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

December 4, 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-Dec-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 December 2002 Mercredi 4 décembre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

LAMBTON GENERATING STATION

ANAESTHETISTS

MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING

DAIRY INDUSTRY

LONG-TERM CARE

JADE SINNESAEL

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

EID UL-FITR

VISITOR

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSULTANTS BOONDOGGLE

FREEZE ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE GEL

DE L'ENGAGEMENT FUTILE

D'EXPERTS-CONSEILS

POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT (INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

UN COMMISSAIRE INDÉPENDANT

AUX PLAINTES CONTRE LA POLICE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

HYDRO ONE

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

ONTARIO INNOVATION TRUST

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

SKILLS TRAINING

CANCER TREATMENT

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

LEGAL SERVICES

DAIRY INDUSTRY

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

CHILD CARE

HYDRO RATES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

CAT SCANNER

HYDRO RATES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

HYDRO RATES

NATURAL GAS RATES

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

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)

TIME ALLOCATION

(CONTINUED)

Wednesday 4 December 2002 Mercredi 4 décembre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): A two-month campaign to educate drivers on school bus safety wrapped up in Chatham-Kent last week. During this

blitz, police reported 107 violations where motorists drove past school buses while their overhead lights were flashing. We were very fortunate that no one was hurt or killed. One hundred and seven

incidents of illegal passing in just two months are absolutely unacceptable. This blatant disregard for the law must end. We need an effective deterrent. We need to give teeth to the current law so

that offending drivers can be held accountable.

I have spent six years lobbying the Harris-Eves government, six years gaining support from local, provincial and national organizations that advocate vehicle

liability to protect the 810,000 children riding on 16,000 school buses in Ontario. What is it going to take for the Harris-Eves government to finally understand the need for Bill 112?

Our children must be protected from drivers who illegally pass school buses here in Ontario. How can this government justify the idea of vehicle liability for

electronic toll roads, parking fines, red light cameras or flying truck tires if it is not prepared to extend the same practice to the protection of our children?

This government's double standard must end today. Pass Bill 112 immediately.

LAMBTON GENERATING STATION

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I rise in the House today on behalf of the constituents of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex. I would like to

encourage the Minister of Energy to continue working toward providing the residents of Ontario with a commitment to providing affordable, plentiful and environmentally friendly power, unlike the

McGuinty Liberals, who want to close the Lambton generating station located in Sarnia township. Shame on you.

I would like to share a letter that the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce recently sent to Frank Chiarotto, the manager at the Lambton generating station:

"At its recent meeting, the board of directors of the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce recognized your achievement of significantly improving air quality at

Lambton generating station. Your investment in scrubbers has considerably reduced emissions in an affordable manner for the taxpayer.

"The board made an additional motion that we will also forward to the Minister of Energy, Honourable John Baird:

"`As a result of these environmental improving initiatives by OPG, the chamber supports the continued use of thermal coal-fired generating stations in Ontario,

as a most cost-effective alternative to our supply concerns.'

"Congratulations on your recent efforts and best wishes for many more years of improvements for our taxpayer and energy users."

ANAESTHETISTS

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): What is so frustrating is that this Minister of Health with the Harris-Eves government wants to declare war

on a particular type of specialist in Ontario. Today it's the anaesthetists. So he decides that he wants to publicly say he won't be intimidated or he won't be bullied.

Let me tell you what's happening to the residents in this province. They are the ones who are having their surgeries cancelled because we have a health minister

who refuses to act; a health minister who knew last year that we have a significant problem, this time at the Toronto General and Toronto Western hospitals, dealing with anaesthetists; and that we

have a shortage of these specialists across the province.

This minister says publicly that he won't let those operating rooms close. Guess what? They've already closed six of them. The current discussion is about

closing yet another four. So we already have delayed surgeries because this government refuses to act on a problem they know has existed for some time.

He wants to bring it down to the base level of how much we are going to pay them. How about talking about what these people have to do for a living at the

Toronto General and Toronto Western hospitals? How about starting their first surgeries at 7 am and working right through until 6 pm?

How many surgeries are being cancelled? Well, the hospitals are being honest with patients: "We don't know if we can keep up this kind of

schedule with the

limited number of anaesthetists that exist." They're suggesting they need at least 30 more for the required surgeries they have booked.

This requires action, not just talk about bullying by this government.

MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to inform you, Speaker, and the other members that I was at a rally this past Sunday with Olivia

Chow, a city councillor from my area, trying to prevent the closure of the Medical Arts Building at St George and Bloor.

