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

October 30, 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-30 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 30 October 2002 Mercredi 30 octobre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION

FOODLAND ONTARIO AWARDS

CHILD CARE WORKER

APPRECIATION DAY

JEAN ACHMATOWICZ-MACLEOD

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILD CARE WORKER

APPRECIATION DAY

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE

PULMONARY DISEASE

HYDRO DEREGULATION

NEW DOCTORS IN STRATFORD

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA COMMISSION DE L'ÉNERGIE

DE L'ONTARIO

KEEPING THE PROMISE

FOR A STRONG ECONOMY ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RESPECT

DE L'ENGAGEMENT D'ASSURER

UNE ÉCONOMIE SAINE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

KEEPING WATER

IN PUBLIC HANDS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 VISANT À MAINTENIR

L'EAU DANS LE DOMAINE PUBLIC

INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT

(BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AND

PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES INVESTISSEURS

(SOCIÉTÉS PAR ACTIONS

ET COMPTABILITÉ PUBLIQUE)

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS WEEK ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE SENSIBILISATION

À LA MOTOCYCLETTE

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING OFFICERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO DEREGULATION

ENERGY CONTRACTS

SMART GROWTH

ENERGY CONTRACTS

JUSTICE ISSUES

RACIAL PROFILING

ENERGY CONTRACTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MARS DISCOVERY DISTRICT

VISITORS

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

NATURAL GAS RATES

EDUCATION FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

LONG-TERM CARE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

SCHOOL CLOSURES

NATURAL GAS RATES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Wednesday 30 October 2002 Mercredi 30 octobre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): It is with great frustration but still some measure of hope that I address the Legislature

today. As a northern member acutely conscious of the need for us to continually diversify our economy, I am appalled that the government of Ontario is doing nothing to stop the closure of the

Thunder Bay agricultural research station scheduled for tomorrow.

This utterly flies in the face of economic logic because of the remarkable successes that have been the hallmark of this small but vital research facility. In

its 12 years of operation, the farming sector has benefited enormously, making it possible for the northwest to dream about actually becoming a net exporter of grains in the future. The growth of

soybeans, for example, a crop previously never imagined as a northwestern Ontario product, would never have gone forward without the research and advice of the station's staff. Yet the Minister of

Agriculture has ignored our call for the minimal financial assistance needed to keep this facility open.

So we now turn to the Minister of Northern Development to provide us with the $200,000 needed -- small potatoes, if you will -- that will allow our agricultural

sector in the northwest to continue to flourish and grow. Minister, this is very much about northern development and we expect you, as our advocate, to keep this facility open. You are well aware

of the issue, as not only have I spoken to you about this, but the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce met with you about this vital manner during your visit to their annual

meeting last month.

There is no argument about the enormous value of this facility. What we need now is for you to free up some dollars from the northern Ontario heritage fund to

keep agricultural research in the northwest alive. We're at the 11th hour, but it is not too late. If you truly want to show your understanding for our needs in the northwest, you'll stop this

closure now. It is simply the right thing to do.

FOODLAND ONTARIO AWARDS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I'd like to take this opportunity to make mention of two grocery stores in my riding that have been

recently honoured by the Ontario government with the annual distribution of Foodland Ontario awards. I'm proud to say that both Cayuga IGA and Caledonia Zehrs -- these stores are in Haldimand

county -- garnered silver awards of merit recognizing excellence in promoting Ontario produce.

Across Ontario we obviously have some of the hardest-working farmers producing some of the highest-quality product in the world. However, there is competition in

that world and it's important that we continue the efforts of all stakeholders -- wholesalers, the grocers, as we mentioned here, Foodland Ontario and farmers themselves -- to ensure that the

consumer understands that when the Ontario name is on a product there is quality in each and every bite.

Through partnering with Foodland Ontario, retailers are able to become part of a successful marketing program that offers them a competitive edge. Based on

research, there's a noted high degree of consumer trust in Ontario-grown produce. The Foodland Ontario symbol has tremendous recognition and consumers look for and ask for the Foodland Ontario logo

by name.

Through their inspired attention to detail, and certainly a lot of hard work, these grocers, and of course their staff, like those at the Cayuga IGA and the

Caledonia Zehrs, are showcasing the provinces' produce in a way that captures the consumer's eye.

CHILD CARE WORKER

APPRECIATION DAY

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Today I had the opportunity to visit the Hester How Child Care Centre, where

child care workers were recognized for their outstanding contributions as part of Child Care Worker Appreciation Day. The second annual Child Care Worker Appreciation Day is being marked today all

across Ontario as many municipalities will acknowledge the contribution of child care workers within their communities.

Child care workers play a significant role in the early development of our most precious resource, our children. My leader, Dalton McGuinty, has made early child

development a priority to ensure that the needs of our children and their caregivers are met.

This Best Start plan is the most ambitious early child development program that will be undertaken in the province, when a Liberal government will provide over

300,000 subsidized child care spaces in its first four-year term. Professional child care workers are a key component in our plan as many studies demonstrate that quality child care enhances our

children's readiness to learn.

The success of our future tradespeople, doctors, teachers and business leaders depends on the quality care they will receive between the ages of zero and six

years of age. The Liberal Party is committed to its Best Start plan for Ontario's children. On behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal caucus, I am very pleased to recognize the great

work that thousands of child care workers in Ontario do today.

JEAN ACHMATOWICZ-MACLEOD

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a truly gracious and wonderful constituent of Durham riding, Jean

Achmatowicz-MacLeod.

Jean was named to the Order of Canada. She was amongst 40 distinguished Canadians honoured recently at the investiture ceremonies in Halifax, October 26.

Jean Achmatowicz-MacLeod is a lifelong volunteer in local, provincial and national organizations. However, her main focus has been on the provision of health

care quality. Indeed, she is one of Durham region's strongest advocates for equal access to quality health care. She is the former chair of the board of the Oshawa General Hospital and in that

capacity she led the hospital through challenges of amalgamation. She was elected as a member of the Lakeridge Health Corporation board and also served on the board of Cancer Care Ontario.

She is a dedicated advocate for the rights of persons to live with mental illness. As a chair of the mental health implementation task force for central-east

Ontario, she has worked hard and tirelessly on behalf of patients requiring institutional care. She has a talent for finding solutions to difficult issues and she is frequently in contact with

Durham MPPs to express these concerns on behalf of the community.

I am pleased to inform the House of the investiture of Ms Jean Achmatowicz-MacLeod and to pay a tribute to her achievements. She is an outstanding advocate on

health issues, a dedicated volunteer, leader and inspiration to others. This is truly recognition that is well deserved. I would like to say thank you to Jean for her distinguished service to our

community.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I would like to invite the Minister of Health to tour the four hospitals of the Quinte Healthcare

Corp. We can start in Trenton: a wonderful community hospital struggling financially. We could drive half an hour from there to Picton: wonderful hospital built by the citizens. From Picton we'll

travel on to the Belleville site -- that's about another half-hour to drive there -- great hospital but underfunded. From Belleville we would then drive for an hour and a half to the Bancroft

Hospital: a great vital community hospital.

Now here's the rub: we'll have been on the road two and a half hours but according to the minister we're still in the same spot where we started. The minister

says all of those four buildings are in the same location, and they're funded as one large hospital. That ain't too bright. If we think about it, four separate hospitals need to be funded as four

separate hospitals. It costs money to transfer bedding, it costs money to transfer food, it costs money to transfer information from one hospital site to another. The hospital in Belleville is an

hour and a half away from the branch just down the road.

Please give a little respect and recognize that rural Ontario needs medical service as much as the large urban areas, and use a little common sense. We told you

three years ago, two years ago and last year that these are four separate hospital sites and should be funded accordingly. Minister, do the right thing finally and fund Quinte Healthcare Corp for

their real costs, not your pretend world that they're all in one city.

CHILD CARE WORKER

APPRECIATION DAY

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I am very pleased to acknowledge that today is the second annual Child

Care Worker Appreciation Day. We want to say thanks to those incredible early childhood educators, primarily women, who provide tremendous early learning and care to our most precious resource --

our children.

Over 38 Ontario municipalities have passed proclamations to recognize the valuable contribution being made by well-trained early childhood educators in our

communities. Ontario child care workers shape the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of our youngest citizens. They support Ontario families by providing safe, high-quality child

care so that parents can participate in the Ontario economy. Child care workers provide an essential public service, and Ontario can't work without them.

If this government truly wanted to show its appreciation to child care workers, it would pay these workers the proxy pay equity they deserve. But this government

has shown disdain for these workers by cancelling proxy pay equity in 1996. When the Divisional Court ruled against the government, this government then capped proxy pay equity back to December

1998. These workers are now in court trying to get what they are owed from the government. This capping makes a mockery of this government's alleged commitment to children. Today, on this day, this

government should pay proxy pay equity to child care workers in Ontario.

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE

PULMONARY DISEASE

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I rise today to remind everyone of a terrible disease that is reaching epidemic proportions.

According to the Ontario Lung Association, this disease kills one person every hour in Canada. The disease is called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. It is an umbrella term for two

major breathing diseases: chronic bronchitis and emphysema.

Currently 3.1% of the population in Ontario has been formally diagnosed with COPD -- that is, 300,000 people who are having difficulty breathing, many of them

suffering from irreversible lung damage and finding it difficult to perform simple activities without having to take a break and catch their breath.

By 2020, COPD will be the third leading cause of death worldwide.

Sadly, COPD is almost entirely preventable, with cigarette smoking accounting for up to 83% to 90% of all cases.

In the members' gallery today, I am pleased to recognize Mr Alan McFarlane from the Ontario Lung Association, and Patricia Robertson.

In the spirit of Halloween, I would like to encourage all members and their staff to attend an Ontario Lung Association event called Unmasking the Face of COPD

this evening at 5 o'clock in the legislative dining room. Together we can learn more about preventing and treating this devastating disease.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Many parts of the world have their great myths. Scotland has the Loch Ness monster; Nepal has the

abominable snowman. Here in Ontario, the NDP is spreading another myth: that Ontario can just hand its hydro problems back to the government-owned monopoly and all will be cured.

