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

October 8, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Oct-08 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 8 October 2002 Mardi 8 octobre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HYDRO RATES

NORTH BAY REGIONAL

HEALTH CENTRE

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY LEGISLATION

NATIONAL DENTAL

HYGIENISTS WEEK

HYDRO RATES

EDUCATION FUNDING

CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

PREVENTION MONTH

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK

QUEEN'S VISIT TO CANADA

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

HYDRO RATES

MUNICIPAL POLICE SERVICES

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

VISITOR

TOURISM AND AMATEUR SPORTS FUNDING

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

HOME CARE

AMBULANCE SERVICES

MEDICAL SCHOOL ADMISSIONS

EMPLOYMENT IN STURGEON FALLS

VISITORS

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

HIGHWAY 69

HOME CARE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

LONG-TERM CARE

NATURAL GAS RATES

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES /

SERVICES DE SANTÉ POUR ENFANTS

NATURAL GAS RATES

HIGHWAY 69

OPPOSITION DAY

EDUCATION

Tuesday 8 October 2002 Mardi 8 octobre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HYDRO RATES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): The hydro bills just keep coming, and the calls, letters, e-mails, petitions and postcards continue to

swamp my offices. They come from places like Chapleau, Echo Bay, Dubreuilville, Hawk Junction, Blind River, Espanola, Silver Water, Batchawana and all across the north.

The rates are up again for September. The Independent Electricity Market Operator tells us that the bills through the fall and winter months will remain

outrageous. Farmers, working families, seniors on fixed incomes, businesses large and small will be paying the price for the Ernie Eves electricity experiment, an experiment rushed forward by an

ideologically driven government without regard for the people of Ontario.

Today I ask you, Premier: whatever happened to real rural rate assistance, a program that was long in place to keep rural rates competitive with those in the

urban centres? Electricity customers in Ontario know that the Ernie Eves electricity experiment has erupted and is only causing exploding electricity bills.

My constituents want to know when this government is going to listen to Ontario consumers and provide extensions and flexibility on the payment of their hydro

bills. They want to know when the Eves government plans to bring back real rural rate assistance, and they want to know when the government is going to listen to Ontario Liberals and roll out the

rebate.

NORTH BAY REGIONAL

HEALTH CENTRE

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): I am pleased to stand before the House today to let the people of Ontario know how hard the North Bay General

Hospital Foundation has worked toward raising its $15-million goal; in fact, they've already raised $11.2 million.

On September 24, North Bay reached a long-held dream, a dream with a bold vision for the future: the new regional health centre. This health centre is the first

in Ontario to combine a state-of-the-art general hospital with an advanced mental health facility. This indeed is the way of the future.

Frank Dottori and Barbara Minogue, co-chairs of the Caring for Generations campaign, have said the health centre is way ahead of its time, and already 70% of the

funds have been raised, which is extremely encouraging. It is their hope that the people of Nipissing realize what a privilege it is to have such a wonderful facility.

Our community has been presented with a unique opportunity to create a wonderful health care centre that will serve us for many years into the future. We're

building the regional health care centre for the people who matter to us most: our children and our grandchildren's children.

The provincial government has committed millions to this project, but we also must commit ourselves to this vision of the future. This, after all, is the largest

construction project in the history of the city of North Bay.

Dalton McGuinty and his party, the Liberals, cancelled our last hospital in the late 1980s, and we're not going to let them do it again.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY LEGISLATION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I'd like to take this time today to talk about the games that governments play.

In February of this year, the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services launched a comprehensive consultation on its draft privacy bill. As of August 1, the

ministry received over 600 comments and submissions.

The ministry has since revised the bill and informed certain stakeholders of what the changes are. Strangely -- and maybe not so strangely -- my office was

unable to get a copy of the revised legislation or even find out what changes have been made. We were told we would have to wait until it was introduced, but we couldn't even find out when that

might be.

Why is this government so afraid to give legislation to the legislators? You've put much effort into a thorough, open-minded consultation process. You've invited

Ontarians to review the draft bill and express their concerns. Particularly on an issue as fundamentally important as our privacy, we need to have all the information up front so we can be prepared

for meaningful debate. We can't do that if your government is going to introduce the bill and rush it through the Legislature, as often happens. We need constructive dialogue on a bill as important

as the privacy bill.

I'm disappointed you let petty politics get in the way of this particular bill.

NATIONAL DENTAL

HYGIENISTS WEEK

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It is my pleasure to rise today to recognize National Dental Hygienists Week, which runs from October 13 to

October 19.

I'm reminded of the famous movie line, "You want the tooth? You can't handle the tooth." Nor can dentists handle teeth by themselves. That is why today there are

over 6,700 registered dental hygienists practising in the province, making them one of the largest regulated health professions in Ontario.

Over the years, the job of the dental hygienist has broadened greatly. Years ago, dental hygienists were only responsible for cleaning and polishing teeth and

promoting good oral health. Today, dental hygienists not only clean teeth, but they also provide a process of care that involves assessing condition, planning and implementing treatment, and

evaluation of care programs.

Today, dental hygienists are not just found in the dental practices. Dental hygienists are also choosing careers in research; public health centres, including

schools and long-term-care facilities; universities and colleges; hospitals; native health care facilities; and private clinics.

As we begin National Dental Hygienists Week, we acknowledge the important role dental hygienists play in promoting overall wellness through optimum dental care.

The next time you brush your teeth or flash your pearly whites, thank a dental hygienist.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): For those people who believe that the public has no influence over decisions made by agencies

such as the Ontario Energy Board, the announcement yesterday that the provincial government will launch a wide-ranging review of the board's powers, including its decisions related to retroactive

increases, gives us renewed hope that a massive public outcry can get the attention of the decision-makers here at Queen's Park.

In my constituency, we launched our own protest against OEB approval of Union Gas's retroactive delivery charges and the response has been overwhelming. Hundreds

of letters, petitions, e-mails and faxes have been forwarded to me, and I can certainly tell all those who have participated in this democratic process that it is your outcry that got the

government to act. I only hope Union Gas will respond to this review by at least suspending their collection of this delivery charge until the review is complete.

The fact is, people are absolutely fed up with unjustified increases in their utility bills. Earlier this summer, consumers were shocked to discover that the

federal goods and services tax is being applied to the debt retirement charge on their hydro bills. This double taxation is unacceptable, and I was shocked that the Ontario government did not share

my point of view in that regard. While I and my colleague Sean Conway have written Finance Minister Manley asking him to remove this federal tax from our bills, I continue to believe that Ontario

Finance Minister Ecker should be leading the charge on behalf of all hydro customers in this province.

As utility costs continue to rise, all our constituents must be protected against extra charges which line the pockets of government or massive corporations.

People are very, very angry and they're not going to take it any more.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Since 1996, this government has removed $1 billion from public education. We are seeing the effects of

this loss in libraries, programs and closed schools and in the 34,696 children on waiting lists for special education services.

Hamilton school board trustees pleaded for years for more funding. When they ultimately stood up to this government and said they would not cut another penny

from our kids' education, you appointed a supervisor to do your dirty work, to close schools and cut programs. You even left the board on the hook for the salary of the supervisor -- $166,000 --

and the salaries of whatever PR staff he needs to hire to put the government's spin on this disaster.

This government can't find a penny for our kids, but it can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on bureaucrats and it can find $1.4 million to spend on an

advertising campaign to try to justify the takeover of our school board.

What if all this money could have gone to our kids? That $1.4 million could move 360 special education students off waiting lists and into classrooms; one

supervisor's salary would pay for three desperately needed special education teachers in Hamilton, or five educational assistants, or more textbooks. The list goes on.

You should hang your head in shame at what you've done to our kids. The people of Hamilton see through your plan to make this supervisor and our trustees your

scapegoats. They know that the Eves government should, and will, be held accountable.

CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

PREVENTION MONTH

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): As a parent of five children, I'm pleased to rise in the House to note that October is Child Abuse and Neglect

Prevention Month. This is the 10th anniversary of the Purple Ribbon Campaign. It recognizes that we can change a child's world.

In particular, I'd like to pay tribute to the work of the Durham Children's Aid Society. Since 1905, it has been changing the world for children in our

communities. Their mission statement reads as follows:

"Durham Children's Aid Society is committed to children and youth by protecting them from abuse and neglect, strengthening the ability of their parents and

families to meet their needs, and providing safe, enduring placements when they are at risk."

Community education is also an important role for the Durham Children's Aid Society. In addition to its dedicated staff, the Durham Children's Aid Society has

over 100 volunteers, who gave over 19,000 hours of service last year alone.

On Saturday, October 12, a benefit will be held at Archibald Orchards and Estate Winery, in my riding of Durham, in support of the Durham Children's Aid Society.

A silent auction will assist in prevention, education and enrichment programs. Durham residents can pick up their purple ribbons at Archibald's and also at Reid's Dairy stores and many other

locations throughout Durham region.

On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of their Purple Ribbon Campaign, I'd like to congratulate board chair Blair Walters and the board of directors.

Congratulations also to the executive director, James Dubray, the staff volunteers and all those who are working hard to change a child's world, not just in Durham but throughout Ontario.

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I rise today in recognition of Mental Illness Awareness Week. Approximately 20%

of Ontarians will experience a mental illness during their lifetime and the remaining 80% will be affected by an illness in family members, friends or colleagues.

Regardless of age, culture, income or education, mental illness has no bounds, and yet in the minds of many it has failed to be understood. Unfortunately there

is still significant stigma, as well as discrimination, attached to mental illnesses within Ontario and across the country, which means that mental illness sufferers are often forced to remain

quiet. Therefore, I stand here today and take this opportunity to draw attention to mental health issues and encourage greater acceptance and understanding of these disorders and those affected by

them.

If addressed early, science has shown us, treatment can help individuals suffering from mental disorders. If given the opportunities to receive treatment, these

individuals can live full and productive lives. I believe education is a valuable tool in combating and overcoming the obstacles that families and sufferers of mental illness face. Throughout

Ontario's communities, mental illness sufferers need our help.

