- and I'm trying to address it. Do we have unanimous consent for the extension of time?

I heard a no.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm delighted today to rise in this chamber to talk about some of the

important steps we're taking to improve access to quality health care for all Ontarians.

Health care is of course a priority for this government, as it is a priority for all Ontarians. In the past 15 months or so, we've taken great strides in

transforming a system that has been badly neglected and mismanaged under the Tories. The health care system we inherited did not have enough doctors or nurses. Wait times were long, and getting

longer. Equipment was too old. As a result, Ontarians did not have access to the level and quality of care that is theirs by right of citizenship in this province. We're changing that.

My colleagues have heard me speak many times about the need to drive health care into the community, to improve the front-line primary care that is the key to

a high-quality, sustainable health care system, and we have made unprecedented investments in community-based health care in order to relieve the pressures on our hospitals, freeing them up to

provide the kind of acute care they alone can. These investments are also ensuring that wherever possible, patients receive the care where they need it most: closer to their communities and their

homes.

Today I had the pleasure of announcing another investment that will help to accomplish those things. We're investing $1.6 million to provide our 49 community

health centres across Ontario with new diagnostic equipment, everything from examination tables to electrocardiograms. The funding comes from the diagnostic and medical equipment fund that was made

available to Ontario as part of the 2003-04 federal, provincial and territorial agreements. As members are well aware, Premier McGuinty was instrumental in negotiating the second of those at the

2004 first ministers' meeting.

Community health centres perform a unique and critically important function in our health care system. They offer services to people who otherwise might have

difficulty receiving health care, people who face barriers such as language, culture, physical disabilities, homelessness, poverty or geographic isolation. CHCs feature doctors, nurses, nurse

practitioners, social workers and other health care professionals working together as a team, because health care, that most human of endeavours, is best when it's delivered by a team.

CHCs represent the kind of approach that we are expanding upon throughout Ontario, a new model called family health teams. The investment I am announcing today

will help equip these teams with the tools they need to continue to offer the very best health care services to Ontario communities. This is just the latest in a series of investments we've been

making, designed to improve Ontarians' access to health care by ensuring that our front-line professionals have the most up-to-date, modern technology so that they can deliver the best possible

care.

Earlier this month, we announced more than $120 million to reduce wait times by increasing the number of MRIs and CT scans, cardiac diagnostic procedures and

cancer radiation treatments. In all, as a result of that investment, we are delivering 119,865 additional critical procedures. With the combination of these new MRIs that we brought to hospitals,

the hours that we expanded at existing MRIs and the upgraded MRIs we announced a few weeks ago, our government has increased access to MRI services in this province by 19.3%. A week later, we

announced another investment of $340 million in new and upgraded medical equipment for hospitals and long-term-care homes -- and some of those went to Trinity-Spadina -- everything from patient

lifts to X-ray machines to whirlpool baths. I'm sure it will interest my colleagues to know that our investments this year represent the single largest investment in diagnostic and medical

equipment in this country's history.

We're acting to ensure that Ontarians receive the care that they need in the right place, in a timely manner, and that modern, up-to-date therapy, services and

equipment are on hand for the proper delivery of that care. We are acting, and we are going to continue to act. In the weeks to come, we will be announcing further investments in medical equipment

at the community level.

Now, the common theme running through all of these announcements is improved access to the best possible care in our hospitals and in our communities.

Ontarians should not have to wait too long for the health care services that they need, and when they receive those services, they should have the confidence that they're getting the very best.

This is, quite simply, our government's plan for health care, and with every new investment, with every progressive initiative, we are moving to improve health care services for the 12 million

Ontarians we're proud to serve.

FOOD SAFETY

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): As you know, the McGuinty government is committed to protecting the health and safety of

Ontario's citizens. Food safety is, and will continue to be, one of our number one priorities. That's why we brought meat inspectors back into the public service. That's why we introduced a new

health and safety system for small and medium-sized food processors. That's why we commissioned Justice Roland Haines to conduct a review of Ontario's meat inspection system in January 2004.

Justice Haines's extensive work culminated in a report that was submitted in July of last year, and we are committed to acting on his recommendations.

So I am pleased to announce that last week we took another step to better protect Ontarians' health by proclaiming the Food Safety and Quality Act and

promulgating a new, stronger meat safety regulation under the act. By doing this, we have fulfilled Justice Haines's very first recommendation and responded to several others. The Food Safety and

Quality Act is enabling legislation that enhances the provincial government's capacity to maintain high standards of food safety, protect consumer health and, most importantly, increase the

marketability of Ontario products.

This government has acted to proclaim this regulation, and it will give substance to the new regulation. The previous government did not see the importance of

making this happen.

As recommended by Justice Haines, the new meat inspection regulation is strengthened, broader in scope than the previous legislation, and is harmonized with

national standards.

The regulation will be phased in to ensure that the requirements protect public health and safety; that means providing information and training to the

industry regarding its responsibilities and making sure that the government has enough fully trained staff.

We will be consulting with the health, animal welfare, environment, meat industry, and agri-food sectors.