Today, we have the worst of all possibilities. The so-called open market has a supply monopoly: Ontario Power Generation. OPG is 100% owned by this government,

OPG controls three quarters of our power generation and OPG consistently fails to get enough supply on-line to keep prices low, thanks to failures like Pickering A. The result is not enough supply

and skyrocketing prices.

The NDP's response is based on myth. NDP myth would throw out new suppliers we need to get prices down. NDP myth would close the border to electricity at a time

when we don't have enough supply. That means a major crunch in the summer and winter when demand is highest. NDP myth would regulate electricity Ontario simply doesn't have because the NDP and the

Conservatives have failed to invest in supply. NDP myth would replace high hydro rates with higher debt and taxes and, we think, higher rates even still.

Howard on hydro is another NDP myth, like public auto insurance. The failure to fix today's problems is the Tories' fault. The people who caused it were the New

Democrats.

NEW DOCTORS IN STRATFORD

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to welcome two new doctors to the city of Stratford, Dr Stirling Keizer and Dr Heather Keizer.

Stirling is a family practitioner and Heather is a psychiatrist.

Coming from Halifax, the Keizers could have gone anywhere in the world, and in fact had an interesting offer from

Kentucky. As an unpaid commercial, I just wanted to let you know that Dr Keizer is looking for patients. They chose Ontario and Stratford, and we're delighted to have them in our community. There

are any number of advantages to locating in southwestern Ontario, and Stratford offers a warm welcome, good schools and a good medical profession in an atmosphere where it's possible to balance

raising a young family with pursuing a rewarding career.

The doctors, staff and administration at Stratford General Hospital played a key role in the Keizers' decision to come to Stratford. I'd like to commend the

Stratford hospital's administrator, Andrew Williams, for his skill and judgment in highlighting what our area has to offer.

I also want to commend my colleague the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care for everything he and his ministry are doing to ensure that doctor recruitment and

retention remain a top priority of our health care system.

Again, please join me in welcoming the Keizers and their children to Stratford, and in wishing them the best success in their newly chosen home.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

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

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

VISITORS

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like all members of the House to welcome Mr Bob Kerwin and his

son Eric. Bob is the father of Pierre, one of our pages. They're in the members' gallery.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to call all members' attention to the west gallery where

Kevin Quach, who served as a page in the last group but didn't have time to have lunch with me then, has come back, not only to have lunch but to spy on the new group of pages.

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

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is to recognize one of the brightest schools we have in Ontario,

Henry Kelsey school. There are numbers of them on both sides. They're here to observe the wonderful behaviour of their parliamentarians, with their principal, Mr Iron.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA COMMISSION DE L'ÉNERGIE

DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Crozier moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 197,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 to require notice to consumers where there is a rate increase

in energy prices / Projet de loi 197, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l'énergie de l'Ontario pour exiger qu'un préavis soit donné aux consommateurs lors de

l'augmentation des prix de l'énergie.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): This bill, if passed, would require that when there are increases to the rate for the sale of gas to customers, the

order shall provide that the increased rate does not apply until after the gas distributors and storage companies have provided consumers with 30 days' written notice of the increase. If, in

approving or fixing a rate for the retailing of electricity under

section 78 or in approving the rate for the delivery of electricity to rural or remote consumers under

section 79, the rate for

consumers increases, the order of the board shall provide that the increased rate does not apply until after the distributor has provided consumers with 30 days' written notice of the increase.

This would give consumers, particularly those who are receiving variable rate increases, the opportunity to select their choices for fixed rates, for example.

KEEPING THE PROMISE

FOR A STRONG ECONOMY ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RESPECT

DE L'ENGAGEMENT D'ASSURER

UNE ÉCONOMIE SAINE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Mrs Ecker moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 198,

An Act to implement Budget measures and other initiatives of the Government / Projet de loi 198, Loi mettant en oeuvre certaines mesures

budgétaires et d'autres initiatives du gouvernement.

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

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): If passed, the Keeping the Promise for a Strong Economy Act (Budget Measures), 2002, would implement a

number of initiatives announced in the 2002 budget. These include steps to improve investor confidence and reforms to Ontario's automobile insurance system. In our ongoing efforts to ensure

existing government policies remain current and effective, the bill would also implement amendments to clarify provisions in key statutes and introduce a preliminary framework for tax-incentive

zones and municipal opportunity bonds.

Once in effect, this bill will benefit a broad range of taxpayers at all income levels, all business sectors and all regions of the province.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to put the following motion:

That the Minister of Finance be directed by this House to give a ministerial statement with respect to the act which she just tabled to outline why the

government is not proceeding with its tax cuts, to more clearly define what is in the bill, and to allow the opposition the opportunity to respond to what can only be considered a major piece of

legislation.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Speaker: That's passing strange, this point

of order from the member opposite who last week heard about the first reading of a bill and didn't know anything about it, but apparently he knows everything about this bill, and it's first reading

again.

The Speaker: Just a second. I will ask for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

KEEPING WATER

IN PUBLIC HANDS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 VISANT À MAINTENIR

L'EAU DANS LE DOMAINE PUBLIC

Mr Caplan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 199,

An Act to prevent the sale of municipally-owned water works / Projet de loi 199, Loi visant à empêcher la vente de stations de purification

de l'eau dont les municipalités sont propriétaires.

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

The member for a short statement?

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

Water in Public Hands Act evolves from Justice O'Connor's recommendations from the Walkerton inquiry. He said, "In not recommending the sale of municipal water systems to the private sector, my

conclusion is based on several considerations: the essentially local character of water services; the natural-monopoly characteristics of the water industry; the importance of maintaining

accountability to local residents; and the historical role of municipalities in this field." That's found in part two of his report, on page 323.

The government has had two major opportunities to act on this warning from Justice O'Connor in the Walkerton report, and they haven't done that. This bill will

do it. This bill, of course, will not prohibit municipalities from entering into partnerships relating to the construction and operation of their utilities.

INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT

(BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AND

PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES INVESTISSEURS

(SOCIÉTÉS PAR ACTIONS

ET COMPTABILITÉ PUBLIQUE)

Mr Hampton moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 200,

An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act and the Public Accountancy Act to protect investors / Projet de loi 200, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les

sociétés par actions et la

Loi sur la comptabilité publique pour protéger les investisseurs.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): At the heart of the Arthur Andersen-Enron scandal was a conflict of interest. Andersen made more money

offering consulting and related services to Enron than it made from properly auditing the company's books. We want to ensure that this kind of conflict of interest is no longer permitted in

Ontario. It's not good enough just to hand off to the champion of deregulation, Mr Ron Daniels, and ask him to think about accountancy. We need to eliminate the conflict of interest in accountancy,

and this bill will do that.

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS WEEK ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE SENSIBILISATION

À LA MOTOCYCLETTE

Mr Stewart moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 201,

An Act to proclaim Motorcycle Awareness Week / Projet de loi 201, Loi proclamant la Semaine de sensibilisation à la motocyclette.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): This bill is all about safety and awareness. If the bill is proclaimed, it proclaims the week beginning on

the first Monday in May of each year as Motorcycle Awareness Week.

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING OFFICERS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice with

respect to the rotation of the Deputy Speakers.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I move that notwithstanding the order of the House dated October 29, 2001, Bert Johnson, member for the electoral district

of Perth-Middlesex, be appointed Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the whole House; Mike Brown, member for the electoral district of Algoma-Manitoulin, be appointed First Deputy Chair of

the Committee of the whole House; and David Christopherson, member for the electoral district of Hamilton West, be appointed Second Deputy Chair of the Committee of the whole House.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Energy and it concerns electricity prices. Minister, can you

help the electricity consumers of Ontario understand the following: in late May -- early June, billing period of May 29 -- June 4, well after the market opened, during that week electricity demand

averaged 16,232 megawatts and the price for that week in the open market this past spring averaged about 3.35 cents per kilowatt hour. Now we get into a similar situation for the first week of

October, this month. We see electricity demand averaging 16,434 megawatts and a price that averaged, during that week, 5.28 cents a kilowatt hour, an increase of approximately 60% in price at a

time when demand is virtually the same as it was four months earlier.

Can you explain to the electricity consumers why the price has gone up by over 60% for a demand that is about the same?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The member opposite talked about the first week of

October and demand being in the neighbourhood of 16,000 megawatts. The peak load in the first week was certainly always in excess of 17,000, even as much as 20,000, 21,000. I would indicate that in

the spring we had a very good runoff. There was a lot of water available for our hydroelectric stations right across the province of Ontario. That, coupled with a low amount of maintenance,

certainly I would suspect contributed to the lower cost of electricity.

We had the hottest summer on record in 50 years, and that obviously meant we had less rainfall, which means our hydroelectric dams did not have the same amount

of water that they would have had available in May. Depending on the given hour or a given five-minute interval, depending on which plant in the province of Ontario, be it that one operated by

Ontario Power Generation or be it operated by an alternative generator -- it depends whether it's a gas plant, like a Lennox, which would often be a price-setter if it was required, or if it was

more baseload in nuclear or in fossil fuels.

Mr Conway: I want to be clear. I'm talking about the summer. We're not talking about July, August or September. I'm talking about comparing

apples with apples. I'm talking about the shoulder seasons of the spring and fall, when demand is approximately the same, around 16,500, 17,000, 17,500 megawatts. In the spring, when we faced that

kind of demand, price -- and you were bragging about it -- was down around 3.5 cents. In this part of the shoulder season, when demand is the same, well below the summer peak, around 17,000 or

18,000 megawatts, all of a sudden, demand, with the same mix of generation, is 60% higher at 5.2 and 5.3 cents.