Instead of turning our backs, we must use this week to redouble our efforts to help those at risk. Today I ask all members of this House and all residents of

Ontario to reach out to our neighbours, friends and families and assist in the elimination of all discrimination that surrounds mental illness sufferers. It is only together that mental illnesses

can be fully recognized and overcome.

QUEEN'S VISIT TO CANADA

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It is my great privilege to rise in the House today on behalf of all members to welcome here

the Queen of Ontario and of Canada, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Her Majesty has come home to Canada to join with us in celebrating the golden jubilee of her coronation as our head of state.

There are some in Canada today who openly question the enduring significance and relevance of the crown in Canada. I stand in my place in this Legislature today

not only proclaim my loyalty to the crown, but also to proclaim the many benefits that our constitutional monarchy continues to bestow on all Canadian citizens of diverse cultures and

backgrounds.

The crown has always been Canadian as the royal thread that knitted together our country, beginning with the four original provinces to our contemporary

bilingual and multicultural society. Her Majesty the Queen is related by blood to 37 royal houses of Europe and Asia, including the emperors of India and the T'ang dynasty of Tibet.

In paying tribute to our Queen, we Canadians pay tribute to our history as well as our diversity that is united in her person, as her subjects and citizens of

Canada. On behalf of all members of this Legislature, Her Majesty's loyal provincial administration and Her Majesty's loyal opposition, I warmly welcome Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Queen of

Ontario and Canada, to our province. God save the Queen.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent to bring Bill 77,

An Act to amend the

Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of adoption disclosure, for third reading.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

VISITORS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Thank you for this opportunity. As you know, we have a wonderful group of

pages with us this term. One of the pages' names is Ellen Stephenson, and her parents and two sisters have decided to come and see what a fine job she is doing today. I would ask you all if you

could welcome her family.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We welcome our guests.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. All across the province, families, seniors living on their own on

fixed incomes, and businesses both big and small are getting shocked by their hydro bills.

Our offices have been absolutely inundated with calls and expressions of concern on the part of many Ontarians. We've got cases of people hit with 100%, 150% and

even 200% increases in their hydro bills. Now we have learned from the Independent Market Operator that bills are likely going to get worse next year. The IMO is basically saying, "Folks, if you

think things are bad now, you ain't seen nothing yet." All this, Premier, is the result of your incompetence on the electricity file.

I'm asking you on behalf of families and businesses that not only have concerns with respect to the bills today but concerns now with respect to the bills yet to

come about a year from now, why is it they should trust you, sir, when it comes to protecting them in regard to their hydro bills?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, that is not what the IMO said. The IMO said that if certain

things didn't come back on stream, such as Pickering and a particular unit at Bruce, there could be problems if we experience another warm summer such as the one we just experienced.

This year, during those summer months, we had to import 21% of our energy. Those two entities that I just mentioned represent somewhere between 15% and 20% of

the generation capacity.

Having said that, I understand the point that the IMO makes, and that is that there must be other sources of power generation coming on stream as we go forward.

That is what the open market is all about.

Mr McGuinty: It's obvious to me, Premier, that you have not taken the few minutes it would take to read the IMO's report, because it is very,

very clear that you are not sending the kind of signals that should be sent that would lend some stability to the market and would be of some benefit, ultimately, to ratepayers.

First, you told families, "Look, rates aren't going to go up." Then when they skyrocketed, you said, "Well, hang on a second. We've just got to wait this thing

through. Things are going to work themselves out." Now the IMO tells us that things are going to get worse because we're not going to have the necessary supply and because you haven't introduced

stability into the marketplace. At the end of the day, all it really means is that ratepayers, families, seniors, and businesses both big and small are in serious trouble because of your

incompetence.

I ask you again, why should ratepayers have any confidence in your ability to manage their bills for them?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, he knows that in May and June, rates per kilowatt hour were below the traditional average, and in July, August and

September, they were up because of the heat of the summer. He also knows that OPG has a rebate program in place if, over the long term of course, those rates remain above the traditional average.

He also knows that there are many private sector producers of electric power, such as Sithe Energy, TransAlta and on and on, who are investing in the province of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Since the Premier hasn't taken the time to look at the report that was prepared for him, I'll read him a

section of it. It says,

"The signals potential private investors have been receiving through the first four months of market operation may have" -- and I suggest that is a very diplomatic usage there on the part of the

IMO -- "lacked the clarity, credibility and ... consistency required to encourage investment in new capacity." The IMO is saying that the private sector does not trust you.

We have a case of families not trusting your ability to manage their hydro bills. Businesses have the same distrust. Now the IMO is telling us that the private

sector does not trust your ability to properly manage hydro in the province of Ontario.

So I ask you one more time, not only now on behalf of families and businesses, but on behalf of potential private sector investors who could help us with our

supply problem, why should any of those trust you on this file?

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, he's quoting very selectively from a 140-page report.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Well, he is. The reality is we recognize the need for more generation capacity in the province of Ontario. In fact, I would say

the leader of the official opposition himself, in the past, has said that a perfect system would be where we had four, five or six equal-sized producers of electricity in the province of Ontario.

Ultimately, that is the goal and that's where we're going to get to.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question as well to the Premier. Today, parents and students falling within the Thames

Valley District School Board awoke to some terrible news. They have learned that there are five elementary and two high schools that are on the chopping block, in small communities like Ingersoll,

Tillsonburg, Sweaburg and Springfield. These schools in those communities are absolutely integral to the quality of life those communities offer.

The vice-chair of the board says the reason for closing these schools is because you haven't given them enough money to keep them open.

If there is general agreement on anything today when it comes to public education, it is that the school funding formula, as drafted by you as Minister of

Finance, is badly, badly broken.

Why would you not place a moratorium on school closures until you've had an opportunity to fix your broken funding formula?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The leader of the official opposition knows full well that school boards in

this province have always made decisions about building new schools and closing old schools as the demographics of their population changed within the jurisdictions of the boards.

I'm sure he will also know that when the Liberal Party was in power, it opened far fewer new schools than our party has while we've been in power for a similar

period of time.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I will draw to your attention a couple of the schools which are on the chopping block. One is Westfield in Ingersoll;

occupancy, 147%. The other is Northdale in north London: occupancy, 103%. This is not a case of shutting down schools because there's a shortage of student enrolment; it's a case of a school board

that feels it has no other choice than to shut down some of its smaller schools.

Interjections.

Mr McGuinty: You should know, and I'm sure the minister would be interested in listening to this, that in the States today they are moving

toward smaller schools, taking a large high school, for example, and cutting it into four, because they've learned that better learning takes place in a smaller school environment.

Your broken funding formula is sending public education in exactly the wrong direction. So I'm asking you a question on behalf of those parents, those students

and those communities that are about to be adversely affected once again by your broken funding formula: what are you going to do to ensure those schools stay open at least until we have the time

to reverse the damaging effects of your funding formula?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition will know that this year, $557 million has been added to school board budgets across

Ontario, probably the largest in-year number in the history of the province, bringing total spending to $14.3 billion. He will also know that right now we are undergoing a review of the funding

formula that he talks about, and Dr Rozanski will be reporting back to the government on that in November. We will take further action at that time, depending upon his recommendations.

Mr McGuinty: A couple of things, Premier. First of all, with respect to the numbers, we have $1,250 less per student on a per capita basis

today than we had in 1995, on an apples-to-apples basis. What you have committed to do is provide another $3,500 per student in private schools. You're committing to put half a billion dollars into

private education.

Why can you not agree to put a moratorium on any school closures at this time, until such time as the funding formula has been fixed? Everybody knows that

repairing the funding formula is going to entail putting more money into public education. Why would you not agree that the sensible thing to do in the circumstances is delay closing any schools

until we've had the opportunity to fix your broken funding formula?

Hon Mr Eves: Which Dalton McGuinty are we listening to today?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: I know you don't want to hear this, but you're going to anyway.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Come to order. The Premier has the floor.

Hon Mr Eves: Is this the Dalton McGuinty who on November 3, 1998, said, "Well, you know, um, schools close and schools open on a fairly

regular basis," or the Dalton McGuinty about whom it was said on September 4 of this year that he "does support the closing of schools, but only in the natural order of things," according to an

Ancaster News interview with you? Or is it your education critic Gerard Kennedy, who, as reported by the St Catharines Standard on February 4, 2000, made no promises that schools wouldn't be closed

under his party had it been in power, but said it would have been "less likely, in his opinion"?

HYDRO RATES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Last week you said we should wait a year to find out if hydro

privatization and deregulation is working. This week, your own hydro market surveillance panel says we don't have enough hydro. The private sector hydro you boast about isn't happening. Your own

panel says that skyrocketing hydro bills will continue along with the serious risk of brownouts and blackouts next summer.

Premier, why are you putting our economy at risk by fiddling for a year while the lights go out and people's hydro bills continue to increase?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, the leader of the third party will know that there are private

sector developments going on now with respect to future generation.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Name names.

Hon Mr Eves: "Name names," the honourable member from St Catharines says. I'm glad you asked me that question, because we can read them off

here.

First of all, we know we have to get Pickering and Bruce A nuclear back on stream. Those are two very significant generators of power in Ontario. He will also

know, if he read the IMO's report, that they point out the fact that because of the unusually warm summer, combined with the fact that one unit at Bruce was down for two months of the summer, we

had to import 21% of the power used in those two months this summer. That is not an everyday or even an every-year occurrence. We don't have the warmest summer on record every year. It's been the

first one in the last 50 years, since 1955. That won't happen every year, and he knows it. We have Sithe Energy, TransAlta, Calpine, Imperial Oil and on and on, all investing in Ontario to produce

more electricity next year, the year after and the year after that.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you go out there and try to convince people across this province that our summers aren't getting warmer and then read

your own report, because it says this private hydro that you boast about isn't happening, that it won't be here next summer and it won't be here in the summer of 2005. It's not happening,

Premier.