We are providing over $25 million in transitional funds, over three years, for the meat industry to assist processors in meeting the requirements of the new

regulation.

We want to ensure that the meat industry is provided with enough time and support to be able to comply with the regulation without unnecessary disruption. By

June 1, 2005, provincially licensed abattoirs and large free-standing meat processors will be subject to the new regulation. All free-standing meat processors will need to comply by October 1,

The people of Ontario will benefit from new, stronger meat safety standards. They will rest assured that the meat they eat is safe. Ontario's meat industry

will also benefit from the new regulation, as consumer confidence in their products is strengthened.

As Justice Haines indicated, Ontario has a good food safety system. We are committed to making it a world-class system.

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): When I heard that the Minister of Health was coming into the House to make a statement, I was encouraged.

I thought he would be standing in his place and talking about a solution to the crisis in Ontario for a number of patients with Fabry disease. In Ottawa, we have a very serious case where a woman

is in dire circumstances. She has missed two treatments now. I thought the minister would be standing in his place in this House and would be doing the right thing.

Enzyme replacement therapy was first promised to patients by the minister last summer. Coverage is provided in 40 other countries, including the United States,

but is not here in Ontario, where it should be recognized as a life-saving treatment. This life-saving treatment is no longer being provided to patients. There's one patient in the west end of the

city of Ottawa who is now at risk of stroke and kidney failure, and she's not the only one. Literally tens of thousands of people in Ottawa are now responding to this woman's plight. CFRA radio has

made this a huge priority.

I want to give notice to this minister that Conservatives in this Parliament will be fighting on behalf of the patient in Ottawa and patients right across

Ontario. He was warned for months and months that it would be this way by Elizabeth Witmer, who raised this issue time and time again. Unfortunately, it's getting worse, not better.

I would have thought the Minister of Health would have been rising to apologize for what he is doing to nurses in the province of Ontario.

Look at what the Ontario Nurses' Association has to say about this government: "The McGuinty government has done a 180-degree turn from its stated commitment

during the election to protect patient care and hire 8,000 full-time ... nurses." Who said that? The president of the Ontario Nurses' Association.

She says that "Nurses believe they are being used as pawns" by this government. "They no longer believe this government is committed to restoring nursing care,

protecting patients and making positive changes in nurses' working lives." What does the Ontario Nurses' Association say? They say, "Layoffs will deeply affect patient care."

When this minister was questioned about the 2,000 nurses who were going to be laid off, he simply said, "Oh, it's only 757 nurses who will be laid off." That's

a shame.

Ontario nurses, Ontario Conservatives and Ontario patients want to know where the $9.5 billion in missing money from their new health tax and from the federal

government are going.

FOOD SAFETY

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'd like to commend the Minister of Agriculture and Food for announcing that he is going to do something to help

reassure the consumers of Ontario about the quality of our food and to make food even safer in the province, and I think all of us in this Legislature and in fact all of the people in the province

would support that.

I was a little concerned with his announcement. He didn't include anything about the fact I mentioned to him before Christmas as to what he was going to do if

there is a work stoppage in the civil service and we no longer have inspectors in our abattoirs. I thought he would have an announcement to tell us what he was going to do with that. But I think

what's more important is that he doesn't seem to realize that there is a problem in agriculture in rural Ontario that he wants to hide from. In fact, I noticed he's changed his looks so he can

travel incognito in our communities. The farmers have taken to the streets because of the problems that exist in agriculture.

The minister made an announcement this morning in a little shop where ground beef was selling for $5.29 a pound. The farmer is getting somewhere around $1.50

for that same meat and all the rest is going into the system, but the farmers can't pay their bills. In the past, we've had governments that supported the agricultural community by putting safety

nets in place and sending cheques to the farmers. This minister keeps making announcements but doesn't send the cheques. A lot of the people in my community are waiting for their CAIS payment for

2003. Here they are, looking at trying to plant their crops for 2005; they can't do it.

Another sector of our agricultural community is the tobacco industry, which the minister personally represents. We have the tobacco farmers in our gallery

again today to try and impress on the minister that something needs to be done. The minister stood in front of 900 tobacco farmers and said, "We're going to increase taxes, but because of that

impact, we will also put in a $50-million transition fund. We are already planning that fund and, as soon as we get it in place, we will give you the money." That was over a year ago, and so far,

nothing for those tobacco farmers. They can't wait any more. They need your help now, Minister. Come forward. Stand up in front of the tobacco farmers and tell them the money is coming to match the

federal money, so we can get back in business with tobacco farming.

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I am pleased to respond on behalf of the NDP to the statement by the Minister of Health. The minister said

in his press release, "Community health centres perform a unique and critically important function in our health care system." I wonder why he was at Regent Park Community Health Centre this

morning and didn't announce a major expansion of community health centres in Ontario as the way to really push primary health care reform.

I don't understand why this government continues to refuse to look at CHCs as a positive model to bring more doctors and health care professionals into the

health care system to provide primary health care to Ontarians who need it. We know that community health centres are a proven model. They've been in existence in Ontario for over 30 years. I was

pleased to be part of a government that created 23 new community health centres and 10 Aboriginal community health centres when we were the government, as a sign of the commitment by New Democrats

to community health centres.