Electricity consumers in Ontario want to know, since your company, Ontario Power Generation, is the dominant supplier -- over 70% of this market is supplied by

Ontario Power Generation: what possible explanation is there for, in these shoulder seasons, May, June and October of this year, same demand, same suppliers, price has increased in the fall over

the spring by approximately 60%?

Hon Mr Baird: Again, the member opposite talks about 16,000 load. The peak load in the first week of October, let me say: October 1, 21,500;

October 2, 20,000; October 3, 19,000; October 4, 19,000; October 5, 17,000. I did indicate to the member opposite two particular factors off the top of my head. One is with respect to how much

water, which is the fuel that runs the turbines. In the spring, when you have a huge amount of water from the winter runoff, you have more water at our various hydroelectric dams, which do

represent about a third of the capacity in the province of Ontario. When you go through a hot summer in July and August, you obviously have less water in September and October. The loss of some of

that water certainly has an effect on price, because what we see is we have to use some of the price-setting plants in the province of Ontario, such as gas at Lennox, which is not one of the more

efficient operations which we'd like to see brought on-line -- that, coupled with the facts on imports. We also had to do some scheduled maintenance when we ran the system all-out in the months of

July and August.

Mr Conway: I thought you'd get to maintenance, and I just really appreciate the opportunity to talk about maintenance. Remember, prices are up

in the shoulder seasons, spring and fall. These fall prices, with the same demand, are up 60% -- not 5%, not 10%: 60%. May and June it's averaging -- and I'm not talking about peaks; I'm talking

about averages during these shoulder seasons, May and June -- about 16,000 or 17,000 megs, 3.5 cents; averages this fall, October, consumption around 16,000, 17,000, 17,500, the price has gone from

an average of 3.5 to 5.2. It's up 60%.

The California regulator said the following: "It is impossible to determine whether or not a declared forced outage is in fact an actual outage. It is

impossible to determine whether a declared outage occurs because the plant is actually down for maintenance or whether in fact it has occurred because the generator wants to manipulate the market

to make profit."

Since the dominant player in this marketplace today is Ernie Eves's company, Ontario Power Generation, controlling over 70% of the supply, are you prepared to

say to me today, given this 60% increase in the commodity price, October over May, that your company, Ontario Power Generation, is not in fact gouging Ontario consumers to a very substantial

degree?

Hon Mr Baird: I'll say two things: (1) water is cheaper; (2) gas is more expensive, and often in September and October the Lennox plant has

set the price. That is demonstratively more expensive that October.

The member opposite has been in this place and has distinguished himself in 27 years of serving the people of Ontario well. If the member opposite has a shred

of evidence to the claims he is suggesting, I would challenge him to put that evidence before the House and to bring it to the attention of the Market Surveillance Panel, as would be the

responsible thing to do. If he has no evidence and is just making these claims up, I would suggest it's not advisable.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr Conway: New question: same minister, same subject. The California regulator said in 2001, after all the pain that they had been through,

that one of the things he warned everybody else, including Californians, is to beware with these generators who tell you they're taking the plant down for maintenance because they might just as

easily be doing it to manipulate the market, to drive up prices and increase their profit.

Your company controls 70% of this market, and I repeat, prices are up in the shoulder season, October over May, this year by something like 60%. My question is

this: yesterday Toronto Hydro filed with the energy board a request to change the way in which they are going to bill their customers, and they said they had to do so for a variety of reasons, not

the least of which is the following -- quoting directly from their submission to the energy board yesterday -- "In 2001, prior to market opening, the highest monthly power bill received by Toronto

Hydro was for $154 million. To date, in the period since market opening, May 1, 2002, our highest monthly bill was for $276 million."

So there you've got one of the largest utilities saying that it is being put in a very difficult and compromised position because their commodity price, most

of which is controlled by your company, OPG, has nearly doubled. What do you say to the consumers of Toronto Hydro as to what relief is in store for them because your company, OPG, is driving their

bill through the roof?

Hon Mr Baird: Toronto Hydro, as did three other local distribution companies in their request to the Ontario Energy Board, did request that

they go on a fixed rate as opposed to the other 90 local distribution companies who did go to the variable rate. In May and June customers paid more than they were required to pay and in months

after weren't paying the full market rate.

Toronto Hydro wants to change their position on this, as they're rightly entitled to do. They've made an application to join the other 90 local distribution

companies across the province of Ontario, and the Ontario Energy Board will hear that concern.

Mr Conway: Hundreds of thousands of Toronto Hydro customers would want me to ask this: a few months from now, in January, February, March,

April 2003, hundreds of thousands of Toronto Hydro customers are going to get a very nasty surprise. They are going to get hydro bills that in the first six months of 2003, I guarantee you, will be

substantially higher, hundreds of dollars higher than they've been paying in the last few months. In addition to that, by my calculation, the average residential customer served by Toronto Hydro is

going to get a retroactive bill of probably in the neighbourhood of $200, and it may very well have interest charges attached to it.

Minister of Energy, what are you prepared to say today will be offered by the Ernie Eves government to relieve the pain of these electricity customers in

Toronto and millions of other customers around the province, including small businesses, who are being crucified on your hydro policy?

Hon Mr Baird: Customers of Toronto Hydro and three other local distribution companies do have a variance account. We have been working very

hard directly with Toronto Hydro to see what opportunities could be available to ensure that customers could perhaps get the rebate under the market mechanism at the same time that they are

required to settle their variance account. That would be helpful for consumers, and the members on this side of the House who represent the city of Toronto have certainly been very supportive of

that approach.

Mr Conway: Your members, and I won't embarrass them by quoting them by name, are saying, "Please, give us relief, give us a cap, give us a

freeze." Listen, hundreds of thousands of electricity customers in Toronto have yet to feel the real pain. Toronto Hydro is saying very clearly in its submission that the real problem here is

skyrocketing commodity prices that are controlled by the Ernie Eves company, Ontario Power Generation. In addition to that, and I repeat, Toronto Hydro is saying they've got a monthly bill now for

bulk power purchases that's $120 million higher than their highest monthly bill ever before. They're also telling us they've got receivables of about $325 million more on the books in September

than they've ever had before.

Consumers in Toronto -- residential, business and industrial -- will want to know, Minister, what specific plans of relief you have for these customers, given

the pain they are about to experience after Christmas.

Hon Mr Baird: We're working with all the members of the Electricity Distributors Association. I had a meeting last evening with their chair

and yesterday morning with one of their vice-presidents. We met last week. We certainly indicated our strong willingness, with the Independent Market Operator and the Ontario Energy Board, to find

a more workable solution in terms of the payment periods that all LDCs experience. We've also indicated to those three or four LDCs that made the decision themselves to go to a fixed price that

where commodity prices have not gone up, like the city of Toronto, we've made a commitment to treat them all the same. If there is any assistance we could provide or a policy change that would be

advantageous, we'd be prepared to do so.

I noticed the member opposite's own leader said, "Rates may very well have to go up. We've been getting a bit of a free ride here in terms of the debt that the

now-defunct Ontario Hydro has amassed." The member opposite was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen, "Conway said Ontarians paid artificially low electricity prices for years while the provincially owned

power utility piled up ... debt." This is the one I like: "Let me be clear: we need a competitive marketplace." Who said that? The official spokesman of the Leader of the Opposition.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Your hydro deregulation disaster is about to hit hydro

consumers in Toronto with an extra hydro bill. People who have been paying their already elevated hydro bills are about to be hit with an extra bill for $200 a month. The problem is, there are all

kinds of people in Toronto who don't have an extra $200 in their pockets to pay for your hydroelectricity screw-up. Maybe you can tell the people of Toronto now what happens to those folks who

don't have that extra $200 to pay for your hydro screw-up.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The leader of the third party said in the first part of

his question that they were going to have to pay, because of this, an extra $200 per month. Then he went on to clarify that he was suggesting it would be a one-time payment of $200. I don't know

whether that actually reflects the average variance account for a residential consumer. I can say that we have been working with Toronto Hydro, and we treat any LDC the same -- those other LDCs

that are on a fixed-rate plan -- in terms of what relief we could provide in terms of the rebate coming out at a proximate time that would ensure this didn't happen, that they weren't hit with the

increases in electricity rates in three or four months all at once. We've been working very closely with officials at Toronto Hydro to try to find a solution, and thus far it has been a successful

effort.

Mr Hampton: A successful effort when people are going to hit with an extra bill that says, "Despite the fact you've been paying for your

hydro, we need you to kick in an extra $200. Oh, by the way, your bills from now on are going to be substantially higher again"? That's what you call successful?

It's not just confined to Toronto. This is a submission to the Independent Market Operator by the Electricity Distributors Association and the municipal

utilities of Hamilton, Orangeville, Thunder Bay, London, Kingston and Whitby.

The submission says that thanks to the hydro deregulation rules you've put in place, many of these municipal utilities are in danger of going bankrupt. They

don't have the financial wherewithal to cover all the costs. These utilities warn of a "critical and irreversible event." Let me give you the code for that: it means the lights go out. Deregulation

threatens more than a dozen municipal utilities across this province, and they're very clear: they won't be able to stay in business.

Will you admit that wherever you go in this province, your deregulation fiasco is causing one nasty surprise after another, and will you admit it's time to

kill this very destructive experiment?

Hon Mr Baird: It won't surprise the member opposite that I won't accept what he's had to say.

I can say we're dealing with two issues with respect to local distribution companies. One is the four local distribution companies that go on a fixed rate,

where the cost of generation has not gone up. I've indicated that we're working with them to ensure that when the rebate is remitted to the consumer, this variance account might be settled at the

same time so that they're not experiencing increases of a few months all stacked up together.

We're doing that proactively, because I certainly know a good number of members in my caucus are concerned about this

issue and brought this issue to my attention long before the leader of the third party and his band.