But what is happening -- and the panel refers to this -- are several examples of gaming the hydro market. You know what that is. That's what Enron did in

California when they ripped off consumers to the tune of billions of dollars. Your own panel says there is a risk now of that happening in Ontario. Premier, do you want to go the way of California?

If you don't, stop this hydro privatization and deregulation fiasco now, because even your own people say you've got it wrong.

Hon Mr Eves: That is not what the IMO report says. What the IMO report says is that if new power generation isn't brought on stream as we go

forward, and if we have yet another record summer -- it can't be the worst one in 50 years because, according to you, we have one every year. What happened to 2001? That must have been a record.

You said every year, any idiot knows, we keep on getting progressively warmer. Then 2001 would have been a record, not 1955. This was a very unusual summer.

I know you travelled around the province on your bus, and I'm glad to see that you're starting it up with diesel fuel again to go around the province some

more. Last time in your journey around the province you encouraged people not to sign fixed-price contracts. Now you're up in the House screaming and yelling because you encouraged them not to

sign, they didn't sign and now the price of their contracts is very volatile. What are you going to do on your bus tour this time, Howard?

Mr Hampton: Here we have the confession. The Premier of Ontario doesn't believe global warming is happening. The Premier of Ontario believes

that what he should offer people is a choice of an increase of 75% in your hydro bill or 40% in your hydro bill. That's all you're offering people.

Premier, I'm telling you, step back from the precipice and recognize what is happening. Reviewing the Ontario Energy Board is not going to deal with all the

things that have happened since you brought hydro privatization and deregulation to the province. Learn from the lessons of elsewhere, from California, Alberta and Montana, where they now want to

reverse deregulation and privatization. Will you join me and the 80% of people across Ontario who've gotten on board the public power bus, who don't want private, deregulated hydro? That's what

they want you to do. Will you do it?

Hon Mr Eves: No, I won't join him on his bus as he goes on his next tour of the province of Ontario.

During the entire five-year mandate of the Bob Rae government, the NDP brought on-line a grand total of 1,400 megawatts of power. That's what they did about

taking care of this problem in five years. Since we have been in government on this side of the House, just since 1998 we have commitments to the province of Ontario to bring on board 10,103

megawatts of power, compared to the 1,400 you brought on in five years. We understand what needs to be done, we are going to do it and in the end we are going to have a much better system of free

enterprise in the province of Ontario and lower power prices for generations of Ontarians for many years to come.

MUNICIPAL POLICE SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Public Safety and Security. Some very disturbing things are

happening across rural Ontario in terms of policing. In my constituency this summer, between the city of Kenora and the city of Dryden, 15 people died on the Trans-Canada Highway. One of the

allegations that has been raised by people is that there were not enough OPP officers. In another community in my constituency, people felt so strongly that they asked for a meeting with the OPP

detachment commander as to why there was not enough OPP coverage in the community.

This is happening in many places in rural Ontario, yet at the same time we hear about not enough OPP officers to patrol the highways or to patrol communities,

the OPP is taking over more and more municipal police forces. Do you think it's appropriate that the OPP take over more and more municipal police forces when we hear from community after community

that there aren't enough OPP officers on the highway to do the job they have now?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): I don't accept the basis of the question with respect to the OPP bidding on

contracts to provide policing in municipalities across the province.

The reality is, they do go through a costing and bidding process, with the municipalities retaining -- if they opt to have OPP service provided, they are, in

effect, hiring a certain number of officers to police that community. They have to meet the minimum standards as set out by the province of Ontario through our adequacy regulations.

I'm not sure where the member is going on this question, but the reality is that they have a certain number of officers approved. That is all reviewed by the

Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services with respect to meeting the standards of the province of Ontario in terms of public safety.

Mr Hampton: Minister, on September 20 you quietly announced an independent review of the disbandment of municipal police forces; no press

release, no announcement, just a quiet announcement of a review. But at the same time, you're allowing the process of municipal disbandment of police services and OPP takeover to continue. If you

ordered the review and you've got communities from across this province like Harriston and Minto, the chief of police of Kingston, the 15 people who died on the highway in my constituency this

summer -- if you announced the review, why are you allowing this process to continue? It seems to me that logically you should be saying, "If there's a perceived problem that warrants a review, we

should not be allowing any more of these takeovers to happen." Wouldn't you agree?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think it's wise for any government policy to be reviewed on a regular basis. That's certainly the view of this government.

We made changes with respect to policing in a significant way a number of years ago. There was a guidebook with respect to the costing process that was developed and agreed to by all the partners

in policing. I think it's appropriate and timely that we review that process and ensure that over the past five years there have not been changes with respect to how this should evolve. If there

are indeed changes, we will address them.

I have a great deal of difficulty with this member getting up here and expressing concerns about policing in Ontario. The reality is that this government put

1,000 well-equipped, well-trained new officers on the streets of communities in Ontario. What did that government do? They put 5,000 angry officers on the front line at Queen's Park.

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier of Ontario. I have in my hands a cabinet document. It's another shocking

example of you putting your friends ahead of the public interest. In this cabinet document it says that your government gave the Toronto Blue Jays and other professional sports teams $10 million.

You created a loophole to cut their employer health tax payments by as much as 50%. This happened in April and you didn't tell a soul. Not a single release was sent out by your office or by the

Minister of Finance to announce your decision to subsidize Carlos Delgados's salary.

Premier, given the needs of our health care system today, could you please explain how other Ontario businesses are forced by law to pay all of this tax? How

can you possibly justify a double standard for your friends?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Finance must have an answer to this.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): This government is always prepared to help individuals and organizations in terms of making sure people

are competitive and prosperous. I'll be very pleased to look into the comments the honourable member has made to assure her that nothing untoward has occurred.

Mrs Pupatello: I find that quite an interesting answer because actually it was the Minister of Finance, in November 1998 -- that would be

today's Premier -- who argued the opposite. What he said in a court of law against a business in Ontario was what the minister argues the contrary. He was suggesting absolutely, in law, that these

people would have to pay all of the employer health tax.

I go back to the original question to the Premier. The Toronto Blue Jays don't need a tax cut, the Raptors don't need a tax cut, the Maple Leafs don't need a

tax cut. You know this but you gave them $10 million anyway. You took $10 million from what would go into our health system, where people are waiting 12 weeks for a mammography test in this

province, and you're handing it to professional sports teams. You must be embarrassed by it because you didn't tell anyone and we had to go and find it in an order-in-council document. Apparently,

your caucus doesn't even know.

I ask you again, Premier, why the double standard? Why do you help your friends when the balance of Ontario businesses have to pay all of their employer health

tax?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I've already said to the honourable member that I'd be quite happy to look into the situation. If the facts are as they usually

are when they're coming from the opposition, I can assure her she has nothing to worry about. But we'd be quite happy to look into it.

This is the government that has given individuals $11 billion in tax relief. This is the government that has cut taxes for small business, tax cuts that the

opposition, the Liberal Party, is promising to reinstate. They're going to increase taxes on our small business sector, the sector that produces the majority of jobs in this economy. That is the

record of the opposition party. Our record is quite clear.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As all of us in this House are aware, this week

marks the fifth annual Ontario Agriculture Week. It's an excellent opportunity to recognize the tremendous contribution Ontario farmers make to our communities and our economy.

Farmers in my riding of Perth-Middlesex and across the province were extremely busy this past summer producing high-quality food for consumers here and around

the world. I understand that our government has also been productive in providing the agricultural industry with some much-needed support. I also understand from the agricultural leaders I've met,

some as recently as this morning, that in your role as Minister of Agriculture and Food you've been working as hard as those farmers to ensure that agriculture is given the support it needs.

Minister, I would like you to inform the Legislature of some of our government's recent efforts to support this important industry.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'd like to congratulate the member for Perth-Middlesex for coming forward with

agriculture week so that the Legislature is cognizant of the things that are going on in agriculture. This is the fifth anniversary and he has done a terrific job.

We have a number of initiatives that we've been working on with farm groups over the summertime. The Premier was good enough, at the International Plowing

Match, to announce $72.5 million, which is the 40% of the transition funding that needed to go out as investment to our agricultural community. We have those dollars ready to go. They should be out

by the end of the month. And we are very optimistic that the cash the industry asked us to put forward will be needed and well utilized.

We also must say that in July we worked with the federal government in a consolidated effort to try and ensure that we had a program that spread the dollars we

already had in the market revenue and NISA programs even more fully and the agricultural community was happy --

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

Mr Johnson: Minister, thank you for the

summary. You've indeed had a busy summer and a very productive one as well.

As I talk to farmers --

Interjections.

Mr Johnson: I can understand why the Liberal caucus doesn't believe in listening. I believe that yesterday they showed their true colours to

the farmers of Ontario in not supporting your bill.

As I talk to farmers in my riding of Perth-Middlesex, the message is clear. Our government has been there to support agriculture and food industries and the

rural communities which rely on those industries. Minister, what priorities will the government be focusing on agriculture during the coming months?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say that there are a number of agricultural issues we've been working on on this side of this House. As everyone is

cognizant, the Premier led a round table in June. We've been following forward on that. He said at the time that it was very important to hear from the agricultural community and react and work

with the agricultural community, and we have been doing that.

The Minister of the Environment and I have been out talking to the agricultural community and the environmental community about the nutrient management plan,

and the first regulations are out and available to the agricultural community. In fact, we have had a good response from the first two regulations, and we have another set coming out shortly.

Thirdly, as I said earlier, the Premier announced the risk management tool for the province of Ontario in September. It has been well received and I think it

shows that this government has a positive attitude and is there to help the agricultural community in Ontario because we know that this is a very important business that needs to have longevity and

needs to provide us all with the great quality of food that is made in Ontario.

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier, and I'd like an answer to this question. Could you please explain to the

House how you can justify $10 million to professional sports teams in Ontario, by giving them a loophole in the employer health tax so that monies that should be going to the people we brought to

you in this House last week, people who are waiting for diagnostic services, people who are waiting too long for cancer services -- those are the people -- so that you can give the money to your

friends, people like Ted Rogers, Paul Godfrey? These are the individuals who are involved with professional sports, like the Maple Leafs, like the Blue Jays, like the Raptors. Please explain to

this House how you rationalize a tax loophole for your friends, but the balance of Ontario businesses have to pay the entire employer health tax.