Many of you will know that this building has housed many medical professionals providing essential services for many in the community, not just in my own little

riding but in the surrounding community, for over 70 years. They have served about 200,000 people.

I understand the University of Toronto has bought the building and wants to close it down. My problem and my point is that I support the University of Toronto

and its needs. They have many needs to take care of, one of which is the double cohort and the demographic changes that obviously will force the university to accept over 70,000, 80,000 or 90,000

more people in the next couple of years. I understand that. My point is that you don't serve your own needs by displacing the needs of our health care community, which has been well served by the

Medical Arts Building.

The Medical Arts Building is strategically located and accessible to everyone, including people with disabilities, and it serves a number of the university

students who are in the area.

My point is, Minister of Health and minister of post-secondary education, get together with the university and solve it so that all our needs can be taken care

of.

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Today, I had an opportunity to meet with Bart MacLean, Hans Vink and Bill Mitchell, who are with us in the

gallery. They represent the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, and I am honoured to say a few words about their industry.

In Waterloo-Wellington, we understand that the success of our dairy farmers means success for us all: for our economy, our rural way of life, our nutrition and

our health. The Dairy Farmers' own newsletter recently explained the significance of this sector by stating that the riding of Waterloo-Wellington is one of the largest areas for dairy farming in

Canada, with milk having a huge economic impact.

The Dairy Farmers noted that last year Waterloo-Wellington's 731 dairy farms shipped about 284 million litres of milk, worth about $170 million. To give a sense

of how dairy farmers provide opportunities to people in Waterloo-Wellington, they stated that dairy farms directly employ 1,000 dairy families and provide jobs for nearly 2,900 workers.

The income value of Waterloo-Wellington's dairy farms is also massive. If we ever had to replace the income from milk, manufacturing plants would have to create

jobs for over 5,600 workers with salaries of more than $30,000 a year.

This success in Waterloo-Wellington is a credit to the entrepreneurial drive of our farm families, and it's a clear and positive result of our supply management

system. In the 12 years I have been privileged to serve in this House, I have always maintained that supply management is fair to both producer and consumer -- quality and stability at a fair

price. The maintenance of supply management is absolutely crucial to our rural economy in Ontario. I will continue to support it and encourage all members of the House to help keep this system

strong.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): The abysmal record of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care when it comes to dealing with our

long-term-care facilities and the people who live in those facilities goes on.

Back in 1995, the auditor reported that the ministry had "not developed either standards to measure the efficiency of facilities in providing quality care or

models for staff mixes for providing nursing and personal care."

Not only have they not done that seven years later, but it's worse. The few standards that there were with respect to the number of hours of nursing and personal

care and the fact that the seniors should get at least one bath per week have been deleted. There are no standards at all, as far as the ministry is concerned.

The auditor also noted that "the ministry had not addressed the results of a 2001 consulting report" -- which he himself paid for -- "that noted that residents

of Ontario's long-term-care facilities `receive less nursing and therapy services than [those in] similar jurisdictions with similar populations.'" We are dead last in the 10 jurisdictions that

were studied.

Not only that, it gets worse. Of all the nursing beds that have been opened since 1998, not one licence has been issued. None of the nursing homes in Ontario

currently had current ministry licences issued at the time of the audit.

Our seniors deserve better. Minister, shape up.

JADE SINNESAEL

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): It gives me great pleasure to tell you a bit about a 13-year-old from my riding of

Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. She has earned the title of Lady Llama in the local press after overcoming setbacks to be named grand champion at this year's Royal Winter Fair.

Jade Sinnesael, who hails from the village of Wyecombe, wowed the Royal judges with her llama named Kit Kat, placing her first overall out of 49 competitors in

the youth division.

What makes Miss Sinnesael's accomplishment even more impressive is the fact that a week before the competition the llama that Jade had been training for months

had pulled up lame. Instead of allowing the setback to defeat her, however, she rose to the challenge and began intensive training with Kit Kat that would earn her top honours a week later.

Following the award-winning show at the Royal, Jade's accomplishment and her reputation for drawing the best out of her animals will take her to a different

stage. Television crews are filming her story for an episode of Animal Magnetism, a show that looks at the bond between people and their animals.

Jade Sinnesael is a shining example of what young people can accomplish on our farms across rural Ontario. I would certainly like to take this opportunity to

congratulate Jade, better known as Lady Llama of the Royal Winter Fair.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): All the Tory hogs are lining up at the Eves trough again. We learned yesterday that Ernie Eves

is spending more than $600 million on consultants this year, more than double what he spent just four years ago. It seems that the Premier of Ontario offers the best severance packages in the

history of humankind: quit your job today and come back tomorrow at double or triple the pay.