The second issue comes with respect to local distribution companies. There are concerns with respect to the time frame in which the generators must be required

to remit their payments, and the role the IMO plays. There is a working group between the IMO and the Ontario Energy Board. I've gotten directly involved in meeting with the Electricity

Distributors Association to try to bring the parties together to come to a more reasonable solution, and I suspect we'll be able to find one.

Mr Hampton: I want to read from the first two paragraphs of this submission. It says, "Please find attached an urgent submission." Then, in

the second paragraph, "This submission is made to address the immediate and urgent adverse financial impacts on local distribution utilities." We're talking about local utilities that have to go

out and borrow millions of dollars at high interest to cover your hydro deregulation fiasco. Then that gets passed on to the consumers in the form of higher bills.

Minister, some of your MPPs have started to figure it out. They've started to figure out that this is both a financial disaster for Ontario and a political

disaster for the Conservative government. When are the lights going to go on for you? When are you going to figure out that something has gone wrong and cancel deregulation? How long is it going to

take?

Hon Mr Baird: We are working with the local distribution companies to find a solution that's balanced, that recognizes the credit lines of the

Independent Electricity Market Operator, that recognizes the requirements of generators and local distribution companies.

The leader of the third party apparently was not able to sign up any new members to his hothead club. He has been prancing around Ontario on his

emission-shooting bus to try to sign up members to a hothead club. I didn't know what a hothead was so I looked it up in the dictionary. The definition of a hothead is someone who is "reckless,

impetuous and irresponsible," and I couldn't agree more that he should be the leader of that club.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr Hampton: I could have saved you the time. Jim Wilson is the definition of a hothead. I could have told you that.

I want to ask you about your plan and the Liberals' plan. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals say that as Ontario

encounters an electricity shortage, the private sector will build the generating stations. Well, today, Sithe Energies, a New York-based company, just announced they are not going to build two

proposed generating stations in Ontario. In fact, while you and the Liberals boast that the private companies, the profit companies, will build new plants, Sithe is saying they're not going to

build 1,700 megawatts of new power in Ontario.

We're short of power. The IMO is warning of energy blackouts and brownouts. You and the Liberals both have the same answer, except that your answer is running

out of gas.

Will you admit, Minister, the private sector isn't answering your call and the Liberals' call to build the generating stations we need?

Hon Mr Baird: I will agree with the leader of the third party. He is right: the Ontario Liberals have been consistent supporters of moving to

an open marketplace. I heard that message. I didn't heed the call to send them $350 when Sean Conway and Dalton McGuinty went trolling on Bay Street for bucks to help support their privatization

plans.

The member opposite speaks of one enterprise in the province of Ontario. Apparently they have a concern that Pickering A is coming on-line too quickly and that

that would perhaps give it overcapacity. It's not a concern that I have, with my many concerns.

Mr Hampton: Minister, this is no small matter, because the IMO is warning about brownouts and blackouts. And the reality is that Sithe

Energies was part of your answer and the Liberals' answer, and now it has run out of gas.

So I think it's incumbent upon you: what is your alternative strategy? Do you have a conservation strategy whereby we can conserve the use of electricity? Do

you have a green energy strategy whereby we can bring on wind power? Are you prepared to bring on more public sector supply of electricity? Since the private sector that you and the Liberals talk

about has run out of gas, what's the alternative plan, Minister? People across Ontario deserve to know.

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite raises two issues. He talks about supply coming on-line. I take the concerns that the Independent Market

Operator raises very seriously about the need to bring more supply on-line. I know that TransAlta would bring their supply on-line, I believe in the early part of next year. We know that Coral

Energy and the project at Brighton Beach will bring on additional supply.

The member opposite talks about a green strategy for bringing wind power on-line. Under the New Democratic Party, if someone approached the government and

said, "I want to build a windmill to help generate electricity," they would have been told, "It's illegal." And the member opposite wouldn't have allowed that power on the grid.

But there are a number of projects around the province. Huron Wind is going to be opening up five turbines, with 1.8 megawatts each, this fall, and that will

be good news.

The member opposite did cite the concerns of the Independent Electricity Market Operator. In their 18-month outlook, dated September 24, the definitive guide

on supply, it says, "The energy production capability is generally expected to be well above energy demand levels in each month of the outlook period."

ENERGY CONTRACTS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the same minister on the same subject of electricity prices, and I'd like

everybody's attention. Minister --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: I'm sorry. I apologize. I take that back. I apologize.

Minister, it's about what you and your company have been doing. Your company -- our company -- Hydro One, signed up about 200,000 people to electricity

contracts before they sold the whole portfolio a few months ago to EPCOR, another company. Now, those 200,000 people who signed those fixed-rate contracts with your company, signed a contract that

had buried in it the following language: "Rebate: In order to receive a fixed rate, I, the undersigned, hereby assign to the company" -- Ernie Eves' company, Hydro One -- "the benefit of any market

wholesale rebate arising out of this agreement" and the IMO and OPG shall be so directed to cause your rebate to be given from me to you, Hydro One.

There are 200,000 people in Ontario, including my 86-year-old father, who signed contracts with your company. Now they find out that your company didn't tell

them that buried in the fine print was a condition that said if there is a rebate, the rebate is assigned to Ernie Eves' company, Hydro One.

What are you going to say to those 200,000 people who were put in that predicament by your company, Hydro One?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): In the open marketplace of which the member opposite has

been a consistent supporter -- his words, not mine -- people in Ontario have a choice. They can sign a fixed-rate contract for a set amount, which provides them with some security that that will be

the price they will pay. This is not dissimilar to a mortgage, where some people, just for the security, would like to know what their mortgage rate will be rather than going at a variable rate.

This is the case for many families right across the province. With some fixed-rate contracts, the rebate will flow directly to you as the consumer. With others, you assign that rebate to your

retailer. If rates are 8.3 cents one month, in September, and you signed a flat-rate contract at 5.5 cents or six cents, that is the security you got, and that is a consumer issue for people in

Ontario.

Mr Conway: Months ago, friends, hundreds of thousands of people, many of them old people, many of them on fixed incomes, were confronted on

their front porch by representatives of Ontario Hydro who told them, "Sign up with us, your supplier, and we will protect you from the uncertainties of the marketplace."

Nobody said anything about a rebate; nobody said anything about assigning a rebate from the customer to Ernie Eves's

company, Hydro One. Hundreds of thousands of people are going to find out next spring and summer that the Ontario government's company bamboozled them and took from them a rebate that might offer

some protection from the skyrocketing prices that are being caused by a gouging monopolist also owned and controlled by Ernie Eves.

Why, Minister, should any consumer worried about the pain of your electricity policy, straight out of professional wrestling, feel it is going to offer them

any relief and any protection?

Hon Mr Baird: Let me talk to the member opposite. There's a variable rate, and that means they go up and down, and there's a fixed rate, and

those remain constant. Consumers in the province have the right to take that fixed rate if it provides them with some greater security. They are in a sense buying that security, an insurance

policy, if you will. Many people in the province of Ontario lock in their mortgages for five years so that they won't have to go to bed at night worrying about interest rates going to 10%, 12%, 14%

or even 20%, as they have in my lifetime. Some consumers have signed contracts where the rebate is payable to them, and others will sign rebates where it's assigned to others.

But Dalton McGuinty said on this issue, "We believe you've got to go toward deregulation. That's the way to bring this to heel. That's the way to introduce

real competition." They say one thing when it comes to opening the market and another thing when the reality hits.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question. The member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale.

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Mr Speaker, my question is actually to the Minister of Finance, and I think I may forgo it

until she is back.

The Speaker: I think it's only the leaders' questions we can step down. I'll check. Stop the clock for a quick minute, please.

Yes, I'm afraid only the leaders' questions can be stepped down. There was some confusion. We'll go ahead with the member for Nipissing, then.

SMART GROWTH

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I was pleased to see our government launch the Ontario Smart

Growth initiative back in 2001. As we all know --

Interjections.

Mr McDonald: Mr Speaker, I didn't yell across at them when they were asking their questions.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member is right. The member for Nipissing has the floor. Give him some attention, please.

Sorry, and I thank the member for his help.

Mr McDonald: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As we all know, Smart Growth is a new way of thinking about our growth. It asks us to look at the big

picture, to look ahead some 15 or 30 years. It asks us to coordinate our decisions today on public investment, infrastructure, transportation and planning a secure, healthy future. Minister, could

you please elaborate on how we are going to manage the anticipated growth in Ontario through this Smart Growth plan?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'd like to thank the member from Nipissing for that insightful question. He's

right, this is an exciting time. We need to have a big picture of where we're going to go. The province of Ontario's population has grown by 2.5 million people in the last 15 to 20 years, and it's

projected conservatively to grow the same amount in the next 15 to 20 years. We need to get a plan that gets out ahead of this growth so that we can welcome it. We need the growth for our standard

of living. We also want to have the three priorities that we consulted on adhered to: a healthy pro-growth agenda that's good for the environment and good for our communities.

To get the details of this, we set up five panels. The central Ontario panel, which you're probably familiar with, has Chair Hazel McCallion, municipal

representatives, environmentalists, and people from industry and business to give a consensus to what this growth plan should look like.

Mr McDonald: Thank you, Minister, for your response. Could you please share with my constituents what will happen if we do not adequately plan

for future growth and why this initiative is so important?

Hon Mr Hodgson: To the member from Nipissing, that's a really good question. In some parts of Ontario, we haven't had growth distributed

equally or evenly across the province. In northern Ontario, in communities like yours, we want to attract more growth, get more jobs in those communities. We need the infrastructure there to

accommodate that growth and the climate to create those jobs.

In southern Ontario you're starting to see the manifestation of some of the growth we've experienced in the last 15 to 20 years. Gridlock is probably the most

frustrating aspect of that. It's hard on the environment. Cars travelling at 80 kilometres an hour have certain air emissions. If they decrease their speed to 50 kilometres, those air emissions

double. If it goes to 30 kilometres an hour, they triple. Gridlock is totally the worst thing for the environment. In terms of productivity and lost revenue for our economy, it's estimated to be $2

billion. So we need to have ways to manage the growth we've got and also welcome more growth to this province, and we need a consensus in order to be able to go ahead with that.