We know that community health centres are effective at recruiting and retaining not only doctors but other health care providers, that coverage 24/7 is

provided, that everybody is paid a salary, that not only is treatment provided, but also promotion of wellness and illness prevention. Those are the kinds of things we want to be promoting in

Ontario.

CHCs are an effective model. The Ministry of Health's own internal review of CHCs three years ago proved that. I say to the Liberals, for goodness' sake, stop

stalling. Use CHCs as a model for primary health care reform, fund an expansion of community health centres, and do it now.

With respect to the money for diagnostic medical equipment for CHCs, for long-term-care homes and for hospitals, of course this is federal money from the

diagnostic and medical equipment fund, and I sure hope this government is passing it along to those institutions in Ontario that are supposed to receive it from the federal government. I would

expect this government to be doing that.

Speaking of federal money, I sponsored an interesting press conference yesterday by ONA, and the president of ONA, Linda Haslam-Stroud, said this about the

government yesterday: "On January 17, the government told Ontarians they can expect 757 nurses to be laid off this year and possibly thousands more next year, as hospitals struggle to balance their

books by March 2006. Nurses feel betrayed by this government," said the president of ONA. She went on to say that it's very clear that these positions are not administrative positions, that the 757

jobs to be lost include nurses who provide psychiatric care, work in the emergency department, in obstetrical care and in cardiac care as well. She also said very clearly that there aren't jobs for

these nurses in the community, there aren't agencies in the community hiring, and the gap between the pay in institutions and the community is so great that nurses leaving institutions aren't going

to go work in the community sector; neither will new grads.

The most important point had to do with money -- federal money. ONA made it clear yesterday that there is more than enough money to avoid any nursing layoffs

and, indeed, there's more than enough money for the government to actually live up to its promise to hire 8,000 new full-time nurses in the province of Ontario. They released information yesterday

that makes it very clear that this fiscal year alone, 2004-05, the shortfall between the amount of health spending announced by the government and what the government actually took in in new money

from the federal government and from the health tax is $1.7 billion, and it will be $1.7 billion next year as well. In fact, over its four-year mandate, this government will announce, or has

announced, an increase in health care funding of about $10.5 billion, but they're actually taking in, between the new health tax and the new federal money, $20 billion. Where is that $9.5 billion

going? It isn't going to health care.

So I say in conclusion, this government should be hiring, not firing, nurses. You've got the money to do it. Stop the layoffs now. Actually show us your plan

to create 8,000 new full-time nursing positions in Ontario.

FOOD SAFETY

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I briefly want to respond to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I want to say to

the minister, at a time when farmers are going out of business, you should be worried about how many of them are going to be around to have their meat inspected. Farmers want to know, where is the

investment strategy for the farming community, for the rural community, from the McGuinty government?

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): It's time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): It's good to see you again, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you, the official opposition was

looking forward to a productive session; however, it's been two months since we last met and, unfortunately, things haven't changed much. The government's priorities are still opposite to what they

said they would do and what the people of Ontario want from their government. So here we are, set to debate your so-called priorities: film censorship, a ban on pit bulls that experts say won't

work, and your greenbotched proposal that would bankrupt farmers. You also spent considerable time this winter talking about the need for a new flower to represent Ontario and announced just

yesterday that you're spending $400 million on Sandra Pupatello's pet project, a new hotel in Windsor. Yet, at the same time, we see hospitals being forced to close beds and cut programs. We see

you wasting $91 million to fire close to 1,000 nurses. We see an ongoing fight with our doctors and no sign of resolution. In short, there's chaos in our health system. You have no plan to deal

with it, so you talk about film censorship and provincial logos. Premier --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Thank you. Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Speaker, let me say that it's great to be back. Let me say, as well,

that I'm grateful for the opportunity to remind members opposite and the good people of Ontario, whom we have the privilege of serving, about some of the things we have done to date.

With respect to education, thus far we've hired 1,100 new teachers; we have smaller classes in over 1,300 elementary schools; and we have trained 16,000 lead

teachers with special skills in literacy and numeracy.

In health care, we shortly will have our first 45 new family health teams ready to be announced; we have 21,000 more Ontarians receiving home care; and

shortly, we'll have more than 2,000 new front-line staff for long-term-care homes and restored standards to be present there.

The member opposite apparently has some objection to us making the kind of investment that will ensure we can make still more revenue for investment in further

health care and education to the benefit of Ontarians. If the member opposite stands against more investment in health --

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Runciman: Unfortunately for the people of Ontario, they need better health care, not better hotel room service. It's becoming clear that

Interjections.

The Speaker: We just started the first question period, and I would like the ministers to come to order so I can hear the Leader of the

Opposition put his question.

Mr. Runciman: The government has no plan at all when it comes to health care. You flowed bailout money to hospitals after saying there would

be no more bailouts. You spent $91 million to fire almost 1,000 nurses after you said you'd hire 8,000. You issued an ultimatum to doctors to accept your deal or else, and backed down and said you

would renegotiate. Now you're at it again, saying you'll stumble ahead with or without the support of doctors.