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I wish the honourable member would tell me what date I supposedly have done

this, because I have absolutely no knowledge of what she's talking about. There hasn't been an OIC that has gone through cabinet that says what she says it does since I've been Premier. I became

Premier, in case you're interested, on April 15 this year.

Mrs Pupatello : Premier, in November 1998 you were the Minister of Finance. You're the one who argued that all businesses in Ontario must pay

all of the employer health tax. The date on this cabinet document is after you were elected Premier and after you began getting briefings from the Ministry of Finance. You knew about this, and you

did nothing. This was signed by another Minister of Finance. You were the Premier. You were the elected leader, and you had already received briefings. I want you to explain why we can do without

$10 million in the health system.

Hon Mr Eves: I know she'd want to do the honourable thing. I now have in my possession a copy of the order in council, and I know why you

won't answer the question. Because the date is April 2 of this year, two weeks before I became Premier of the province. It did not happen while I was the Premier. Stand up and do the honourable

thing.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. We've got a little bit of carrying on.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): In the east members' gallery we have a former member, Mr Jordan, who was a member of the 35th and 36th

Parliaments. Please join in welcoming our honoured colleague.

It is now time for a new question.

TOURISM AND AMATEUR SPORTS FUNDING

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): My question is to the newly appointed Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the member for Oak Ridges. I

know you are just getting briefed on your portfolio, but I know you are aware of the fact that tourism is a vital and fast-growing business in Ontario. In fact, many small businesses and businesses

in general in Mississauga --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. We need to hear the question. Members can't carry on conversations across. Sorry, member for Mississauga

Centre.

Mr Sampson: I was explaining to the minister, who is probably getting briefed now, that many businesses in Mississauga, the area I represent,

and frankly throughout Ontario live and breathe the business of tourism, attracting people to Ontario from other jurisdictions, most notably the US, to do business here in the province.

We are trying to help that as a government. We have been doing that for some time. In fact, you have a fund that allocates monies to help attractions attract

people from other jurisdictions to come to the province and come to Mississauga. Could you help us understand a little bit more about how you do that, how that works and how that helps Ontarians in

general?

Applause.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I think I'll enjoy that while I can. I want to say to the Premier, this has been a long

time coming, and I thank you very much.

The member from Mississauga is absolutely right: tourism is a vital industry in our province. Some 425,000 jobs depend on it, some $16.8 billion in revenue to

our province. I look forward to assuming a leadership role in this industry. I am aware that post-September 11 there have been some challenges to this industry. Our government believes we must do

what we can to support this industry. We are expanding our October program. We are providing some additional marketing support to this industry. I look forward to working with all stakeholders in

this industry over the next number of months to truly bring Ontario into first place in tourism in North America.

Mr Sampson: Minister, you will know that part of your ministerial responsibility is to deal with the area of sport and recreation in Ontario.

My colleague from Mississauga West and I are very strong supporters of recreation and sport in Mississauga. In fact, it's probably well known around here that I do actively get involved in

supporting youth hockey as much as I can because I believe that's an important part of how youth develop in this province.

But helping communities support sports facilities is another important feature, I believe, of your ministry. In fact, this government has been very active in

supporting things like renovations to recreational facilities in places like Mississauga, where we received a very much needed $5.6 million to renovate hockey rinks and other sports facilities in

the city that needed that work. I know; I've been there, and many of my son's hockey parents have been there as well. Tell us more about those programs, because they are helping Ontarians.

Hon Mr Klees: I'm pleased to speak to that. In fact, the sports aspect of this ministry is one of the areas that I'm particularly excited

about. I too have a background in sports, and I believe that there is much more that our government can do to help amateur sports and to help sports in general.

The kind of support the member refers to -- I too have been involved in my riding in announcing these kinds of grants -- there will be a continuation on the

part of our government to support this kind of event.

I will be in London this coming Saturday, where we have contributed some $2.5 million to an arena there. There will be many thousands of people celebrating

that kind of initiative that this government has provided.

We continue in this government to believe in amateur sports. We'll do, under my leadership, what we can to advance that.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Premier. Premier, today adopted adults, birth parents and adoptive parents are

here to protest your government's refusal to call Bill 77 for third reading. We want to thank all of the members from all three parties who have shown their support today and at other times.

Premier, my bill, as you know, is about human rights. It's about healing unnecessary pain and suffering. It's about saving lives. A recent study found that 77%

of Canadians support such legislation. The Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies supports Bill 77. The majority of your own caucus supports Bill 77.

I'm calling on you today to call Bill 77 for third reading and a final vote. Will you do that?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm sure the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services can

respond.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I thank my colleague across the way for the question. This is a

very important issue. We are concerned about this issue from the point of view of the adoptees and also that of the birth parents. We particularly understand the concerns about the access to

medical records and the want, quite frankly, to know one's background.

Having said that, I do find it interesting coming from my colleague across the way who, when in government, had a seven-year waiting list for adoptees to find

information about their parents. We have made tremendous changes on this side of the House since taking government in 1995. With an investment of $2.4 million, we have changed that seven-year

waiting list to one of only three months. So now individuals are able to find access to their records in a much easier and more comprehensive way.

Ms Churley: Premier, I'd like to come back to you. That was an outrageous answer. It was members from your party at that time who filibustered

and stopped that bill from going through. Here we are all these years later. The gallery is filled with people from the adoption community who don't want to hear any more excuses from you,

Minister.

I wonder, Premier, do you know that adoptees cannot access their own medical history until after they show symptoms of a fatal disease? Current laws make it

impossible for adoptees and their children to take preventive action. People are dying as a result of these outmoded laws.

Dr Philip Wyatt, chief of genetics at the North York General Hospital, says that current adoption disclosure laws put the health of more than 300,000 Ontarians

at risk.

Premier, this injustice has got to stop. Will you at least promise to take a look at the bill, have a discussion with me and the adoption community, and bring

it in for third reading? Will you do that, please?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I would like to thank my colleague across the way for the question. I was merely pointing out that our government has made a

number of changes to try to respond to this very serious issue.

I also must point out to my colleagues here in the Legislature that there are some very serious privacy issues that must be addressed in order to solve this

problem. There are still some outstanding concerns with regard to those privacy issues. Until those are addressed, I think it's not appropriate that we move forward.

Having said that, I have indicated to my colleague across the way that I am most prepared to work with her and with any colleagues in the House to address

those concerns so that all feel their privacy concerns are protected.

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier. We have reports in the media that you received briefings from the

Ministry of Finance warning you of shortfalls in the budget projected April 1. You had briefings as a Premier-elect before you --

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Would the member take her seat.

Order. We'll have to ask the people to leave. I would ask all the members in the gallery to kindly -- we would like them to be able to stay. I do not want to

have to remove everyone, but I will if indeed there are any more outbursts. I would ask all members to think of that. We've got people who have travelled to visit here and I do not want to have to

clear the galleries, but I will have to if we have any more outbursts.

I apologize to the member for Windsor West.

Mrs Pupatello: Premier, we know you had briefings from the ministry a week before this order in council was signed on April 2. Yes, you were

the Premier. You are suggesting today that perhaps you didn't know. Our question is, we kind of wonder what else escaped you in all of that time period, or what else you rushed to push through

before your official April 15 swearing-in.

I want to ask you today what's really important here, and that is, are you prepared to rescind this order in council and put $10 million back into the Ministry

of Health?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Speaker, through you to the honourable member of the opposition, sarcasm will

not help this situation. The reality is that in any briefing I had as the leader-elect of my party or of the government, while there was still an existing Premier -- and there was a Premier; his

name was Michael D. Harris -- he was the Premier until April 15. You may not understand that, but you should, being a Liberal. You have a Prime Minister in Ottawa who says he's going to leave 15

months from now, but he still is the Prime Minister today.

I have never been told about this issue --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Don Valley East, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Eves: I had no knowledge of this issue until it was raised in the Legislature this afternoon. I have never been briefed on this issue,

nor do I know why I would be if I was given a briefing about the general financial situation of the province of Ontario.

Mrs Pupatello: My question has not been answered, and it's the most important question about this issue: that is, if you are prepared to

rescind this decision, if you think it's fair that people should have mammograms on time, that they should get cancer treatment on time, or should the Toronto Raptors buy bobble heads with Ontario

taxpayers' money? That ultimately is the question that we are putting at your feet, Premier. We want to know, just out of interest's sake for you. This decision, signed by your cabinet members,

Premier, is retroactive to 1999.

Hon Mr Eves: The member for Windsor West stood up in this House no more than 10 minutes ago and said that I was the Premier when this was

signed. She has now totally obfuscated that. She doesn't have the class to stand up and withdraw and apologize.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could the Premier take his seat. The member for Windsor West, come to order, please. She has asked her question; it's now the

Premier's turn.

Hon Mr Eves: To the member for Windsor West, she might want -- talking about hypocrisy, sarcasm and integrity, I presumed that she was going

to stand up today, or her leader was, and table his receipts for the last seven years, and every one of his 48 staff members for the last seven years. I know you'd want to do the right thing. Where

are they? I don't see them.

HOME CARE

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question today is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, and it's to do with home

care. Minister, I know that our government has made significant investments in home care in Ontario, and I know this funding is making a real difference in the lives of people across Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member take his seat. I apologize.

The member for Windsor West, this is your last warning. If you continue on, I'll have to ask you to leave.

The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka may continue.

Mr Miller: I'll start again, just in case the minister missed my question. It's to do with home care, and it's for the Associate Minister of

Health and Long-Term Care. I know that our government has made significant investments in home care in Ontario. I know this funding is making a real difference in the lives of Ontarians across the

province. Many of my constituents would like to know more about our commitment to the care of our loved ones in the event of serious illness.

Minister, can you reassure my constituents in Parry Sound-Muskoka that they will be able to receive the care they need at home?