ENERGY CONTRACTS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Much has been made by the Premier and the Minister

of Energy about the relief that this rebate on high bills is going to provide. Nearly a million fixed-rate contracts have been signed by people in Ontario with marketers. About 200,000 of those

contracts involved our company, Hydro One. Most of the fixed-rate contracts, unknown to the people who signed them, signed away the rebate months ago. So the rebate that is going to be paid is

going to be a benefit to the marketer, not to the consumer.

But I want to come back to the Minister of Energy about his company, Hydro One. Minister, you understand that when Hydro One representatives showed up at the

door, they showed up with none of the details. They didn't tell these old people on fixed incomes that there was going to be a rebate. They didn't even show them the contract. They said simply

this: "We're from Ontario Hydro. We are here to protect you. Trust us. Sign here."

I would argue that your company, in most of these cases, broke your own retailers' code of conduct. What relief are you going to provide to the 200,000 people

in Ontario who in good faith trusted your company, Hydro One, only to be bamboozled, gouged and ripped off by them?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The member opposite stood in his place and said they

didn't show them anything, they didn't even show them a contract, and then he tells me that they showed it to them to sign it. Obviously it's tremendously important for all consumers, whether it's

on this issue or anything else they undertake as consumers, to read the clauses. We brought in Bill 58 this past June, which will allow consumers even greater options to review things and even

requiring issues like reconfirmation to be there.

I suspect some in the province of Ontario would find it rather odd, though, that if, for example, in the month of September, a customer was entitled to a

rebate because electricity was at 8.3 cents, a customer who was only paying 5.5 cents should get that same rebate.

Mr Conway: We've all talked to these people. We know what happened to them. "Sign this little form; details to follow." It is clear to most of

us who've talked to these people that your company, Hydro One, manipulated and ripped off a lot of unsuspecting people. The more you talk about rebate, the more you're going to hear from these

people in the spring and summer of next year.

But it gets worse. This is my question to the minister. It gets worse, because having signed up 200,000 people to these fixed-rate contracts, not mentioning

the rebate, not telling people that they'd signed it over to Hydro One, you know what the Ernie Eves company then did? It sold the whole portfolio to another company and Hydro One, our company,

cashed in on the value of the rebate.

So these consumers who were bamboozled and misled and kept in the dark were ripped off. Who benefited? Well, that company called Hydro One. Consumers were

kicked in the teeth, ripped off, left to fend for themselves, and the Ernie Eves company, Hydro One -- remember that crew? Graham Day, Eleanor Clitheroe, the multi-million-dollar people on the

boats looking after themselves? Oh, they did well, and so did the company. Isn't it a sad situation that these plutocrats, these rip-off artists, including the government, made all the money, and

hundreds of thousands of people, many of them old people on fixed incomes, were ripped off and so manipulated? Isn't that a disgrace?

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite is saying that the details would follow later. Yet in the question he just stood in his place and said the

details were in the fine print. Were the details there, or were the details not? Is the member opposite suggesting --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member had quiet for asking the question. The minister now gets a chance to answer.

Hon Mr Baird: Is the member opposite suggesting that someone who was paying 5.5 cents for electricity should get a rebate as if they were

paying 8.3 cents for electricity? It sounds like that is exactly what he is suggesting.

The Speaker: Were you done? I apologize. I didn't mean to step on your line. The member asked the question. It is fair to let the minister

answer. I apologize for getting up so quickly.

JUSTICE ISSUES

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, earlier today the Eves government introduced new

legislation to increase protection for Ontario's investors. This is certainly an important step, as people in my riding of Peterborough have the right to know that their government is looking out

for their financial security. Part of the proposed legislation demands tougher penalties to ensure compliance with Ontario's securities laws. Maximum court fines for general offences would increase

from $1 million to $5 million and maximum prison terms would increase from two years to five years less a day.

Clearly, there is a need for these kinds of stricter penalties in the light of corporate scandals like Enron. Those who violate the law and jeopardize the

investment of everyday Ontarians should face serious penalties for their actions.

But another important part of providing a serious deterrent is changes to the federal Criminal Code. Ontario announced that they are moving forward with

toughening the penalties. Minister, what action will you take at the upcoming national justice ministers' meeting to press for similar action by Ottawa?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the honourable member for that very important question.

It's important to remember that in Ontario we have very high professional standards and a high level of accountability. That has been the case for years. Nevertheless, the Ernie Eves government

this morning announced a number of further measures to confirm that we are not prepared to be complacent on this very important issue of investor confidence. We came forward this morning and talked

about greater fines and greater penalties and broader reviews. We can do only so much, though, within the provincial sphere. As the members opposite know, there are certain matters that are in the

federal domain --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale come to order, please. Sorry, Attorney General.

Hon Mr Young: There are certain matters that are exclusively within the federal domain, and we must be respectful of that. That of course

includes items that appear in the Criminal Code. So what I am going to do at the federal-provincial territorial conference next week, with my colleague Minister Runciman, is raise a number of

measures that we believe should be introduced at the federal level that will help us fight to ensure that individuals across the province can have confidence in the businesses they choose to invest

in.

Mr Stewart: Minister, it's certainly important that you press this issue with the federal justice minister and your provincial colleagues. I

would also like to know what other items you are going to put at the top of your agenda for this meeting. Traditionally, the Ontario government has focused on initiatives to increase community

safety, particularly in areas of crime and law enforcement. What outcomes are you hoping to achieve from this meeting, and in which areas will you be pressing the federal government to make clear

commitments to enhance the safety and security of all Ontarians?

Hon Mr Young: All Ontarians have the right to feel safe in their homes and in their communities. Indeed, they all have the right to be safe in

those homes and in those communities.

The Ernie Eves government has advocated to improve the safety of every Ontarian across this province. We have done so with numerous actions over the past

number of years, and one of the things we have done in addition to that is advocate on behalf of the people of Ontario to have changes made at the federal level.

One issue I intend to raise again next week deals with DNA testing. Right now, the federal Liberal legislation only allows for testing in very limited

situations. What this means is that there are people in prison right now from whom we cannot obtain DNA tests. What this means is that over the next short while these individuals will be released

out into the streets because of loopholes, and we will not have their DNA testing evidence available. What that means is very serious: these individuals will be put back out into our communities,

we will not be in a position to determine if they have committed additional crimes previously, and we will not be in a position to catch them in an expeditious manner when they commit crimes in the

future. We need these changes made to the DNA legislation, and we need them made now.

RACIAL PROFILING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Public Safety and Security. Minister, you stated today that you

support racial profiling at the border, that you support targeting law-abiding citizens as if they are criminals. You said you approve of fingerprinting and photographing certain citizens based

upon their appearance, perceived religion or place of birth.

Minister, none of those things will do anything to fight crime but will certainly re-create in Ontario a very shameful period in our history when Japanese

Canadians were attacked because of their race. What you're proposing is repugnant to New Democrats and repugnant to people across this province.

Minister, here and now, will you publicly renounce your support of racial profiling, whether at the borders or in our communities?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): Because it's unparliamentary, I can't describe that question in terms I'd

like to describe it in, Mr Speaker. It is completely inaccurate.

I was asked this morning with respect to the warnings that have been issued by the federal government to Canadians travelling to the United States who are of

different cultural backgrounds: did I think that was appropriate? I felt that the federal government was being wise in terms of advising these individuals that they would face these challenges if

indeed they were seeking entry into the United States. I think it is wise that they apprise our citizenry of the barriers or the challenges they might face when they're travelling in the United

States. I think that's quite appropriate.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you may claim to be misunderstood, so I'm going to ask you again very clearly. I'm going to ask you to stand up and I'm

going to ask you to say very clearly that you disapprove of people being singled out, that you disapprove of people being fingerprinted based upon how they look or what their perceived religion is,

that you disapprove of people being discriminated against because they might be from this visible minority or that visible minority. Will you say that? In your position as the minister of public

security, will you say that?

Hon Mr Runciman: What I disapprove of is drive-by smears by this member in the Legislature. That's what this is, Mr Speaker. Let there be no

mistake about it. When this issue was originally raised in this House, I made it quite clear that this government in no way supports racial profiling by police in this province, and for this member

to get up here and try to smear my reputation is completely unworthy of this assembly or any member of this assembly.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. We're on to the next question.

ENERGY CONTRACTS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Energy. It concerns this rebate. I have in my hand a sample

document that Hydro One retailers took to the door. Now, if you can read it -- it's in microscopic print -- you will not find the word "rebate" anywhere on this. What you will find is the following

That's what your company did on the doorsteps of tens of thousands of people. This is the form. In microscopic print, there is no reference to a rebate. So the

question arises: what are you going to say to the hundreds of thousands of people who are listening to Ernie Eves and others say not to worry, that there's a rebate coming, when they find out that

even their own company, Hydro One, signed them up on a very, very misleading basis to a contract, the full details of which they did not advertise or reveal, and that Hydro One has taken on to

itself any rebate that might be paid at a future date?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The member opposite has made a number of allegations.

He's saying now that if people in the province don't read contracts, somehow they can be let out in any other area. He's saying it was included in the contract, and then he said it wasn't included

in the contract.

People in the province of Ontario had the option with respect to getting a fixed-rate price. If they were paying 8.3 cents, as they did in September, on the

spot market, they're obviously going to be entitled to a rebate. If they were only paying 5.5 cents, it would seem a little bit strange that you would get a rebate on a price you didn't pay. There

are various contracts which are offered for the consumer. With some retailers, you can pay a higher fixed rate and you would be eligible to receive the rebate. Obviously the fixed rate would be

higher. It's all a question of who assumes the risk.

Mr Conway: This is really important, because at the end of the day consumers and investors are going to want to know, can we trust our

government? Can we trust our provincial government to protect us from the electricity situation out there?