Hospitals have been ordered to cut $170 million from budgets and programs, and yet you announce $400 million for a posh hotel in a Liberal riding. Your lack of

a plan for health care is putting patient care at risk. Why did you order hospitals to cut programs and beds while funding beds for a swanky, five-star hotel? Why are you putting pork-barrel

politics ahead of the well-being of our health care system?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: You know, the member opposite knows full well --

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Or ought to know, right?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: -- or ought to know that the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. generates some $2-billion-plus that we can invest in health

care and education. This is an additional investment in that revenue-generating mechanism. That's all this is.

With respect to what we're doing in our hospitals, I know the member opposite will want to be able to remind Ontarians that, thus far, we have added 1,700 more

cancer surgeries, 1,680 more hip and knee replacement surgeries and 2,000 more cataract surgeries; we've invested $120 million to replace old MRI and CT machines; and we've expanded existing hours

for over 119,000 more procedures. That's just some of the progress we're making when it comes to improving health care for Ontarians.

Mr. Runciman: The Premier has become the Amelia Earhart of Ontario politics, constantly changing direction but never finding land.

Premier, unfortunately your misplaced priorities aren't confined to health care. Yesterday, your Ministry of Finance released Ontario's third-quarter financial

update. You now admit that this year's deficit may be triple what you estimated, up to $6 billion. In last year's budget, you counted revenues for this year that you won't actually receive until

2048. It may be time for Accounting 101 here. That kind of murky accounting may have worked at Royal Technologies, but it doesn't wash when you're managing the finances of the province.

Today's media is reporting that you're using your $6-billion deficit as proof of Ontario's need for more federal funding. Premier, it's clear you have no plan

for managing Ontario's books and no plan for dealing with the chaos you're creating in the health care system. Can you tell Ontarians how you plan to balance the books of the province and end the

chaos in the health care system? Where is the plan?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Just to give you some sense of the kinds of investments we've made so far when it comes to our hospitals: $385 million to

balance the 2003-04 budgets, $469 million in new funding for 2004-05, $200 million in one-time transition funding, $60 million for capital repairs made to our hospitals and $50 million to create

new full-time positions for nurses in Ontario hospitals.

I contrast that with the Tory record. They cut hospital funding by $557 million over two years, they closed 28 hospitals, they closed 5,000 beds, and they

spent $400 million to fire thousands of nurses and then spent hundreds of millions more trying to lure them back to the province of Ontario. When it comes to health care, I'll put our record

against the previous government's any day.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): To the Premier: The reality is, it has become clearer and clearer every day that you have no plan for

health care in the province of Ontario. You used to say that nurses were the cornerstone of our health care system. You made so many trips to the Ontario Nurses' Association conferences and

repeated your promise to hire 8,000 more nurses. All that changed just a couple of weeks ago. Your Minister of Health issued a press release announcing that he was giving the hospitals in Ontario

$91 million to help lay off 757 nurses. Your own minister has admitted this is how many nurses it would be.

Premier, do you know what nurses in Ontario are starting to call you? They're starting to call you Premier Pink Slip. That's the reality. Can you explain to me

how firing 757 nurses will help you keep your promise to hire 8,000 new nurses?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm delighted to get the question, of course, just to put a few facts

on the table, because they are important to hear from time to time. We have funded 3,052 new full-time nursing positions since we got the job. In addition, there are at present -- and the minister,

I know, will want to say more about this shortly -- 400 nursing positions being advertised in Ontario, some 200 of those in our hospitals. The Ottawa Hospital is looking for 41 new nurses; the

London Health Sciences Centre, 12; the University Health Network, 11; St. Joe's, nine; Grand River, six; Mount Sinai, five; Sunnybrook, five; Cambridge, four; and on and on. There are good

opportunities for nurses in Ontario. We are investing heavily to ensure that hospitals can in fact hire nurses, and I'm proud to say that, so far, we have funded 3,052 new full-time nursing

positions in Ontario.

Mr. Baird: Premier, the people of Ontario have a choice in who they can believe. They can believe this Premier or they can believe the Ontario

Nurses' Association when they say that the McGuinty government has done a 180-degree turn from its stated commitment during the election campaign. This is what nurses in Ontario are saying about

you and your government.

Last week, for the first time in more than 20 years, a group of doctors walked off the job, resulting in surgeries for hundreds of patients right across

Ontario being cancelled. You knew that was going to take place for more than four weeks, yet you did nothing to stop it. At the centre of this dispute was inaction and the ongoing negotiations

between your government and the Ontario Medical Association. They wanted a simple signal that you and your government took their concerns seriously. Instead, they got nothing: not a phone call, not

an e-mail, just silence. Your inaction was clear proof that you have no plan to deal with the doctors and doctor shortages in Ontario.