I would say it's like winning the lottery, but in this case your odds of hitting pay dirt are virtually guaranteed. They don't have money for our schools or for

our hospitals, they can't be bothered to go after killers or rapists, they couldn't care less that half of the corporations in our province don't even file a tax return, but they certainly care

about looking after themselves and their friends in the consulting business. The taps are turned on and the pigs are lining up at the Eves trough.

I said in the Legislature a few weeks ago that it looked like Ernie Eves and his friends were driving their limos up to the Queen's Park loading dock and

shovelling the money in by the millions. I was wrong. It was hundreds of millions of dollars. When it comes to slick government, this Tory bunch takes the cake.

Ontario wants a Premier that is honest, has integrity and leadership. They want a Premier who will put their needs first and not throw away hundreds of millions

of dollars on their friends. They want a Premier who is the exact opposite of Ernie Eves. They'll get that Premier. His name is Dalton McGuinty.

EID UL-FITR

Mr Bob Wood (London West): Over one billion Muslims throughout the world have been observing a month of fasting and inner reflection during

Ramadan. Ramadan ends with the sighting of the new crescent of the moon, which will be December 5 this year, and is celebrated by the festival of Eid ul-Fitr. Literally the Festival of Breaking the

Fast, Eid ul-Fitr is one of the two most important Islamic celebrations.

Ed ul-Fitr is a day of joy and thanksgiving. At Ed ul-Fitr people dress in their finest clothes, adorn their homes with lights and decorations, give treats to

children, and enjoy visits with friends and family.

A sense of generosity and gratitude colours these festivities. Although charity and good deeds are always important in Islam, they have special significance at

the end of Ramadan. As the month draws to a close, Muslims are obligated to share their blessings by feeding the poor and making contributions to mosques. Eid ul-Fitr also honours the universal

values that are embodied in Islam: love of family and community; mutual respect; the power of education; and the deepest yearning of all to live in peace -- values that can bring people of every

faith and culture together, and strengthen us as a people and nation.

I know I speak on behalf of all members of this House in extending our best wishes and greetings to the Muslim community in Ontario as they celebrate this

auspicious occasion.

To our Muslim friends: Kullu am wa antum bi-khair. In Arabic that means, "May you be well throughout the year".

VISITOR

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to note the presence in the members' west gallery today of

someone who is a truly great Canadian. He has been a mentor to many people on this side of the House, I know, and someone whom we all respect. He's known affectionately as the rainmaker, Senator

Keith Davey.

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

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 12th report of the standing committee on government

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSULTANTS BOONDOGGLE

FREEZE ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE GEL

DE L'ENGAGEMENT FUTILE

D'EXPERTS-CONSEILS

Mr Colle moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 219,

An Act to promote fiscal responsibility by limiting payments to consultants / Projet de loi 219, Loi visant à promouvoir la saine gestion des

fonds publics en plafonnant les paiements versés aux experts-conseils.

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

The member for short statement?

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): As you know, yesterday, with the Provincial Auditor's report, there was some outrageous spending exposed,

whereby $662 million was spent on consultants by this government. We had consultants that were paid up to $2,600 a day. We had people who were given $360,000 for two years' work -- just over and

over again, examples of how spending for consultants is totally out of control in this province. The people of Ontario want this stopped.

I've introduced today a bill called the Consultants Boondoggle Freeze Act, which would cap the pay for consultants at a very good, hefty wage of $100 per day.

That would be the minimum. If this bill is passed, we will --

The Speaker: Order. I thank the member.

POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT (INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

UN COMMISSAIRE INDÉPENDANT

AUX PLAINTES CONTRE LA POLICE

Mr Hampton moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 220,

An Act to amend the Police Services Act with respect to the disciplining of police officers and to reinstate a fair and impartial process with

respect to public complaints about police officers / Projet de loi 220, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les services policiers relativement au processus disciplinaire d'agents de police et visant à

restaurer un processus équitable et objectif pour traiter des plaintes du public concernant la conduite d'agents de police.

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): The bill amends the Police Services Act to require an independent police complaints commissioner,

appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, to deal with complaints by members of the public about the conduct of police officers. The commissioner is independent of police forces and reports

annually to the Attorney General. Any member of the public may make a complaint,

whereas at present a member of the public may make a complaint only if directly affected by the subject matter of

the complaint.