I raise this today because this kind of gouging was carried on by the Ontario government company, Hydro One, a retailer. We've all heard it. We've all heard

senior citizens tell us these stories. We've heard it about other companies, but you have to know that our company did it. Hydro One, with malice aforethought, went out and signed up people like my

dad, who's 86, who saw somebody at his door who said, "I'm from Ontario Hydro. I'm here to protect you." They never told my father or hundreds or thousands of older people like him that there was

anything like a rebate.

How is this not a fundamental breech of trust, and how and why, Mr Minister of Energy, should any consumer, in Toronto or elsewhere, faced with these

skyrocketing electricity bills, either believe you or trust you to protect them?

Hon Mr Baird: There are fixed-rate contracts. There are variable-rate contracts. The people of Ontario may also want to ask the member

opposite from the official opposition, should they trust a party that changes its mind on every issue? Should they trust a party who says they're in favour of competition?

The terms of discourse in this issue I think could be a lot higher. The member opposite is someone who has a huge amount of knowledge on this issue --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Windsor-St Clair and the member for Kingston and the Islands, come to order, please. The minister

has the floor.

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite has a huge amount of knowledge on this issue, and some of the statements he's made in terms of these

questions are not raising the level of debate in this province. He said they are included in the contract and he says they're not. He says they're not giving anything and then he said they're asked

to sign something. He says they don't have to read it, yet it's been given to them. That may work with the media --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Sorry to interrupt again, Minister. I've done that twice when you were up. I apologize.

The member for Windsor-St Clair, it's your last warning now.

I apologize if you do have some more time. Again, I'm sorry. Right at the end, we do get up, and I hate to cut you off like that.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I finally get to ask my question. My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister,

this year drivers across Ontario have experienced significant increases in auto insurance premiums. We all know that after our government reforms in 1996, insurance rates dropped by an average of

12%. Drivers, including in my own riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, are expressing confusion and concern over recent increases in their auto insurance. I would appreciate if the minister

could explain why these rates are increasing.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I share the member's concern about the pressures that consumers of auto insurance are experiencing.

Insurance premiums are rising across Canada and Ontario and indeed all of North America due to factors such as rising health care costs, higher reinsurance premiums following the 9/11 tragedy of

last year, and lower investment returns. There are pressures worldwide that are causing challenges here in Canada.

When Bill 59 took effect in 1996, we did find that the measures we put in place to make insurance products fairer to consumers actually helped to stabilize

rates. We have been looking at changes to help auto insurance companies here in Ontario continue to provide competitive products to consumers, to continue to make sure that consumers are getting

the treatment, the benefits, the care they need. As a result of recommendations from my parliamentary assistants -- Ted Chudleigh, Rob Sampson and Wayne Wettlaufer -- we have indeed proceeded with

changes that we announced in the June budget.

Mr Gill: Minister, the reforms you have introduced certainly sound like they will benefit consumers. I'm sure all members of this House will

appreciate the hard work that went into creating these reforms, especially through the consultation that Messrs Chudleigh, Sampson and Wettlaufer held with the auto insurance industry, health care

providers and consumers. Can you explain in greater detail how you expect these reforms to benefit consumers of auto insurance and maybe even help them find reasonable rates?

Hon Mrs Ecker: What we are proposing to do would be to improve access to treatment for injured individuals, to expand the rights of seriously

injured people to sue. This is especially important for health care costs in excess of no-fault benefits, especially important for children. There are consumer awareness measures to make sure that

consumers can make an informed choice when they are purchasing insurance. There are a number of changes that we think are going to actually help provide better treatment for consumers, and we think

it's a very important initiative.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Minister, college students from across Ontario have come

Students know that employment success is guaranteed for those with a college diploma. The double cohort is an enormous stress on students, given your low

predictions on how many students will be graduating.

As well, colleges have suffered a 40% decrease in funding from your government, while Premier Eves was finance minister, I might add. As a result, college

tuition has increased by 140%, yet the loan maximums set by OSAP have not changed. Students are paying more than their fair share for their education.

Deputy Premier, studies have shown that thanks to your government, middle-income families can't send their kids to post-secondary education. Will you accept

the college students' proposals to bring your OSAP policies and criteria into the new millennium?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I can certainly say on

behalf of the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities that she does consult regularly with students from the universities and the colleges. We are prepared to take a look at the

recommendations that have been brought forward to date and review them.

I would also say to you that this issue of affordability is one that is a high priority for our government. Recently we have created new student aid programs.

There are the Queen Elizabeth II Aiming for the Top scholarships. That's going to help about 12,000 Ontario students, with annual spending of $35 million. We're also going to be expanding the

amount of money for OSAP. So I can tell you, we remain concerned that each and every student has access to post-secondary education.

Mrs Bountrogianni: Number one, the Queen Elizabeth scholarships are simply the renaming of an existing scholarship. Number two, we're not only

asking you to increase OSAP; you have to do that. There are more students with the double cohort, more OSAP per student. There are some administrative changes you can make today that will make it

easier, without costing a penny.

Families are struggling to help their children obtain a college education. Ashley is here from Humber College. She will have a $40,000 debt after a two-year

photography course. She had to pay $2,000 in tuition, $16,000 for equipment and $6,000 per year for rent. She did not even qualify for OSAP because her parents are a middle-income family. They have

three other children -- two that they've put through school and two that they're putting through school now. There used to be an appeal process for situations like this; your government killed it.

That's one administrative change you can make tomorrow -- no cost.

Cindy is here from St Lawrence College. She was a single mom at 19; she is 41 now. She has a learning disability, a physical disability. A simple

administrative change would help her. Give her her OSAP money before the second or third week of school. There are simple administrative changes you can make today, you can commit to today, to make

these students' lives easier. Do it, Deputy Premier. Just do it.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I said in response to the first question, we will certainly review the recommendations that have been brought forward

today. The minister is going to take a look at them. She continues to meet on a regular basis with students, and I want to give my assurance that the OSAP funding is being increased in order to

make sure that we can respond to the needs of all the double cohort students. The money is certainly going to be there. There is an increase in the pot of money.

This year, we have also provided more money for our colleges. This year, the operating grants have increased by $42.5 million. That is a 5.7% increase to our

colleges --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm sorry to interrupt, Deputy Premier. The member for Kingston and the Islands, this is his last warning, too.

Sorry, Deputy Premier.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I appreciate that, Mr Speaker. The reality is, they know that our government has increased the amount of funding for students

so they don't really want to hear that answer.

I would simply say we have increased the funding for colleges this year. We are providing a 5.7% increase. Enrolment has only gone up 3.2%. Again, we have new

programs to support these students and I can tell you the money will be there.

MARS DISCOVERY DISTRICT

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for my colleague the Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation -- the

energetic, the solid, the steady, the great David Turnbull. Ontarians know that securing a bright future for the next generation requires investment in research and innovation strategies. These

would include centres such as the University of Guelph which are so important for research to the people in the agricultural industry in my riding.

The Medical and Related Sciences Discovery District -- and I've heard about it; it's called MARS -- is one of the exciting components of this government's

commitment to fostering useful new technologies. Minister, can you take a moment and highlight some of the details of the MARS Discovery District?

Hon David Turnbull (Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): I cannot help but thank the member for Perth-Middlesex for

this insightful question. It is very important -- it really and truly is.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Turnbull: I hear heckling from the opposite side of the floor.

This is a very exciting project. It bolsters the development of cutting-edge medical and related science research. It's in close proximity to the University of

Toronto and our leading research hospitals. What we're doing here is bringing together researchers and life science companies under one roof.

The government has committed $20 million to the MARS project. This is going to lever approximately $300 million worth of R&D centre; it will be a 1.2

million-square-foot development.

It supports the government's innovation agenda, it complements the research clusters in Ottawa, Guelph, Kingston, London and Hamilton, and it is indeed vital

to our province's future, because it will provide jobs and opportunity for decades to come.

VISITORS

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I'd like to welcome to the Legislature the grandparents of Wade Carey, Norma and Graham Garner, and

parents of Wade Carey, Joanne and Don Carey. They're in the members' gallery.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

effective August 1, 2002; and

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

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

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

and

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

nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I am in complete agreement, and I affix my signature.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I have a petition of 1,312 names which comes for my riding and also from Kanata and Nepean.

I'm up to 2,600-plus names on this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government deregulated electricity on May 1, 2002 in the province of Ontario, without it being in their election platform in either

1995 or 1999 and without the mandate of the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas the commodity of electricity has reached outrageous levels, having risen at times over 100% since May 1, 2002, causing Ontarians great financial

hardship; and

"Whereas Ontario Power Generation (owned by the Ontario government) has applied to the Ontario Energy Board for a 20% reduction in the promised rebate to

Ontarians if the commodity price of electricity rose above 3.8 cents per KWH; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government authorized exorbitant salaries and bonuses in the amount of $2.2 million per annum be paid to their former president of

Hydro One, and in excess of $1.6 million per annum to the vice-president of Ontario Power Generation;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Ernie Eves government take immediate action to ensure that Ontarians have fair prices for

the necessary commodity of electricity in Ontario and that the Conservative government and its leader, Ernie Eves, call a general election on the instability of the energy market so that Ontarians

can have a voice on this issue."

I add my signature to this.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): As angry as people are about the huge increases in their hydro bills, they're also very

angry about Union Gas and the approval by the Ontario Energy Board to allow a $120 retroactive delivery charge. I continue to read petitions to the Legislative Assembly.

"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 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."

I hope that Union Gas will back off on this and I'm very happy to sign my name to this petition.

EDUCATION FUNDING

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

"Whereas application of the student-focused funding model for 2001-02 does not allow sufficient funding to the Hastings and Prince Edward school board for

secretarial support in schools, principals and vice-principals, transportation or school operations;

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

"To reassess the student-focused funding legislative grants for the 2002-03 school year to provide additional funding for those areas where funding is

insufficient and to adjust future student-focused funding to address the situation of declining enrolments faced by the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board and other boards in

Ontario."