Premier, why did you personally sit by and do nothing when this crisis happened last Friday?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Speaker, I know the minister would like to get in on this.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): My honourable friend asked the question whether the people of Ontario should

believe the ONA or the government. I leave that to the people of Ontario, but what they sure aren't going to do is believe this party and their reprehensible record on health care in the province

of Ontario. The gall of the honourable member to stand up as part of a party that when they were in government, for hospitals alone, cut funding by $557 million, eliminating 6,279 nursing

positions.

What have we done: 664 nurses in large hospitals and 538 in small and medium hospitals; 600 new nurses in long-term-care homes; 250 new nurses in home care and

community mental health; 1,000 new full-time positions for new grads to give them the experience on the front line; $60 million recently for 11,000 new bed lifts; accountability agreements, where

nurses sign off on what hospitals say about how those funds are invested; hospitals moving toward 70% full-time; double the number of nurse practitioners; clinical simulation equipment in --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Baird: I notice, with two months to think about answers to these questions, the Premier ducked and dodged the question. Premier, I want to

come back to you. You are the leader of the government. Again, you have no plan to resolve the dispute with our doctors and no plan to deal with the fiscal crisis that you and your bully health

care minister dealt to our hospitals. Hospitals in Ontario will end this year with a $330-million deficit. Do you know what they're starting to call these hospital deficits? They're starting to

call them "Dalton deficits."

You said at the beginning of this year that hospitals would not be allowed to run deficits, and you said you wouldn't give any more bailouts -- your words,

Premier, not mine. You've waffled on both counts. Just yesterday came the news that your government will be spending $400 million on a swanky, five-star hotel in Windsor.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr. Baird: You and your government personally approved $170 million in cuts to hospitals this year. I have a question to which I want a direct

answer from this Premier: How many nurses will you have to fire --

The Speaker: Thank you. The Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr Smitherman: I'm pleased to remind the honourable member that, to this point, our government has created and funded 3,052 new

opportunities for nurses in the province of Ontario, in contrast to that government's record, which is well known.

He asked about hospitals. We have invested, since we came to government, 1.712 billion additional new dollars just in the Ontario hospital system, as part of a

$2.8-billion investment in health care this year, money for wait times to reduce the challenges that Ontarians face and hundreds of millions of dollars to update the quality of equipment in

Ontario's hospitals.

The honourable member talks about anaesthetists. He suggests, along with his party leader, that Ontario abandon the decades-old history of negotiating with the

OMA, instead beginning bilateral relationships with each of the 56 groups that are members of the Ontario Medical Association. This is his approach, after he said --

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

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. You've now been in government going into a second year. You promised

that you would properly and adequately fund our hospitals. You promised to hire 8,000 new additional nurses. You promised that you would not make any further cuts to OHIP-insured health care

services. But you've broken all of those promises. When are the people of Ontario actually going to see the improvements to health care that you promised so often?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I provided a list just a few minutes ago, and I'm pleased to add to that. We continue to do much to improve the quality of

health care available for all Ontarians. For example, this year we have 81,268 additional CT scans. We've invested $107 million to reduce wait times in cardiac care, cancer care, MRIs, hip and knee

surgeries and cataract surgeries. We have doubled the number of spots for international medical graduates. We've created a free vaccination program for children in the province of Ontario, covering

things that were never covered in the past. We're proceeding to build a new medical school in northern Ontario -- I'm sure the member opposite will want to support us in that regard. I have much to

add, and look forward to hearing from the member opposite.

Mr. Hampton: Those are oft-repeated promises, but they are not the reality that people are seeing in their communities. Hospitals have said it

very clearly: Instead of hiring new additional nurses, you're forcing them to lay off 757 full-time nurses. At a time when Ontario ranks third from the bottom in terms of nurses per capita, the

McGuinty government is going to lay off more nurses. The president of the Ontario Nurses' Association said it clearly: "Ontario nurses have lost confidence in the McGuinty government's commitment

to restore nursing and protect patients," and she goes on, "Next year, the layoffs at hospitals will result in more than 8,700 nurses and health care providers getting the pink slip."

The Speaker: Question?

Mr. Hampton: People voted for health care change. When are they going to see the positive changes you promised? When are they going to see the

McGuinty government's health care plan?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, on the matter of nurses, we're pleased to have been able to fund 3,052 new full-time nursing positions.

Mr. Hampton: Where are they?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The member opposite asks, "Where are they?" To provide some more details, 664 of those are in large hospitals; 538 are in

small and medium hospitals; 600 are in long-term-care homes; 250 are in home care and community health positions. We've also invested another $60 million for 11,000 bed lifts in hospitals and

long-term-care homes to improve the working conditions for nurses. I want to remind the member opposite, the leader of the NDP, that on his watch they let go some 3,800 nurses. We've only been on

the job one year and we've funded 3,052 new full-time positions. We're proud of our record.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, here's what a so-called health expert had to say about nurses: "Nurses are the heart of health care." "You can't deliver

good health care in Ontario when there aren't nurses around to provide the care." "Let no one ever suggest that a nurse in a hospital is redundant. Let no one ever suggest that a nurse in a

hospital is anything but precious." Who said that? Dalton McGuinty. And now Dalton McGuinty is ushering 757 nurses out the door, saying they're redundant.