The bill also amends the act to reinstate the process for disciplining police officers that existed before the repeal of

part V of the act as of November 27,

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I'm pleased to provide the Legislature and the people of Ontario with a report on Ontario's finances

and the state of our provincial economy.

The Ontario economy is performing better than expected at the time of the June budget. Our economic growth and job creation are leading the average of G7

countries and the United States. The government's plan for a balanced budget this year, our fourth consecutive balanced budget, is on track. We're making the needed investments we promised in

health care, education and the environment.

Here's the best news of all: since our government's first throne speech in 1995, the Ontario economy has created one million net new jobs. That represents more

than 46% of all the jobs created in Canada over the past seven years.

Our government is keeping its promise to restore opportunity and prosperity to Ontario, but it hasn't been easy. My June budget noted that we were emerging

from an economic slowdown that had negatively impacted our revenues. This year, I'm pleased to report that the performance of our economy is exceeding expectations. Despite ongoing challenges in

the global economy, private sector forecasters now anticipate real economic growth of 3.5% this year, up from a consensus forecast of 3.2% in June.

This strong performance in the face of adversity did not happen by accident. In the first half of the 1990s, Ontario had one of the weakest economies in the

industrialized world. High taxation, overregulation, huge deficits and spiralling debt came with a terrible price. When the recession hit in the early 1990s we fared much worse than our trading

partners. Companies closed their Ontario plants first. Investment and jobs went elsewhere. By 1995, the welfare system was in crisis, with 1.3 million Ontarians relying on social assistance.

Our government addressed these challenges directly. We chose prosperity. Since 1995 the people of Ontario, and governments, led first by Mike Harris and now by

Ernie Eves, have worked together to put this province back on track. By cutting taxes, balancing the budget and restoring prudent fiscal management we have positioned Ontario for growth and jobs.

Ontario has truly gone from worst to first in its economic performance. Between 1985 and 1995 our real per capita GDP grew by only 6%, less than one third of the G7 average and only half the

average of the other provinces. By contrast, since 1996 the per capita GDP has risen almost 17%, well above the average of the G7 countries and the United States. The recently released second

quarter economic accounts show continued strong growth in real GDP of 4.4% at an annual rate following exceptionally strong growth in the first quarter.

We are also reducing the mortgage on our children's future, represented by the provincial debt. With a surplus of $375 million for 2001-02, Ontario achieved

three consecutive surpluses for the first time in nearly 100 years. Since we've turned the corner on deficits in 1999, our government has paid down $4.5 billion of net provincial debts.

We continue to manage spending carefully. Since 1995-96, real program spending per person, excluding health and education, is down by close to 30%. As a result

of getting our fiscal house in order, our credit rating has been upgraded three times in the past two years, and we've regained the ability to invest in those priorities that mean the most to our

economic prosperity and our quality of life.

A growing economy and tax cuts have raised the average after-tax and after-inflation income of two-parent families with children from over $57,000 in 1995 to

over $68,000 in 2000, a 19% increase. In the same period, single-parent families have seen a 33% increase, and more than 600,000 people have left welfare since our government took office in

Despite the strong gains we've made in growth and jobs so far this year, many uncertainties remain in the global economy as we move toward 2003. Ontario is not

immune to external influences. Private sector economists have lowered their forecasts for real growth next year from an average of 4.3% last June to 3.5% today. This more cautious outlook reflects

the fallout from the economic events of the past year coupled with many uncertainties on the horizon. World stock markets remain weak. Tension is high in the Middle East, and oil prices continue to

be volatile. Prospects for the US economy remain unclear.

At the same time, demands continue to grow for additional investments in priority programs. That's why we must remain committed to our prudent fiscal and

economic plan. This government's strong record of lower taxes, smaller government and balanced budgets has encouraged business and consumer confidence in the past year, and it has helped keep the

economy on a path of strong growth.

Lower taxes are central to our plan to increase the competitiveness and the productivity of our economy. We cut Ontario's personal income tax rate by 30%

between 1996 and 1998, and subject to approval by the House, an additional 20% personal tax reduction will be fully in place in 2004. This year alone, a typical two-earner family of four with

$60,000 in net income pays over $2,000 less in Ontario income tax.

Ontario's small business income tax rate was 9.5% in 1995, one of the highest in the country. We are bringing the rate down to 5.5% on January 1, and by 2005,

it will be further reduced to 4%.

We have lowered the general corporate income tax rate from 15.5% in 1995 to 12.5% today. This rate would drop to 11% in 2004 and reach 8% in 2006.