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I want to thank the hard-working member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for the

question. The Ernie Eves government recognizes the challenges that families face when a loved one becomes seriously ill, or in any circumstance where they need medical support at home. That's why

we are providing home care through community care access centres in our province. It is a major priority for our government.

The fact is, our government provides the most generous level of home care in all of Canada, approximately $128 per capita, and it's something we're very proud

of. We do this at no additional cost to families. Across Canada, six of 10 provinces charge co-payments for personal care as well as homemaking services. Sometimes up to 12% of the cost comes

directly out the patient's pocket. Fortunately, that isn't the case here in Ontario.

Mr Miller: I thank the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care for that response. I'm sure these investments go a long way in

providing quality care to Ontarians who need it, and greater peace of mind for families and loved ones.

Perhaps the associate minister could provide for this House some idea of how far we've come since 1995, and how we plan to ensure that the care is there for

our growing aging population.

Hon Mr Newman: Again I thank the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for his question.

Our government has worked hard over the years to help provide accessible home care services for the people of Ontario. Indeed, since we were first elected by

the people of Ontario in 1995, we've increased home care funding by nearly 70% -- an increase of nearly 70%. I think it's important to remind this House that those investments in health care were

done without any dollars coming from the federal government. They are beginning to realize now that we as a government have made major investments in home care across the province.

I say to you today, Mr Speaker, and to the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka, that the Ernie Eves government will continue to work with our partners to help

provide our seniors and in fact our most vulnerable with the highest-quality health services as close to home as possible.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. Premier, the headline tells what's happening: "Ambulance Dispatch a

Mess." In Niagara, we have had a terrible time with ambulance dispatch service. People have died because ambulances are not getting to the position of the patient on time. Your government kept

hidden for several months a condemning report that said low pay, frequent turnover of staff, antiquated equipment, improperly trained staff, work overload and lack of knowledge of the street system

have resulted in a real mess in ambulance dispatch service.

The regional municipality of Niagara, in exasperation at not getting answers from your government, has now offered to take over the service, with the

appropriate compensation from your government. Will you now solve this problem by turning responsibility over to the regional municipality of Niagara for ambulance dispatch in Niagara and end these

deaths and unnecessary delays?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I believe the Minister of Health has the response.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I can certainly inform this House on the state of things with respect to the

honourable member's question. The regional municipality has suggested verbally to me on a couple of occasions that they wish to put together a business case for the very plan the honourable member

mentions. I have indicated to the regional chair that I'm interested in her submissions on this issue. I have not received anything in writing to date, but I understand they're working very

diligently on a proposal.

Mr Bradley: All of this dithering and business cases and correspondence back and forth aren't doing anything for the dispatch service.

Let me give you one example. I personally know of four people, two who are today dead and two whose conditions were very bad as a result of the ambulance

taking a long time getting there. I know of a myriad of other cases where the ambulance simply isn't going to the right place because the people dispatching don't know where to send the ambulance,

and for the other reasons I mentioned.

Here's a person I know personally, or did know personally. On August 18, a 44-year-old man was at a party in Port Robinson when his car accidentally disturbed

a wasp nest. He was stung several times and suffered an allergic reaction. A friend dialled 911 and was connected with the ambulance dispatch centre. The centre sent an ambulance from the Rose

Avenue ambulance garage in Welland even though an ambulance and paramedic crew were ready at the much closer Thorold South garage on Allanburg Road. Given the geography of Welland and the alignment

of their streets, the ambulance from Rose Avenue had to travel south to find a way across the canal. I have little to say now, but it took the ambulance 18 minutes to get there. This person died as

a result of that allergic reaction.

Others have died. Others have experienced genuine problems with health because of the ambulance dispatch service. Will you now do as the region asks, turn over

responsibility to the region and end this mess?

Hon Mr Clement: I am aware of the facts of the particular case the honourable member has mentioned and I offer, as I have offered, my

condolences to the family and friends of this individual. I also should inform the House that there is a coroner's investigation going on and we all anxiously await the results of that

investigation.

I should mention to this House that on August 20 of this year, the Ernie Eves government and I, acting on its behalf, announced $32.5 million toward enhancing

emergency health services: $29.5 million of that to maintain and improve ambulance response times, which was the tenor of the honourable member's question, and $3.3 million going in particular to

enhance ambulance dispatch centres. This is an issue this government feels strongly about and the Ernie Eves government has in fact acted.

MEDICAL SCHOOL ADMISSIONS

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care as well. Health care remains

the number one priority with Canadians and Ontarians. This government, through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, has aggressively put in place new initiatives designed to increase

enrolment in medical schools in our great province.

In our province we are blessed to have many outstanding universities offering students outstanding programs, including world-renowned medical schools.

Minister, can you kindly inform the House of the new medical school spaces across the province that are a result of this government's commitment to providing Ontarians with the best possible

delivery of health care services.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I certainly thank the honourable member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale for the

question. Indeed, my honourable colleague is quite correct that the government is making great strides in investment in our province's medical schools. For instance, there are currently 692

students enrolled in Ontario's medical schools. This is an increase of 23%, or 160 new positions since 1999.

As an example I take the University of Western Ontario medical school. There are currently 133 first-year students enrolled in its medical school and this

represents a significant increase since 1999. I'd also reiterate the Ernie Eves government's commitment to providing northern Ontario with its very first medical school, set to open in 2004. That

school will be the home to more than 50 first-year medical students, and that is certainly to be applauded as well. Some of these will be in Thunder Bay and some in Sudbury. They'll be taught in

both locations as well as throughout the north, and this will mean greater access to medical care.

Mr Gill: Minister, yesterday I heard a member from the third party question the minister about the international medical graduates who wish to

practise in Ontario. As my wife is an international medical graduate and I was not born in this country, this is a very important issue to me.

My great riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, like this whole province, is home to many new Canadians. Many of these immigrants have medical training and

experience from their former countries and wish to ply their trade right here in Ontario. I wish to ask the minister what initiative our government has taken to ensure these international medical

graduates are able to practise in Ontario.

Hon Mr Clement: I can say for the record that unfortunately the former NDP government did nothing in this area, and indeed it was their former

leader Bob Rae who admitted, and I'm quoting exactly now, "I was part of a political consensus that proved to be wrong." That's as close as you get to an admission of culpability from the former

Premier.

In the last two years this government has had a new international medical graduate program that has more than doubled its number of positions to more than 50,

and since its inception over 400 international medical graduates have completed the program. We also have a program where underserviced communities requiring specialists can sponsor foreign-trained

physicians in the IMG program and have the physicians set up their practice in their sponsor community following their graduation. This will mean that by the end of this year, more physicians will

be available to more of our underserviced communities. This is another example of the Ernie Eves government repairing the damage of previous governments.

EMPLOYMENT IN STURGEON FALLS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Premier. The community of Sturgeon Falls awoke this morning to find out that their

only employer, Weyerhaeuser, is going to be closing its doors on December 6. Is your government prepared to work with the union and the community in order to find a successor employer to take over

that mill in Sturgeon Falls?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We're always prepared to work with anybody on such issues. I will ask the

minister of industry and trade to talk to the appropriate people. But you have to understand that there are only so many things that government can do, of course.

Mr Bisson: Premier, it seems that your government can do a lot more than you profess, because part of the issue here is that Weyerhaeuser is

closing down its corrugated box plant in Sturgeon Falls and they're going to be operating their hydro dams. They've suddenly come to the conclusion that there's more money to be made in producing

power as a private operator in Sturgeon Falls than there is in operating a plant that employs some 140-odd people.

Part of the issue here is that your own government policies are making it easier for Ontario firms that have hydro generating facilities to say, "Rather than

operating a plant that employs 140 people, we can make as much, or more, money operating power dams in Ontario."

Are you prepared to back off your deregulation and privatization and allow the community of Sturgeon Falls to keep that plant going?

Hon Mr Eves: I refer the question to the minister.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): I heard about the Weyerhaeuser closing today. I did not have advance

notice of that. I understand that a number of jobs are involved. It's a matter of significant concern. The company, as I understand it, is concerned about the age of its plant and increasingly

competitive global markets.

I'll certainly be prepared to talk to the member about it, get his information about it and get in touch with the company.

VISITORS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I'd like to welcome Bob, Susan and Andrea Gallagher to the gallery. They are Carley's dad, mom and sister

from Peterborough.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I have a petition that is signed by over 1,083 constituents in my area.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid for by" senior citizens "and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities by 15% or $7.02

per diem effective August 1, 2002; and

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

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

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

and

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

nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I sign my name to this petition with enthusiasm and pass it over to Rachel, my page.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have hundreds of signatures again on adoption disclosure. These petitions read:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in Ontario, adopted adults are denied a right available to" all "non-adoptees, that is, the unrestricted right to identifying information concerning

their family of origin;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child;

"Whereas these rights are denied to persons affected by the secrecy provisions in the adoption sections of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts of

the province of Ontario;

"Whereas research in other jurisdictions has demonstrated that disclosure does not cause harm, that access to such information is beneficial to adult adoptees,

adoptive parents and birth parents, and that birth parents rarely requested or were promised anonymity;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to permit adult adoptees

unrestricted access to full personal identifying birth information; permit birth parents ... and siblings access to the adopted person's amended birth certificate when the adopted person reaches

age 18; permit adoptive parents unrestricted access to identifying birth information of their minor children; allow adopted persons and birth relatives to file a contact veto restricting contact by

the searching party; replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling."

I affix my signature to this petition once again, because I am in full support.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition signed by 771 people, which I wish to present on behalf of the member for Oak Ridges.

"Whereas on August 13, 2001, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care introduced a number of changes to the delivery of audiological services in Ontario,

including the delisting of funded hearing aid evaluations and re-evaluations and the restriction of access to diagnostic hearing tests which have had adverse effects on the deaf and hard of hearing

community,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To reinstate delisted audiological services, including the assessment and reassessment of hearing loss, and to remove access barriers for consumers to the

audiological profession in Ontario by considering alternative hearing testing capacity as recommended by the physician service committee and a new funding mechanism as recommended in 1998 by then

Minister of Health Elizabeth Witmer."