Premier, all the promises you've just recited aren't happening in communities. Communities aren't seeing new nurses; they're seeing existing nurses laid off.

They aren't seeing more services, they aren't seeing more physicians; they're seeing more cuts. Forget the promises, Premier. When are the people of Ontario actually going to see a health care plan

that delivers some of the things you promised over and over again?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Well, I don't know whom the member opposite is speaking to. Maybe he should contact a few hospitals, whether the large ones

or the small ones, or long-term-care homes or community mental health institutions, because we have funded, as I said, some 3,052 new full-time nursing positions. In fact, as I said earlier, there

are all kinds of hospitals right now that are advertising for new nursing positions.

For the first time in a long time, nurses are being attracted to Ontario. I was in Windsor recently and had the opportunity to meet with nurses we had

repatriated from the US, because there are good working conditions here, supported by investments we're making in things like lifts that reduce the physical wear and tear on our nurses. So contrary

to what the member opposite would have us believe, this government is supporting nurses. We are investing in more full-time nursing positions, and we're investing in the kinds of equipment that

enable them to do their job in a safer manner.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier: Premier, maybe you should look at what's happening in actual communities. Let's take

Jeff Leal, the MPP for Peterborough. Last week in Peterborough, while the hospital there was warehousing seriously ill patients on stretchers in the hallway, 75 staff, including nurses, paramedical

care and diagnostic care providers, were handed pink slips. The hospital's chief doctor, Dr. Alan Thompson, said, "Patient care will suffer. These cuts to nursing staff represent service cuts.

There's just no doubt about it: To try and portray them as otherwise is wrong."

Premier, you have the money to fix the problems you're creating. When is your government going to provide a health care plan for Peterborough that doesn't

result in more nurse layoffs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I am really pleased to speak to this issue in particular. I've had an

opportunity to speak with the MPP for this community, who has been relentless in terms of advancing the cause of his constituents, particularly when it comes to health care. I look forward to

visiting that community this Friday.

We are proud that we've invested so far $15.6 million more in the Peterborough regional hospital. We're also very proud that, working with this member, we have

committed to building a new hospital in that community to meet the needs of that community and ensuring that we can make the investments that are essential so the people of Peterborough have access

to the good kinds of quality care which they deserve.

Mr. Hampton: The only thing the people of Peterborough are wondering is, where will the nurses be to staff the hospital?

I want to ask a question on behalf of David Orazietti, the MPP for Sault Ste. Marie, because at Sault Area Hospital, 24 registered nurses and 12 registered

practical nurses are being sent out the door. Glenda Hubley, who represents the nurses, says, "In the end, who suffers? The patient suffers. If there aren't enough nurses, who's going to care for

patients?"

Premier, the hospital patients of Ontario are losing patience with you. You promised that hospitals would be adequately and properly funded. You promised 8,000

new additional nurses, not 757 nurses going out the door. You have the money: $2.5 billion of new additional money from your health tax; over $2 billion in dedicated new federal health care money.

Where's the health care plan for Sault Ste. Marie, other than cutting more nurses?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, I want to take the opportunity to commend the MPP from Sault Ste. Marie, who has been working exceptionally hard on

behalf of his constituents. As a result of his efforts, we have invested an additional $11 million in the hospital there. We've also invested $21 million more in the Algoma district for health care

purposes. We will continue to make these investments on an ongoing basis.

The member opposite knows full well that we didn't get all that money at once. I think he has some basic understanding of the nature of the challenge connected

with ever-growing health care delivery services, but we will continue to manage these in a way that is effective and responsible, but also in a way that improves the quality of services that we're

delivering on our front lines.

Mr. Hampton: I'm sure the nurses who are going out the door in Sault Ste. Marie will take solace in that, that somehow you claim to be

spending more money, but more nurses are going out the door.

Let me ask, on behalf of Pat Hoy, the MPP for Chatham-Kent-Essex, because the Chatham-Kent Health Alliance is laying off 18 nurses, and there are dozens of

other hospitals in Ontario doing the same: You promised that you were going to be the health care fixer. But what patients are seeing and what communities are seeing are more cuts, more nurses

going out the door, more cuts to OHIP services.

Premier, you've been handed more federal money for health care than probably any other government in the last 10 or 15 years in Ontario. You've implemented a

new health care tax that will bring in $2.5 billion. Where is the McGuinty government plan to fulfill your promises on health care and stop the cuts, stop the layoff of nurses?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Let me say that because of the efforts of the member for Chatham-Kent-Essex, we've invested an additional $16 million in

the hospital in Chatham. Also, in the county, we've invested an additional $14 million.

I think that this is what it really comes down to: In our first 17 or 18 months on the job, we have funded 3,052 new full-time nursing positions. When the

member opposite was in government, they laid off 3,800 nurses. I can't think of anything that is more stark in terms of a comparison, in terms of where we want to go and in terms of where that

former government went.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Premier. You promised not to raise taxes and then brought in the largest tax hike in

the history of the province of Ontario. You said it was for health care, and I think people reasonably anticipated in Ontario if they paid more tax that they would receive more services in health

care.