Consumers are also benefiting from other tax cuts. For example, the retail sales tax on auto insurance premiums has been cut from 5% to 2%, and it will be

reduced to 1% next April and entirely eliminated in April 2004.

When you put it all together, Ontarians are now receiving a total of $14 billion a year in tax relief. Sustained and long-term tax cuts are the engine that has

helped the economy create one million net new jobs since 1995.

We will complete our current multi-year plan to make tax rates more competitive. We will outline additional steps in next year's budget. I look forward to the

upcoming pre-budget consultations for advice on a new multi-year plan to ensure that Ontario's tax structure continues to drive increased economic growth and prosperity.

Ensuring that Ontarians receive the best health care in the world remains one of our highest priorities. This year alone, we have increased our commitment to

health care by almost $2 billion. Since 1995, our commitment has increased by $8 billion, and these investments are paying off. Ontarians have more access to increased diagnostic services, improved

cancer care, cardiac care, dialysis services and more nurse practitioners. More long-term-care beds are coming on stream.

But no province can indefinitely continue these kinds of increases to health care without additional support from the federal government. The recently released

Romanow report recognizes this, but the solution that it proposes falls far short of what is required.

Over the years, the federal government has cut its share of health care spending from 50% to 14%. If Mr Romanow's recommendations are implemented, next year's

federal contribution would represent only 16% of provincial health and social spending. His proposed $15 billion over three years is almost $5 billion less than the minimum need identified by the

provinces.

The financing of health care is a long-term and growing challenge, particularly for provinces. The Conference Board of Canada forecast that health care

spending will grow at an average rate of 5% over the next 20 years, far in excess of the projected average provincial revenue growth of 3%. In addition, federal surpluses are forecast to grow

rapidly, while provinces continue to face huge challenges in balancing their budgets in the foreseeable future.

Ontario will continue to balance its budget and respond to our citizens' health care needs. Ottawa must pay its fair share, and it should not be making matters

worse by attempting to claw back over $1.3 billion from the province to cover mistakes that it made in calculating tax payments to this province.

Excellence in education is the key to opportunity for our young people. That's why we have put in place a new, more challenging curriculum, higher standards,

and comprehensive testing to ensure our students are learning.

It's important that we support them with a funding formula that remains fair and equitable. To ensure that it does this, we have appointed Dr Mordechai

Rozanski, president of the University of Guelph, to review the formula. His report will be released shortly, and we are committed to addressing his recommendations within the government's fiscal

plan.

Mr Speaker, as we committed in the June budget, we will also continue with our plan to invest in other priority areas that support our quality of life and our

prosperity. These include a clean and safe environment; innovation for a more competitive economy; healthy and growing communities; and infrastructure investments in transportation, schools,

hospitals, colleges and universities.

Ontario's economy is sound. The fundamentals our government has put in place -- lower and more competitive taxes, balanced budgets, reduced debt and key

investments -- have set the stage for Ontario's turnaround. They have produced a period of outstanding job growth and economic prosperity that is unparalleled in our history. Our approach is

helping this province withstand the challenges of a difficult world economy.

But we all know more needs to be done. We want more opportunities for our citizens. We want the Ontario economy to create even more jobs. With the pre-budget

consultations about to begin, I look forward to hearing advice from members of this House, as well as the comments and suggestions of Ontarians from all walks of life, on how we can accomplish

this.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am pleased to respond. One of the great urban myths is that the Conservatives know how to manage

finances. The first piece of evidence is yesterday's auditor's report. Nothing I could say could be more damning than the Provincial Auditor's report of yesterday, where he essentially said you're

incompetent.

He said half the corporations in the province of Ontario aren't even filing their income tax return, let alone paying it.

He said you laid off 40 people and hired them back within days and paid them twice what you were paying them.

There are 10,000 people out there on arrest warrants and nothing is being done about it, and the minister said, "Well, that's not a problem. There are only

6,000; there aren't 10,000."

The negotiated deal with Accenture put a cap of $180 million on it and you paid $60 million more.

I want to focus on the second shoe that dropped on your fiscal management today, and I want to point out several things to the people of Ontario about what I

call the urban myth about the Conservatives being able to manage the finances.

The first thing I want to point out to the people of Ontario -- it's on page 53 -- is that the only way this budget is balanced is with a fire sale of $2

billion of our most treasured assets in the next four months; that's the only way. We saw this before. Premier Eves, then the Minister of Finance, sold the 407 in one of the worst deals for the

public ever, on May 5, 1999, when the last election was called, and we see today that the only way these books are balanced is by selling $2 billion worth of prize assets in the next four months;

otherwise, the books aren't balanced.