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is part of a 20,000-name petition on Highway 69.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I give this to Philippe, our page from Sudbury, to bring to the table.

HOME CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): This is a very unique petition I'm presenting today on behalf of my constituents of Durham.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, support the philosophy of caring for the elderly, the handicapped and the infirm within their homes and communities wherever

possible;" -- I support this -- "and

"Whereas caregiving by paid professionals in the home is not always the preferred choice of family members; and

"Whereas we believe in some circumstances it is more reasonable and compassionate for the government to use the money assigned to professional caregivers to

support those very family members who would prefer to remain at home to care for their relatives; and

"Whereas caregivers who work outside the home often carry an extra burden of guilt and anxiety when they leave their loved ones in the care of strangers while

they go about their work;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide financial support to those residents of Ontario who choose to remain

with their loved ones and care for them at home. And we respectfully ask that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and any other relevant ministries give full consideration to developing

legislation and policies to support caregivers who care for their relatives in their homes" in their time of need.

I'm pleased to sign this petition on their behalf.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ernie Eves Conservative government has legislated the opening of the Ontario electricity market as of May 1, 2002, and the price per kilowatt hour

for electricity in the province of Ontario has nearly quadrupled since May 1; and

"Whereas Ernie Eves has done a poor job in educating the public as to the ramifications of an open electricity market in the province of Ontario and has done

little to punish the unscrupulous sales practices of door-to-door energy retailers; and

"Whereas the government appointed the board of directors for Hydro One who approved exorbitant salaries and compensation packages for Hydro One executives;

"Be it resolved that the Ontario government move immediately to protect our province's electricity consumers by addressing the serious generation problem in

Ontario, by punishing unscrupulous electricity retailers and by moving forward with a rebate to offset the increasing costs of electricity in Ontario."

Since I'm in favour, I sign my name to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Conservative government increased fees paid by Ontario seniors and other vulnerable people living in long-term-care facilities by 15%, or $213 a

month, instead of providing adequate government funding for long-term care; and

"Whereas the Conservative government has therefore shifted the costs of long-term care on to the backs of the frail elderly and their families; and

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

"Whereas in 1996 Ontario abandoned its minimum requirement of 2.25 hours of nursing care per nursing home resident; and

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

"Whereas according to the government's own study, government cutbacks have resulted in Ontario seniors receiving just 14 minutes a day of care from a

registered nurse -- less than half the time given to residents in Saskatchewan; and

"Whereas the report also found that Ontario residents receive the least nursing, bathing and general care of nine other comparable locations;

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

"Join the Ontario New Democratic Party in demanding the Conservative government eliminate the 15% fee increase for residents of long-term-care facilities,

increase the number of nursing care hours for each resident to a minimum of three and a half hours per day, and provide stable, increased funding to ensure quality care is there for Ontario

residents of long-term-care facilities."

I join my constituents in putting my name on this petition as well.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): We have been overwhelmed with petitions from constituents angry about the Ontario Energy

Board's approval of the Union Gas retroactive delivery charge. I will read some of them.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system

operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totalling approximately $150 million;

"Whereas Union Gas will recover accrued costs over the peak heating season, causing undue hardship;

"Whereas this retroactive charge will affect all customers who receive Union Gas, including new homeowners and new customers to Union Gas;

"Therefore we demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act disallowing the retroactive

rate hike granted to Union Gas; and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes that will protect consumers from

further retroactive rate increases."

These were sent to me from all across my constituency. These particular ones are from Thunder Bay, Dorion, Nipigon and Red Rock. I am very pleased to sign my

name to these petitions and certainly will continue to present them to the Legislature.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES /

SERVICES DE SANTÉ POUR ENFANTS

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): « Attendu que le gouvernement conservateur planifie la fermeture du service de

chirurgie cardiaque à l'Hôpital pour enfants de l'est de l'Ontario...;

"Whereas the Conservative government plans to centralize all cardiac services for children in Toronto;

« Attendu que la chirurgie cardiaque ... est un service essentiel pour les enfants de l'est de l'Ontario et pour les enfants francophones de toute la

province...;

"Whereas the lives of children may be at risk if forced to travel to Toronto for cardiac care;

« Et attendu que les enfants et leurs familles se verront imposer des dépenses et des soucis inutiles s'ils doivent se rendre à Toronto

pour recevoir des services cardiaques...;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Conservative government halt immediately its decision to close cardiac surgery

services at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa."

C'est avec plaisir que j'y appose ma signature.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system

operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totalling approximately $150 million; and

"Whereas Union Gas will recover accrued costs over the peak heating season, causing undue hardship; and

"Whereas this retroactive charge will affect all customers who receive Union Gas, including new homeowners and new customers to Union Gas;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy

Board Act disallowing the retroactive hike granted to Union Gas; and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes that

will protect consumers from further retroactive rate increases."

This petition is signed by a number of residents of Chatham and the Merlin area. Like all these petitions, I have affixed my name to it.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Some more petitions on Highway 69, a part of the 20,000-name petition that we are submitting from Sudbury. It's

to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas 46 people have been killed on Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound in the last three years; and

"Whereas already this year 10 people have died on that stretch of highway between Sudbury and Parry Sound;

"Therefore,

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

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

Of course, I affix my signature to this petition, and give it to Philip, our page, to bring to the table.

OPPOSITION DAY

EDUCATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have an opposition day motion which reads as follows:

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario endorses Excellence for All, the Ontario Liberal plan for education, which will raise standards and guarantee better

results, lower class sizes, increase access to quality child care and keep students in school until age 18.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr McGuinty has moved opposition day number 1. The leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I rise with a great deal of pride and pleasure to speak about a plan which, I can tell you, our caucus has worked long and hard

on. It has to do with improving the quality of education delivered to Ontario children. It's as simple as that. It is something for which there is, I can say, a huge appetite today in the province

of Ontario. It doesn't matter who you talk to; most people have come to understand intrinsically that there is something fundamentally wrong with the public education we are offering our children

today, and people want to know what it is that we can do about it. So, unlike members of the government, we over here are not focused on meeting the needs of our friends or finding ways that we can

advantage ourselves through government; we are focused on bringing about substantive and measurable improvement in public education in Ontario.

I can tell you off the top that our plan is ambitious, because we believe that we have to be ambitious when it comes to meeting the educational needs of our

children. I can tell you that it is aggressive, because we think we have to be aggressive when it comes to reaching out for our young people. It is also very practical and very workable. It is

based on much of the work that has been done here in some of our schools in Ontario as well as some of the very best experiences we have learned about in other parts of the world.

One of the things I want to talk about at the outset with respect to our plan is that it does something that no other plan of its kind has done in the history

of this country: we make a specific commitment -- in fact, we are offering a guarantee -- that there will be measurable improvement in student achievement by the end of our first four-year term of

government.

The results today are nothing less than sad when we take a look at what has happened when it comes to the standardized test results in the province of Ontario.

After seven years of Tory government reforms in Ontario, our children are left in the unfortunate position where only half of them are meeting the basic standard in reading, writing and

mathematics.

We are so confident in our plan, so determined to make a difference in learning for our children, that we are guaranteeing that by the end of our first

four-year term of government at least 75% of Ontario students will meet that basic standard in reading, writing and mathematics.

In order to get there -- because that is a very ambitious goal that we have set for ourselves and, more importantly, for our young people -- obviously we have

to put in place the kinds of conditions that will enable our children to learn better than they are doing today.

So we would start at the very beginning. I am very proud of this particular component of our plan. It's all about bringing early childhood education into the

21st century, helping it to come of age in Ontario.

Science has told us for a long time now that the early influences that are brought to bear on a child from the age of zero to three, zero to four, have a

profound influence on the ability of that child to succeed later on in life, academically and simply as a caring and productive citizen. What that means is that it's important for us to give every

child in Ontario access to early childhood education. If we get the early years right, the child is set for life. If we get the early years wrong, then of course that becomes a very expensive

proposition for our society, to say nothing of -- and this is the single most important loss -- the loss of potential of that particular individual child.

So we, as part of our plan, have created something we call the Best Start plan, and it's all based on our vision for early childhood education in Ontario. Our

vision is quite simply this: we think that early childhood education should become an integral part of public education in the province of Ontario; that every public school should offer early

childhood education; that every public school should offer parenting support programs of one kind or another; that every public school should be seen as a community hub which links our early

childhood educators in the community together and provides ongoing support.

In order to achieve that vision, we have to take it step-by-step. The first step is the one that we have outlined in our plan which we are calling Excellence

In fact, three quarters of all Ontario families with a child under the age of four will become eligible for our Best Start plan. We're talking about 330,000 children. That's a 450% increase over

the number of children today in Ontario who are eligible for supports for early childhood education.

In order for a provider to be eligible under our Best Start plan, that provider would have to do three things. The provider would have to first register with

the plan and, secondly, have to undergo a simple background check. Thirdly and most importantly, that provider would have to participate in ongoing education, ongoing training in early childhood

education, thereby benefiting not only the provider but, most importantly, the children who have come to spend the day with that provider. So that is talking about what we need to do at the very

beginning.

The next thing that we will do within traditional public education is reduce class sizes from junior kindergarten through to grade 3. We've got an average

class size of 25 today in the province of Ontario. We would provide for a maximum class size of 20 in the early years, JK through to grade 3, kids between the ages of four and eight. Why that is so

important is because children in larger classes tend to be overlooked. Their individual problems can be overlooked. They can fall through the cracks, so to speak. We are going to ensure that our

children have the individual attention that they need in order to succeed.

Things are so bad today in Ontario that there are over half a million kids in classes of 26 or more. That is unacceptable and parents will tell you in

countless cases today that their children, whether they are fast learners or children who are having difficulties keeping up -- in both instances they are crying out for more individual attention

for their children. Studies tell us that kids who get more individual attention in the early years, JK through to grade 3, tend to perform better academically, not only in those years but

throughout their elementary, high school, college and university years of learning. It makes a huge difference.