The standing committee on finance and economic affairs of this assembly heard testimony in January, at pre-budget hearings, including in Whitby. We heard from

the chair of Lakeridge Health about it being a multi-site hospital with four main sites and 21 satellite sites now serving more than half a million people in Durham region, which is growing

rapidly. She said that they received only $357,500 in one-time funding for the year ending March 31, 2005. She said, "Compared to our combined $42.5-million deficit, it's like giving a heart attack

patient a Band-Aid and declaring him cured."

Your committees have recommended multi-site funding be a variable that increases funding for such hospitals. I'm asking you whether you will follow the

recommendation of the policy and planning committee to the Ministry of Health.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm happy to respond to the honourable member that in the days since our party

came to office, Lakeridge Health has been the beneficiary of almost $14 million in additional funding and that Durham region, of course, through a variety of investments, has benefited to the tune

of about $12 million further.

On the issue of multi-site funding, I can confirm two things for the honourable member that show considerable progress on the work of the JPPC. The recent

allocation of resources on the diagnostic medical equipment fund in fact ensures that multi-site hospitals in places like Picton and also Port Perry, as the honourable members mention, receive a

portion of funding that is disproportionately large. Similarly, on announcements of funding in the future, we're going to work hard to address what has been a regrettable circumstance as a result

of your party's initiatives under health services restructuring. That has been the evolution to the larger sites in those multi-sites. We believe in the small ones; it's incredibly important that

they be strong for local communities. I'm happy to work with the honourable member to provide further evidence of progress in this area.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): To you as well, Premier: As the member for Whitby-Ajax said, you promised during the election to make health care

service available to people closer to their homes. We also heard at the hearings, as Mr. Flaherty mentioned, that you would address the issue of multi-site funding, as well as the chronic

underfunding to the Lakeridge site over the years. It was noted some years ago.

I am putting to you a question today. You have met with Anne Wright and Marilyn Pearce, who is the mayor of Scugog. They've made their presentations to you.

They're requesting that multi-site funding be specifically addressed by the minister and/or your Minister of Finance during the upcoming budget. I look forward to your answer in respect to

appropriate funding for Lakeridge Health and all multi-site facilities in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I'd like to acknowledge the honourable member's candour in acknowledging chronic underfunding. He points to this as the

circumstances there.

I want to say, to the issue he raises with Mayor Pearce, that I in fact put her in touch with other leaders of municipalities that are also struggling, as the

smaller part of multi-sites. I put her in touch with the mayor of Georgetown. I put her in touch with the folks in Wallaceburg, who have been experiencing some concerns about their much-cherished

Sydenham hospital.

I can confirm for the honourable member, as I did in the earlier answer, we started to make progress on the issue of making sure that the smaller sites in

multi-site hospital networks are strong. We believe in them fundamentally. We have more progress to make and I'll be happy to do that, alongside the honourable member.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Premier. You should be aware that the forest industry sector in Ontario is

facing real difficulties. Last year, you announced a $500-million special automotive fund to sustain jobs in the auto sector. In December, your government announced enhanced tax incentives to keep

the television and film production industry in the Toronto area. You've said that these are necessary to sustain jobs. I accept that.

The forest industry is second only to the auto sector in terms of its contribution to Ontario's balance of payments. It's that important. Yet so far, you've

completely ignored that industry. If it's important to have an investment strategy for the auto sector and it's important to have an investment strategy to sustain jobs in the television and film

industry, where is the investment strategy for the forest industry and forest industry jobs, when they're facing perhaps the greatest difficulty?

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): To answer directly to the member, the member knows that we've been very much aware of the

challenges that have been faced by the forest sector. That's why, in November of last year, I appointed a minister's council on forest sector competitiveness. This is comprised of labour leaders,

municipal leaders and the CEOs of the major companies that do business in northern Ontario to come together and to bring a plan to government here as to how we can help that sector. We are working

hand in hand. They've had several of their meetings now. I would expect by late April, we will have a complete report from this council.

Mr. Hampton: Jobs are already disappearing, and many of these companies have come here to Toronto to tell you that your government's policy of

constantly forcing up the price of electricity has forced many of them to cut operations and is going to force more of them to cut operations and cut jobs.

The representative from Bowater told you that clearly at the Bill 100 hearings. He said jobs were leaving already, and more were going to leave. It's happened

in Cornwall, where Domtar has cut 390 jobs and may cut 400 more. It's happened in Dryden, Opasatika, Hearst, Chapleau, Smooth Rock Falls, and now in Thunder Bay and in Kenora, another 700 direct

jobs are at risk of being shut down.

I say to the Premier again, where's the investment strategy for the forest industry sector? All you're doing so far is forcing up electricity prices and

killing more jobs. Where is the investment strategy? If it's good for the auto sector, if it's good for the film and television sector, if it's good for the casino in Windsor, where is it for the

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Minister?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The member needs to know that the member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan and the Premier and myself met with Arnold Nemirow, the

CEO of the Bowater corporation, to deal with these very issues, because we know there's a challenge out there, and we accept that.