I'm very happy to sign my name to this petition and I will hand it to Matthew, who will take it to the table for me.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Conservative government increased fees paid by Ontario seniors and other vulnerable people living in long-term-care facilities ... instead of

providing adequate government funding for long-term care; and

"Whereas the Conservative government has therefore shifted the cost 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 fee increase for residents of long-term-care facilities, increase

the number of nursing care hours for each resident to ... 3.5 hours per day, and provide stable, increased funding to ensure quality care is there for Ontario residents of long-term-care

facilities."

I've signed that petition.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition here concerning the ever-increasing electricity prices in Ontario. It's addressed to the

Parliament of Ontario and reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of Toronto, demand that the government immediately stop the process of privatizing our electricity transmission system, the

network of steel towers, transformers, wooden poles which transmit power from generation plants to our homes, and further postpone the electricity deregulation process until the Ontario public is

given proof that privatization will not result in price increases; and place a moratorium on any further retailing of electricity until the Ontario Energy Board comes up with a standard contract to

be used by all retailers; and that a standard contract spell out in clear terms that residential users are waiving their rights to future rebates in exchange for fixed rates over a specified period

of time."

Since I'm in total agreement with this petition, I am delighted to sign it and pass it on to Maureen.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Like my colleague from St Catharines, Mr Bradley, I want to read a petition related to the

long-term-care increase, as it's happening all across the province, certainly in southern Ontario and northern Ontario.

"A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid for by seniors 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 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 am very pleased to sign my name to the petition. I hand it off to Pierre, our page.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"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 the Conservative government of Ontario has done very little to address key issues, such as energy supply, which forces the province to import power

and causes the price of electricity to skyrocket; 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 of Ontario has saddled the population of Ontario with additional debt reduction charges, which further increases the amount that the

citizens of Ontario have to pay per kilowatt hour, yet the hydro debt continues to increase; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris-Ernie Eves governments 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."

I affix my signature, as I'm in complete agreement, as I suspect the Speaker is as well.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have another petition here that is important. It concerns the school closures in Toronto.

"Whereas" the government "is cutting the heart out of many communities by closing hundreds of neighbourhood...schools...; and

"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and

"Whereas" the government "promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many

classrooms completely; and

"Whereas" the government "is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and

"Whereas parents and students in the city of Toronto and indeed many other communities across Ontario are calling on the government to stop closing so many of

their schools;

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

"We demand that" this government "stop closing local schools."

As I'm in agreement, Mr Speaker, I'm delighted to give this to Maureen to give to you.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Mr Speaker, with your permission I will read some more petitions related to the Union Gas

retroactive delivery charge being approved by the Ontario Energy Board, and the government of Ontario doing nothing to stop that so far.

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

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act" -- right there, Mr Speaker --

"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 increases."

I have received thousands and thousands of petitions on this issue. I absolutely have, and they continue to come in. I am very pleased to add my name to this

petition, and I hope that the government acts and that Union Gas backs off.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I move that pursuant to standing order 56 and notwithstanding any other standing order or

special order of the House relating to Bill 187,

an Act to protect the rights of agricultural employees, when Bill 187 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question

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

day; and

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

amendment; and

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

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

minutes.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister has moved government motion 50 and, just for clarification, it's pursuant to standing order 46.

The member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex has the floor.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): It's a pleasure for me to rise today in the House --

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid there's some misunderstanding. If the minister doesn't speak, the rotation goes to the other side. We'll get

back to you in a minute. Sorry about that. I should have known that. So the rotation will go to this side and then back to the other side. I apologize.

The member for Elgin-Middlesex-London.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): Thank you very much, Speaker.

What we're witnessing today is I guess unfortunate. It's what we're seeing become rampant within this government, and that's another time allocation

motion.

All of us were sent to this place, from 103 ridings across this province, to ensure that every piece of legislation receive its just due and receive the proper

debate that should be allocated to it. What we're seeing here, though, is time allocation, which limits the allocation, which limits debate. In many ways, that is stifling the democratic tradition

of this House.

If you look back at the track record that exists from the Davis era to the Peterson era to the Rae era to the Harris-Eves era, it is unprecedented, what we

have witnessed in the number of time allocation motions.

The purpose of legislation and the purpose of this very building we stand in and rise in is to ensure healthy debate. It's to ensure that the government puts

forward its case for support for a piece of legislation and that Her Majesty's loyal opposition and the third party have that opportunity for debate. But this government has a track record of

shutting down debate. I think it's important for the people at home to know that the issues you want us to discuss in this Legislature aren't being adequately discussed.

When we stand up come next election time, I think it's incumbent that the Conservative members explain to the electorate of this province why they are so

intent on putting forth time allocation motions.

This is an important piece of legislation that we have in front of us. I'm going to speak to it, but I would love to have had the full time allocated for

us.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): Go right to the heart of the matter, then.

Mr Peters: If we want to go to the heart of the matter, Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services, we could talk a bit about your

failure of funding allocations for persons with developmental disabilities in this province. How dare you come to the city of London and make an announcement and then allocate just a little over $1

million for persons with developmental disabilities in the southwest region? That's shameful. It's disgraceful.

Hon Mrs Elliott: It's $64 million.

Mr Peters: It's $64 million, but how much was allocated to the southwest? The southwest was shortchanged last time and the southwest has been

shortchanged again. I would encourage the minister to speak to the heads of associations for community living and the desperate situation they're facing and the constant calls coming into their

offices.

I'm going to provide the minister with a list of families I want her to speak to, to explain to them why, when they have spent years saving the system hundreds

of millions of dollars and all of a sudden now, when they need a home for their child and a place for that child to live -- in many cases now it's an adult -- there's no place to go. There's no

room at the inn. You're putting your head in the sand when it comes to persons with developmental disabilities.

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member opposite was referring at the beginning of his remarks to the

difficulty he had in being able to make those remarks, given the time allocation. I would suggest that perhaps his time should be spent debating the bill rather than other issues.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): That's almost a point of order. The point of order is that we'd like you to bring your remarks within

either the bill that is being time-allocated or the time allocation itself.

Mr Peters: I couldn't resist the opportunity when I was being heckled. The Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services is not

addressing many issues that face families in this province. This is a time allocation motion and I think the minister has certainly let down many families in this province. I will stand up at any

time to speak for families and put people first, because you don't put people first. This government doesn't put people first. You've abandoned people in this province and you should be ashamed of

what you've done to those individuals.

I'm going to provide you with that list and I want you to speak to those families. Many of those families live in rural communities as well. I can think of

individuals who live in a rural community, and the many challenges that are faced by the agricultural community and people living in rural communities in this province.

We're talking about Bill 187, the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, which affects rural communities. Issues facing rural communities have not been

adequately addressed by this government. This government fails to recognize that there is a difference that exists in this province between urban and rural. Issues facing rural communities are much

different than those facing urban communities. The costs associated with providing services in a rural community are much greater and the challenges facing rural communities are much greater. This

government truly has failed to recognize that.

Time allocation is shutting down this debate. There are so many issues facing the agricultural community today. I know the minister doesn't want to talk about

issues facing persons with disabilities, so we will talk about agriculture.

The minister, in her speeches, has talked about keeping the agricultural industry competitive. When she introduced this piece of legislation that we have in

front of us today, she talked about keeping the industry competitive.

But in many ways this government has thrown many roadblocks in front of the agricultural industry in this province. We heard a question yesterday in this

Legislature where the market revenue cheques have gone out, and I do compliment the minister for her recognition in dealing with the agricultural policy framework that was initiated by the federal

government. That the minister recognized the unique needs of Ontario and the unique needs of the grains and oilseeds sector in this province. She ensured that the provincial 40% share was flowing

through the market revenue program, and that's good. But, you know, what has happened is, a lot of farmers have received those cheques, those cheques started to come in the mail this week, and they

thought, "Well, that's nice that we've received our market revenue cheque," but in the same mail the hydro bill arrived.

That market revenue cheque that's supposed to be there and help lessen the impact of the high American subsidies and the high subsidies that exist from the

European Union -- they said goodbye to that cheque because of their hydro bills that are spiralling out of control with this government. Many of them, as they're out harvesting their corn right

now, their corn dryers are up and running -- you know what has happened? Many of them who use gas are now going to have to pay a retroactive bill because this government has allowed the Ontario

Energy Board to allow Union Gas to retroactively bill for a mistake they made in the winter of 2000-01. So on one hand you're putting cheques into the farmers' back pockets, but because of your

compliance with and support of the Ontario Energy Board, support for what's happening and allowing the rates to skyrocket with hydro, the cheque goes in one pocket and a good chunk of it's coming

out of the other to pay the bills. That's a real shame.

Nutrient management is another

section where you've let down the agricultural community in this province. We've heard

many a comment made that all the recommendations that Justice O'Connor would be dealing with in his reports, parts one and two, would be implemented by this government. We saw the clean water act

introduced yesterday, which may implement 50% of them. But we saw recommendations that Justice O'Connor made -- as far as providing financial incentives to the agricultural community in order for

it to comply with the Nutrient Management Act, we saw this government turn it down.

I had an opportunity to speak to the Bruce Federation of Agriculture last Friday. As I drove from my constituency office in St Thomas and drove north through

the Deputy Speaker's riding of Perth county, into Grey county, and a bit into Bruce county, Huron, Wellington, I saw farm after farm that, in order for it to comply, is going to need help from this

government. Yet the government turned down that recommendation, and that's again a shame, that they don't recognize the need to help the farmers to comply with nutrient management.

Bill 187, which we have in front of us today, as we know, is in response to the Supreme Court ruling of December 2001. We know that it's in response to the

repeal of the former Bill 91, which was introduced by the NDP government in 1994. The Liberal Party stood up and spoke against that piece of legislation in 1994. In 1995, after the election of the

Harris government, we saw the introduction of Bill 7 and the repeal of that act. We supported the repeal of the agricultural component of that act, but unfortunately we couldn't support Bill 7

because it had so many hostages in it. This government is so well known for putting hostages in bills.