After we have dealt with smaller classes, we also believe that we should have more and better training opportunities for our teachers. One of the untold

stories connected with teaching today in Ontario is the staggering number of teachers who are leaving the profession in the early years. Estimates are as high as 30% in terms of the number of

teachers who quit within their first five years of teaching. We simply cannot afford to lose young teachers. We're already challenged by teachers leaving at the earliest possible opportunity. We've

got to close the door at both ends by making it more attractive for teachers to stay in Ontario and continue to teach here.

One of the things we have to do upfront is to provide for teaching mentors. These are experienced teachers who will have some time made available to them so

that they can devote it to spending time with young teachers. I can recall a particular time chatting with a young teacher in a Toronto schoolyard, who said to me, "There goes" -- we'll call her

Mrs Smith -- "Mrs Smith. She's a very experienced teacher, having taught for some 25 years." The young teacher said to me, "You know, I would give anything just to spend a day or two at the back of

Mrs Smith's classroom, to learn from her because she's such a good teacher." We have to create more opportunities for our young teachers to continue to learn. To use some of the jargon, what we've

got to do is turn public education into a learning organization. You can't just finish teachers' college, then go into a classroom and stay behind your closed door and teach your students day in

and day out. There have to be opportunities for you to learn and constantly hone your skills so that you can become a yet better teacher.

The other thing we're going to do, I am proud to say, is something we've talked about before, but it's included in our Excellence for All plan. We're going to

have a program called a lighthouse program. A lighthouse program is all about ensuring that some of the very best practices that are extant in public education today, some of the great things that

are happening inside our public schools today, are shared with other schools.

Let me give you an example. I visited St James High School in Guelph. I met there with a young phys-ed teacher. His name is Steve Friesen. I went to see him

because it turns out he's got the highest rate of enrolment in phys ed in the province. I went in and I said, "What the heck are you doing that makes young people want to attend phys ed in your

school?" He's seen such dramatic improvements, he's taken his rate of enrolment from 20% to 60% and he's taken intramural participation from 60 students to 1,200 students.

When we're thinking about this kind of thing, we should think about growing rates of childhood obesity in Ontario. I think of my own four children between 16

now and 21, who spend far too much time either sitting in the classroom, in front of TV or in front of a computer. We have to find more opportunities for young people to become physically

active.

There are some wonderful things that that young man has done in that school which, by the way, didn't cost that school one extra penny, which we should be

sharing with other schools around the province. Our lighthouse program would provide some additional funding to that school in order for that school to share that best practice, for example, to

free up Steve Friesen to go spend a bit of time in some other high schools, for them in turn to acquire that experience and for them in turn to share with others. That way we can make success

contagious within the public education system.

Another thing we want to do as part of our Excellence for All education plan is to provide for the creation of turnaround teams. Turnaround teams will be given

the special responsibility to help out schools that are struggling. Some of our schools are falling behind for a variety of reasons that are both endemic to their milieu but, most importantly,

because we've got a government here that doesn't care, that's writing them off. One of the fastest-growing education industries today in Ontario is private tutoring. It's no wonder, because our

public schools aren't getting the level of support they need in order for all of our children to succeed. Those schools that are struggling would be provided with some assistance by some people who

are expert educators and administrators, who would go in as part of a turnaround team, meet with the administration and teachers and prepare some kind of a plan on the ground with them to bring

about better improvement in learning and in teaching that takes place at that school. This is not by any means an effort to punish schools that may be experiencing some difficulties. It's a genuine

effort to reach out and help schools that might be falling behind.

We believe our public education system and individual schools must be accountable. We believe that individual schools should be inspected on an ongoing,

regular basis, but we also believe that a school should be compared against itself. What we should be looking for is improvement year over year. We will do whatever we have to do to ensure the

necessary supports are there.

The other thing we are very proud to include as part of our plan in Excellence for All is learning until 18. As you know, we've got a law on the books today in

Ontario that's been around for I'm not sure how long, 50, 60, 70 years maybe, that says that when you reach 16, you can quit school. I'm sure even the young pages here involved in grades 7 and 8

understand the importance of completing high school, of going on as far as you possibly can in education in order to find success in life.

What we're going to do is require that all young people continue to learn until reaching the age of 18. There's an exception: if you happen to graduate from

high school before that time, then you're no longer required to be in an official learning environment, although obviously we would strongly encourage you to go on as far as you possibly can. We're

saying to all those thousands and thousands of young people who have traditionally dropped out of high school, "We're not giving up on you. We need you. Our economy needs you. It's very important

for us that you be able to achieve your greatest potential, whatever that might be."

So we are going to create a new, meaningful high school diploma that marries the traditional classroom experience with learning outside the classroom; for

example, in a co-op or apprenticeship program. That way, we are convinced we will create the kind of learning experience that is simply not there today and that will make it much more attractive

for young people to stay in school. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for rigorous standards, but I understand that kids aren't standard. That's the important distinction we have to draw in our

minds.

first-year sciences. He's an expert when it comes to numbers. My third is absolutely superb when it comes to Nintendo and Gameboy. The point I'm making here is: different strokes for different

folks. Public education must be able to ensure there are different pathways for young people to find success. It's not a question of reducing standards. It's a way of ensuring that there are

sufficient numbers of pathways that recognize the differences in our young people. That's what it's all about.

Of course it's very important to us as Liberals that our schools be a safe learning environment for young people, so part of our plan is to ensure we have safe

schools. We're going to require that schools offer anti-bullying programs. We'll require there be a school safety hotline in place so that young people, parents and anybody who feels they have

information they want to share or a question they're maybe embarrassed to put in the school environment itself can do that with the confidence of knowing it will remain anonymous through our school

safety hotline.

One of our intentions, given that we are so ambitious for public education and for our young people, is to ensure we are doing much more than simply churning

out good workers. Of course we want good workers. It's a knowledge economy. We understand that the best workers get the best jobs at the best pay and enjoy the highest standard of living and make

the greatest overall contribution to our levels of productivity.

That's great. We want that from our schools, but we want more than that. We want good citizens. In order to get good citizens, these are young people who have

to be exposed to a well-rounded education. So we believe that good public education in Ontario at the beginning of the 21st century means that, in addition to numeracy and literacy skills, young

people have to be exposed to music, art, phys ed, drama and the full range of extracurricular activities which make for, at the end of the day, a well-rounded education. Our commitment to public

education is going to guarantee that the young people of Ontario are exposed to a well-rounded education.

I know this is not going to be an easy thing to do. I understand that. My youngest, Connor, is in grade 11. At the beginning of the year I said, "Are you

taking phys ed?" because Connor is a real computer nut. He's on the darn thing all the time in his spare time if he's not at his part-time job. He said, "I don't have any time." I said, "Let's take

a look at this stuff together here." Once we factored in all the subjects that he had to take in order to be able to go on to meet the entrance requirements for certain university programs, he was

right. There was no opportunity within the curriculum as it exists today for him to take a bit of phys ed or, had he wanted to, a bit of art, music or those kinds of things. I think that's a real

problem.

One of the things we are going to do in order to be able to better address this problem is we're going to create a brand new body. I think it's high time that

we have done this in Ontario. It's called a curriculum council. I want to give credit where credit is due in this regard: I got this idea from Gerard Kennedy, my education critic, who has been very

active on the education front.

The curriculum council would actually consist of front-line people -- teachers, principals and others -- who would be given responsibility for planning and

implementation of curricular changes. Right now, curriculum -- and I say this, I think, with respect to all governments of all political stripes -- can become a bit of a toy for the political

ideology of the day. It causes tremendous challenges for teachers, to say nothing of what it can end up doing to our young people if there has not been an independent body in place that understands

government retains the right to give policy directives with respect to curriculum, but then has a profound understanding of how it works inside the classroom and then is given specific

responsibility for planning and implementing curriculum changes. We'll be calling upon our new curriculum council to help us ensure that our intentions are given the force of life; that is, a

well-rounded education with opportunity for exposure to all those kinds of things I just talked about, which we believe are essential at the beginning of the 21st century if we're going to have a

progressive education system.

We're going to doing something as well under the Excellence for All plan which, given recent history, will be truly revolutionary. We're going to respect and

support Ontario's teachers. It should hardly be revolutionary, but sadly it is. I have just talked to too many teachers -- and these are young people filled with a powerful sense of idealism -- who

have decided to go into teaching because they just want to make a difference in the lives of young people. That is pretty powerful motivation, but we've put them into such a corrosive environment

it has robbed them of their idealism and it cannot help but have an impact on our children.

We intend to support and honour our teachers. We intend to put in place greater and better learning opportunities for our teachers. I've heard from too many

young teachers who have told me independently that they are embarrassed in a social setting to admit they are teachers in Ontario. Think about it: it's a knowledge economy and those people who

impart knowledge to our children in too many cases are ashamed to admit they're teachers. There is something fundamentally wrong there.

To relate another personal experience, my youngest sister, a teacher, is teaching in Germany this year. She taught there last year, and for a couple of years

before that she taught in the United Arab Emirates. She comes home at Christmas and she comes home for summer.

When she first told me she was leaving, I said, "There's no darn way you're leaving. You're a good teacher. Your principals told me that, your kids' parents

have told me that and I can see it in the eyes of your students. Don't you appreciate everything the province has done for you?"

She said, "Yes, I do, but I'm not sure my province appreciates everything I'm doing for it." She tells me that when she's over there in other parts of the

world where she has been teaching, when she tells people that she's a teacher, they put her on a pedestal. "You impart knowledge to our children. It's a knowledge economy. How can we help? You're

important to us in our society and to our kids." We have to restore that sense of honour to the teaching profession. That's not only the right thing to do for our teachers, but it's the right thing

to do for our kids, ourselves and our society. We look forward to doing that.