We're prepared, the Premier is prepared, to work closely with the industry to make sure that we overcome these challenges, because we want to see a strong and

viable and sustainable forest industry for northern Ontario and across this province, and we're working up to that challenge.

GREENBELT LEGISLATION

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, our government has

made an historic commitment to establish a permanent greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe. I know you and other members of the government have been working hard over the break to ensure that the

greenbelt dream becomes a reality, a legacy that we can be proud to leave to future generations. Minister, would you be good enough to provide us with an update on the progress you have made with

this plan that will improve the quality of life for Ontarians for years to come?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Our government is extremely proud of the

work that we have done with respect to the greenbelt. We're doing what no other government has done. By the end of this process, we hope to add an extra million acres of land to permanent

protection; that will create a total protection of 1.8 million acres.

We've taken our time to get both the mapping and the enabling legislation right. We have held four meetings of the standing committee. I have met with

municipal leadership from throughout the entire greenbelt proposed area, including all their planning officials as well. I know that at the ending of this process, we will end up with a greenbelt

that we can be proud of for generations to come, not only for now, but for many, many years to come.

Ms. Matthews: Minister, we know that the call for a greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe has been a long time coming. History has shown us that

without a real plan for managing growth and preserving green spaces, what we're left with is urban sprawl, gridlock and poor air and water quality. Sadly, we've also seen some of our most valuable

farmland turned into subdivisions, forever removed from agricultural viability as a result of poor planning.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: I can assure you that our greenbelt plan is based on good science and good planning. It has been developed through a

combination of technical, scientific and land use planning analysis to make sure that we will get the protection of the greenbelt correct. It builds on the work that was done previously with

respect to the Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges moraine plan. It's built on a natural heritage system and on the LEAR system, a land evaluation system that has been developed through the

Ministry of Agriculture. Every bit of the greenbelt can be justified on a scientific basis, and we are extremely proud of the work that this government has done in that regard.

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): It being 4 o'clock, pursuant to standing order 30(b), I am now required to call orders of the day. However,

I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour did assent:

Bill 17,

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act / Projet de loi 17, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le Conseil exécutif.

Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 to cancel the Professional Learning Program / Projet de loi 82, Loi modifiant la Loi de

1996 sur l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario en vue d'annuler le programme de perfectionnement professionnel.

Bill 84,

An Act to provide for fiscal transparency and accountability / Projet de loi 84, Loi prévoyant la transparence et la responsabilité

financières.

Bill 96,

An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act / Projet de loi 96, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les permis d'alcool.

Bill 106,

An Act to implement Budget measures / Projet de loi 106, Loi mettant en oeuvre certaines mesures budgétaires.

Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act / Projet de loi 124, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la

santé.

Bill 149,

An Act to implement 2004 Budget measures, enact the Northern Ontario Grow Bonds Corporation Act, 2004 and amend various Acts / Projet de loi

149, Loi mettant en oeuvre certaines mesures énoncées dans le Budget de 2004, édictant la Loi de 2004 sur la Société d'émission d'obligations de développement du

Nord de l'Ontario et modifiant diverses lois.

Bill 160,

An Act to authorize the expenditure of certain amounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005 / Projet de loi 160, Loi autorisant

l'utilisation de certaines sommes pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 2005.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOBACCO CONTROL STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

Mr Smitherman moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 164,

An Act to rename and amend the Tobacco Control Act, 1994, repeal the Smoking in the Workplace Act and make complementary amendments to other

Acts / Projet de loi 164, Loi visant à modifier le

titre et la teneur de la Loi de 1994 sur la réglementation de l'usage du tabac, à abroger la Loi limitant l'usage du tabac

dans les lieux de travail et à apporter des modifications complémentaires à d'autres lois.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Mr Smitherman, could you just wait a moment until members have settled a bit? Could I ask the members if

they're having a discussion, especially the ministers, to have it outside?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to note that I'll be sharing my time with the member for

London North Centre, the member for Mississauga West, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and the member for Mississauga East.

It's a great privilege for me to rise in this chamber today to speak to a piece of legislation that is fundamental to the work we're doing in health care. The

Smoke-Free Ontario Act is a bill I'm extremely proud of. I think we all should be. It is bold, it is forward-looking and it is, frankly, overdue.

Since we introduced the Smoke-Free Ontario Act in December of last year, there has been a great deal of public comment on this issue, and I'm delighted that

the overwhelming majority of Ontarians support what we are doing. Ontarians want us to move forward on the issue of tobacco control, and we are doing just that.

Our objectives are threefold: prevention, cessation and protection. We want to prevent young people from taking up the tobacco habit, we want to provide help,

encouragement and support to those smokers who want to quit, and we want to protect non-smokers from the deadly effects of second-hand smoke.

This bill, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, is the cornerstone of our protection efforts. Let me share with you why this protection effort is so important.

Two months ago, on December 15, we introduced the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. During the