It leads us to the piece of legislation we have in front of us today, the response to the Supreme Court ruling we have with Bill 187. My concern with this bill

is that this government is going to lead us back into court again. We've spent goodness knows how many dollars in defending the repeal of Bill 7 all the way to the Supreme Court. This legislation

does mirror the Supreme Court ruling, but I'm very concerned that we are going to be back in court again and you are going to cause undue hardship, an additional hardship, on the taxpayers of this

province with this piece of legislation in front of us.

I recognize that we do need to see the uniqueness of the agricultural industry, need to recognize that the agricultural industry has changed in this province.

We're still waiting for the minister to define what the family farm is. We're still waiting for the minister to define an industrial agricultural operation or an intensive livestock operation or a

factory farm. What is that? I think it's incumbent on the minister to explain to every one of us what those

definitions mean. They haven't been adequately defined by this minister.

But farming and agriculture have changed in this province. This past Saturday I had an opportunity to be at Walker Farms, located in the eastern part of my

riding. The Walkers have a family farm, but the Walkers milk 600 cows a day, with four employees. Agriculture has changed. And we cannot in any way allow anything to get in the way of that

operation. There cannot be in any way any work stoppage in trying to milk those 600 cows. From that standpoint, the intent of this legislation is in the right direction.

But the face of agriculture has changed in other ways as well. We are seeing more and more farms that have gone beyond traditionally growing a product,

producing a product and putting it on to the truck and shipping it off. That has changed. Some farms have gone from the field almost to the fork, to full production. Some of those changes that have

occurred in the agricultural industry we need to have a look at. Those changes aren't addressed in this legislation in front of us here.

It's because those changes have occurred and haven't been addressed in this legislation that we are going to end up back in court again. I think if the

government was intent on ensuring that it developed a piece of legislation that met the needs of agriculture in this province, it would have looked at all the issues and it would have talked to all

the players, but they haven't done that. In responding to the Supreme Court ruling, this legislation, in my mind, is going to get us back into court again.

What's sad about this legislation -- and we haven't heard the discussion on it yet -- is the fact that we are dealing with a time allocation motion that is

stifling debate among the 103 of us in this Legislature but we've yet to hear a commitment from the Minister of Agriculture to public hearings to allow other individuals from across this province

an opportunity to have their say in this bill. We're getting our say with this bill in this Legislature, but there are a lot of individuals out there who aren't getting a say, be they in favour of

the legislation or against the legislation. It's incumbent on us. We owe it to the public to allow for that opportunity for public hearings. We've yet to hear that commitment made from the

government that we're going to have public hearings. Listen to that time allocation motion. It doesn't sound like we are going to have public hearings. It doesn't sound like there's going to be an

opportunity for any amendments. This government is going to ram this bill through, plain and simple. That's what they're going to do. I think it's a shame that we're not giving everybody out there

that opportunity for public hearings.

A number of issues are thrown into the mix as -- I wouldn't call them red herrings, but I would call them issues that are maybe beyond the scope of agriculture

in Ontario. One issue we've heard about and hear about regularly -- my riding depends on them -- is migrant workers. We know, for example, that there are close to 100,000 individuals associated

with the agri-food business in this province. But one of the things a lot of people probably don't know is the vital role migrant workers play in agriculture in Ontario. Close to 20,000 individuals

come to Ontario from all parts of the world to work in the agriculture industry. They may be here to help with the tobacco harvest or they may be here to help with the fruit harvest. A huge number

of migrant workers come to this province. But migrant workers are covered under federal legislation.

We can slough it off and say, "Oh, migrant workers are a federal issue," but I think it's incumbent on the provincial

Minister of Agriculture to make sure she's sitting down at the table with the federal government to ensure that those individuals coming into this province are fully protected, because they

contribute to the Ontario economy. Individuals I've met over the years who have come to Ontario from Jamaica have been coming to this province for 15 and 20 years, and now we're starting to see the

second generation come. They're an important part of the economy, because these individuals buy food and many goods and services while they're here in this province. Many of those goods are taken

back to their country of origin to help their families out. But while they're here, we need to make sure that we're not sloughing them off as a federal issue, that there is a role for the province

to play, to work with the federal government in ensuring that the rights of migrant workers are protected in Ontario. I urge the minister to enter into those discussions, to work with the federal

government and the agricultural community to ensure that we're meeting the needs of those individuals who are coming to this province.

Another area that is not addressed in this legislation is the whole question of workplace health and safety. I commend the Farm Safety Association of Ontario

for what they have done. With the limited resources that have been made available to them -- I believe for the first time ever, the province a year ago finally granted them $90,000 for their

work.

I think we need to hear more from the Minister of Agriculture about how she's going to support health and safety in the workplace in this province and educate

those individuals, be they on the family farm or working in larger, industrial processing operations. But this legislation is silent on health and safety issues. The government's response is that

this legislation is in response to the Supreme Court ruling. But why don't we make this the best piece of legislation we can, not make it a second piece of legislation that only goes so far? Why

don't we use this opportunity, if we were granted the opportunity for full debate and public hearings, to strengthen this legislation to truly show the commitment to the agricultural industry in

this province, the number two industry? It's an industry, unfortunately -- and those of you watching at home right now, if you ate today, thank a farmer. Think about it.

We take food for granted in this country. We take food for granted in this province. We've enjoyed a wonderful, cheap food policy, but who hasn't had a hand in

it all is the farmer. As you move the product up the chain, everybody seems to make more and more money out of it until the time it gets to the retail market, but the farmer has been left behind.

We know the challenges that farmers are facing with food safety, with nutrient management and with pesticide use. More and more costs are being put on the backs of farmers and they don't have the

opportunity to recoup those costs. So I think it's important that the average person in Ontario recognizes the important role agriculture plays in our economy and that we can't take food for

granted.

After September 11 we heard a lot about security and protecting our borders and protecting our airports. But do you know what we didn't hear about? Not once

did we hear from anybody on that side about protecting our food supply and recognizing that food should be part of a national security system. We depend on food. We need the farmers to earn a good

living, but we as individuals need those farmers to remain competitive and remain in production. We need those farmers to be there. We need to recognize that we live in one of the most bountiful

provinces in the world. There are countries that are envious of what we produce in this province. We need to do everything we can to protect the agricultural industry, and we can't continue to take

the farmer for granted.

We've got a lot of work to do in educating the public. I know there are individuals out there who are trying to do a better job at educating children in the

classroom as to where food comes from so that, hopefully, they then will have a better understanding of the food production system. I know in rural schools they're trying to work toward educating

students in dealing with farm safety issues so that they'll have a better understanding of what it's like living on a farm.

I don't come from an agricultural background but I've had the opportunity, representing a rural riding, to see a farm and to see not only the challenges a

farmer faces but the wide variety of risks that exist on a farm. We need to do more to help the farmer in dealing with health and safety issues and we need to do more in strengthening legislation.

This legislation is a start but there is a great deal more to do.

We're losing, though, the opportunity for that good, healthy debate in this place, because again and again we see these time allocation motions introduced. It

is a sad day for democracy in this province to see good debate being shut down. Why this government is so intent on time allocation motions, I don't know. We heard about an aggressive agenda for

this government in the fall. We haven't seen that aggressive agenda.

With this bill we are going to end up back in court again; there's no doubt about it. I think that's where the Minister of Agriculture has let the taxpayers of

Ontario down and let the agricultural community down. This should have been a piece of legislation that not only recognized the order of the Supreme Court but recognized the changes that have taken

place in agriculture and recognized that there are other issues facing agriculture out there right now. This piece of legislation didn't do that and it should have done that.

But we're not going to have that opportunity for amendments. We're not going to have the opportunity for public hearings. It's non-existent. I think that's a

real failure on the part of the government, because I think the goal of every one of us here is to protect the agricultural industry. I don't think there is anybody who doesn't recognize that this

is an industry that is unique and that is facing unprecedented challenges right now, be they from the Americans or the European Union. It's facing challenges from climate. That's one thing we as

politicians can't do anything about. But it's also facing the challenge of just the very survival as the face of agriculture changes. I think it's incumbent on every one of us, be we urban or rural

politicians, to do everything we can to strengthen and support this industry. We do require that we protect the industry. It is a start.

Mr Beaubien: Vote for the bill.

Mr Peters: I heard some heckling just now about voting for the bill. We have said all along that we will be supporting this bill. We spoke

against the NDP bill, we supported the repeal of the NDP bill and we will be supporting this bill. But we could be going further, and that's where this government has failed. They haven't

recognized how this industry has changed, and it has changed. We need to ensure that as an industry evolves and changes, we do everything in our power to support that industry and keep that

industry competitive. To date we haven't seen that in this piece of legislation that's in front of us.

There are so many issues facing agriculture today. I think it's incumbent on the minister to stand up and --

Interjection.

Mr Peters: My apologies, Mr Speaker. We're just gearing up some timing. I'm going to be relinquishing the floor to my colleague from

Sarnia-Lambton.

I think it's important to recognize that she's an urban politician. Food affects us all. Agriculture affects us all. We need to support this industry. We need

to recognize that this is an industry that's different. This is an industry that can't afford to have work stoppages put in front of it. We are dealing with a perishable commodity.

In closing, we will be supporting this bill. But I'm very sorry that we haven't heard a direct commitment, and maybe we will from a government member, that

this bill is going to go out for public hearings so that we give everybody an opportunity to have some say and some input into this most important piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: We will proceed clockwise.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I will be sharing my time with my colleagues, who are not here at the moment but will be arriving

shortly.

We are debating this here bill today because the Supreme Court of Canada said that the government opposite did the wrong thing back in 1995. You took a piece

of legislation which was working in the province, you threw it out and brought in your own piece