Some people ask, "I understand you're going to put $1.6 billion into public education as part of your plan. Where are you going to get the money?" That's an

important question. First of all, let me say that when we talk about putting money into public education, it has to be seen for what it is: it is an investment. Enlightened self-interest demands

that we see it for what it truly is. It is an investment that will pay off not only for young people but for all of us. It's an investment in a brighter future, a healthier, more prosperous

economy, a better and more productive citizenry, strong workers, and on and on and on.

Investing in our Excellence for All plan will simply come about by virtue of the fact that we have different priorities than this government. This government

wants to put half a billion dollars in private schools. We think that is nothing less than shameful. We think that with public education on its knees, if there is a penny available for education in

the province of Ontario, it ought to be invested in public education.

This government wants to put another $2.2 billion into tax breaks for large corporations. We disagree with that policy. We will rescind that tax break, and

instead we will have that money available for our priorities, including public education.

We will also ensure that all savings found within public education are reinvested in public education. For example, with the elimination of grade 13, the OAC

year, that's going to free up some hundreds of millions of dollars. Unlike this government, which would waste that on tax cuts, we would reinvest that in public education.

There also happens to be a terribly wasteful, bureaucratic exercise connected with assessing special education children which is costing $50 million a year. We

would eliminate that program. We would vest that assessment responsibility in those people on the front lines, teachers and people who work with the boards, and we would rely on their best

judgment. We will fund accordingly and audit occasionally on behalf of taxpayers -- we do believe in accountability -- but we will free up that $50 million and make that available for investment in

public education; more specifically, to ensure that the needs of our young people who have special learning needs are in fact being met.

The other thing that we're going to do in government is finally make my private member's bill, twice introduced in this Legislature -- we're going to make it

law. It's a bill that is going to ban the use of taxpayer dollars for partisan, political advertising. So far, this government has spent over $250 million -- that's a quarter of a billion dollars

-- on wasteful partisan political advertising. It's time to bring that to a grinding halt and make that money available for good public purposes, like public education.

I have said it many times over, but if I could stand for nothing else as Premier, I would stand for education. I happen to believe that if you get education

right, most everything else seems to line up. Young people who receive a good public education turn out to be the best workers, the best citizens. They take responsibility for the welfare not only

of themselves and their families but of their communities. They tend to be healthier.

So much can be founded on public education, and that's why we, as Liberals, are so committed to supporting public education. That's why we, as Liberals, are so

ambitious for our children. That's why we provided a specific guarantee of measurable improvement. That's why we're bookending public education the way it should be bookended today in the early

2000s, starting with early childhood education and continuing with learning right through to 18.

I have had the opportunity to talk about this a great deal through talk radio and a variety of speaking opportunities, and people are very excited about the

fact that there is a political party that is genuinely committed to public education for all the right reasons. So I commend this to you, Speaker, and I commend this to those of our viewers who

have had the opportunity to learn more about our plan, Excellence for All. They can always get a copy of this plan through our offices and through any of our MPPs. It's an exciting plan. Public

education does not have to be the way it is today. There is a way for us to turn it around and ensure that all our children have a bright and prosperous future.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Further debate?

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I'm pleased to participate in the debate today so I can highlight the NDP's bright idea for $10-a-day child

care in Ontario. Speaker, you will know that that proposal comes as an integral component of our document, A Brighter Idea for Education, which we released the day that school started in September.

We do recognize that education is lifelong, so we need to invest in the earliest years of our youngest and we need to invest right through to adult education.

We do accept that what Fraser Mustard and Margaret McCain had to say in the Early Years Study was that ages zero to six are a crucial part of learning and of

children's development and that what we teach to children in the years zero to six will either equip them or deprive them of the very skills they need in order to meet the rest of life's

challenges.

The regrettable fact is that this government has yet to accept that basic fact and reality, and instead has spent much of its time undercutting and undermining

the very programs we need to support early learning. For example, this is a government that cancelled the 12 Early Years projects begun by our government and slashed funding for junior kindergarten

and made it voluntary for school boards to provide. This is a government that cancelled funding for full-day kindergarten. It's a government that has cut regulated child care funding by 15%, thus

putting many of the early learning programs in regulated child care at risk and also leaving Ontario families with the highest cost of child care in the country. This is a government that has left

many families, both full fee-paying families and families looking for subsidies, on a waiting list.

When we shortchange our kids, that is really short-sighted. When we invest in early learning programs, that really pays off for everyone. Above and beyond the

work that McCain and Mustard did, you can look at a 25-year study called the Perry Preschool Project that was done in Michigan, which tracked younger students right through to age 25. It showed

that every dollar that had been invested in education in the early years saved $7 in the form of lower dropout rates of those students, a lower social assistance rate, a lower crime rate. You only

have to look at that to understand why Ontario should be adopting a comprehensive plan to support families in the early years. That is what occurs in our document.

I want to go through some of our proposals for the viewers who are watching today. First, our plan says very clearly that we will invest in junior kindergarten

and senior kindergarten, we will make JK and SK full day and we will fund school boards in this province to make that mandatory so they can deliver that for parents.

We also very clearly say, with respect to the child care portion of early learning, that we want to do a number of things. First of all, which is pivotal,

$10-a-day child care for parents whose children are currently in regulated, not-for-profit settings, ages two to five. We do that because we know that 55% of parents in this province pay full fees.

Those families deserve to have a break on their child care too, not just families who make under $25,000, as is proposed in the Liberal plan. If you're going to make child care affordable and

accessible, you've got to deal with child care costs for those who are paying full fees.

Those who are paying full fees in this province are paying the highest full fees anywhere in Canada. We know that child care costs in this province have

increased 62% since 1997. We want to do something for those parents, middle-income parents, even if the two of them are working. We want to do something for their fees too because we want to make

sure their children have access to a high-quality early learning program as well. That is a model that has been adopted in Quebec, where parents, regardless of where they live, regardless of their

income and whether or not they're in the workforce, are entitled to have child care at $5 a day. The government picks up the cost.

We think that our model of $10 a day will make child care accessible for all Ontario families, not just those families who earn less than $25,000, and will be

much more in keeping with what Fraser Mustard and Margaret McCain have said: that early learning programs should be accessible to all families -- not just high-risk families, not just low-income

families -- in Ontario. That's why we're going forward with the proposal for $10-a-day child care: $10 a day paid by the parents, the government of Ontario picking up the rest of those costs.

If you look at the next proposal, that has to do with the creation of new spaces. I look back at what our government did. We created about 18,000 new child

care spaces during our time in government, over that four-year period. So we think it's quite reasonable to say to the public that we believe we can create 20,000 new $10-a-day spaces in the first

mandate of the government.

Those spaces would be created in not-for-profit home- and centre-based care -- not for profit. That's a clear difference between our plan and the Liberal plan

as well. We are not interested in supporting the for-profit child care sector. We have had a long policy in our party that supports not-for-profit child care. When we were in government we followed

that and it is our intention, in our document and with this plan, to ensure that those spaces that are created, those spaces that move down to $10 a day, will be in not-for-profit centres and

not-for-profit regulated home settings.

Municipalities can participate in that in the creation of 20,000 new $10-a-day spaces, we certainly anticipate that the municipalities that now pay 20% of

subsidized spaces would actually use some of the money they have on hand. In Toronto it's some $3 million right now. The city of Toronto would then add on to the $10 a day to reduce the fees even

further for those parents if it decides that they need some subsidized spaces out of the 20,000 new spaces.

So the municipalities have an important role to play. We know the city of Toronto has set aside, for at least three years now, $3 million to add new subsidized

spaces. We say to the city of Toronto, "You can participate in this plan. We will ask you to add your subsidy to the $10 a day that those parents are now paying. You can reduce that even further

and ensure there will be parents who will only continue to pay $2 or $3 if that's all they can afford."

The third piece of this is that for those parents who are already receiving a subsidy, whether it's $2 or $3 a day, and that's about 45% of all parents who use

regulated child care in the province right now, we are going to maintain those subsidy levels. So if they're only paying $2 a day, that's what they're going to continue to pay under our plan. If

they're paying $3, that's what they're going to continue to pay under our plan.

We recognize that there are many people who can't afford to pay more. However, those who are receiving a subsidy under the current subsidy system deserve to

have that subsidy system reviewed. We know that this government particularly has made it very restrictive for parents who are trying to return to school to actually get a subsidy. We are saying

very clearly that if you already have a subsidy, we will continue to maintain it. There will be a full review of the current subsidy system to make it less intrusive and much more fair, especially

to those parents who are trying to access education themselves at either the college or university level.

We also made it very clear in our document that we want to change the education funding formula so that schools that have child care centres are not penalized

for having those centres. Under the changes this government made to the Education Act, child care spaces in schools can't be counted as education space, so we've had the scenario where many schools

have gotten rid of their child care centres because they couldn't afford to maintain operations in their schools under the funding formula. So we will be amending the education funding formula so

that child care space in schools will again be counted as education space for the purposes of school funding. That will make it much easier to increase new spaces in school-based settings.

If you go back to the Mustard and McCain report, you see clearly that one of their focuses was to have early learning centres in schools. If we amend the

education funding formula -- and we are the only ones proposing to do that -- then schools again will have a very clear incentive to have child care centres in their facilities. We also will be

making a change, as we did when we were in government, to say that all new schools built will have to have child care centres in those new schools.

Let me deal with capital funding, because our plan, again, is the only one that talks about capital funding and an investment. We know that this government,

for the last seven years, has not had capital funding for child care centres -- not for renovations, not for new child care spaces etc. We propose to change that. When we were the government we did

provide capital funding for the creation of new schools and for the renovation of others. Our plan talks about capital not only to repair those existing centres that have had a very difficult time

because there hasn't been capital funding from this government, but there will be funding as well for new child care centres. We hope that much of that would be used for renovations in schools to

allow those new spaces and new centres to open in schools.

Let me speak about staff as well, because we are not going to have a high-quality system of child care if we don't do something about the level of pay for

staff in regulated child care. This is a government that has capped proxy pay equity to child care workers since December 1998 and has forced regulated child care centres to find within their own