Second, I urge the public to turn to page 59. Since Mr Eves became Premier -- he was then the finance minister -- the debt of the province of Ontario has gone

up more than $21 billion. According to this document, it's now $112 billion. On March 31, 1995, it was $90 billion. Those are the numbers -- almost a 25% increase in the debt of the province under

Ernie Eves.

Two days ago, Mr Baird said, "Oh, it was immoral" -- he used the word "immoral," referring to Mr Hampton -- "to run up the debt $21 billion." I would say to

the people of Ontario, do you know how much you're paying in interest on the debt now? It's $700 million more than when Premier Eves took over as Minister of Finance -- $700 million more in

interest; again, on the books.

The prime interest rate in the province of Ontario in 1995 was 8.5%; it's now 4.5%. It has dropped almost in half, and we in Ontario today are paying $700

million more interest on the debt. Since the Conservatives took over, the average household in Ontario has had $5,000 in debt added to it by this $22-billion increase in debt.

Again I say it is an urban myth that the Conservatives can manage the books. The auditor yesterday pointed it out, and this points it out today.

I hate to break the news to you on the job front -- and I'm simply quoting the numbers from your economic table. The unemployment rate in the year 2000 was

5.7%; in 2001, 6.3%; and in 2002, 7.1%. I'm just saying to you that the unemployment rate is going up.

Standard and Poor's is the organization that rates our credit. In 1990 the province had a triple-A credit rating. It was downgraded three times. We still have

a credit rating two points below the triple-A we used to have. It has been upgraded once, not three times as the minister said.

I say to the people of Ontario, don't listen to what they say; watch what they do. Watch the debt going up. Watch the auditor's report saying it's

incompetence. It is an urban myth that these people know how to manage the finances of the province. Look at the facts of the matter here in this book.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Further responses? The leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Speaker, I always listen with interest whenever the Minister of Finance --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will allow the member to start over. We'll reset the clock at five minutes and make sure it's quiet when he begins, as he was

quiet for the Minister of Finance and the critic for the Liberal Party as well.

Order. Come to order. It's now the turn of the leader of the third party for a response.

Mr Hampton: I'm always interested whenever the Minister of Finance stands to give a selective accounting of Ontario's economy, because I'm

always interested in what she leaves out.

What did she leave out today? She left out the fact that Ontario's unemployment rate is increasing, that in this so-called era of prosperity for the

government's consultants and corporate friends, there are more people unemployed this year than last year and more people unemployed last year than the year before.

I also look for some indication that after eight years of freezing the wages of the lowest-paid people in this province, people who work for minimum wage, the

government might recognize some element of fairness and increase the wages of the lowest-paid people. But eight years after freezing the minimum wage at $6.85 an hour, this government still boasts

about more tax cuts for the well off, more tax cuts for its corporate friends, but is freezing the wages of the lowest-paid people. That tells us in a picture what's going on here.

We saw yesterday from the auditor's report: 40 people laid off in the Ministry of Public Safety and Security. They go out the door, and they come back in the

door three days later as this government's private sector cronies and get paid more than twice as much. If you're a private sector crony, a corporate crony of this government, then there is no

limit. But if you're one of the lowest-paid people in this province -- and I think the Minister of Finance deserves to know that most of the people who work for minimum wage are women: women who

are trying to support a family; women who are often working not at one minimum wage job but sometimes two or two and a half minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. This government thinks nothing of

giving more loot, more tax cuts, more consulting contracts to your friends. Meanwhile, you attack the lowest paid.

Then there is the auto sector. Isn't it interesting that recently 23 mayors from southern Ontario communities came together to point out that after all this

government's ballyhooing about tax cuts, we continue to lose in the auto sector; that the Ford truck plant in Oakville is headed for closure unless this government realizes that tax cuts aren't

working and it has got to come forward with an auto policy; that the Chrysler van plant in Windsor is going to be closing unless this government recognizes that simply giving Chrysler and GM more

tax cuts is not doing the job. And the auto parts sector points out that after you close the Chatham international plant, you lose tens of thousands of auto parts jobs as well.

Then there is the pulp and paper sector. The minister doesn't mention that we just had another closure in Sault Ste Marie; that recently the manager of the

sawmill in Wawa came forward and said that deregulated hydro prices will put their mill out of business. Then we've had closure of a paper mill in Kenora, another 150 jobs, and Sturgeon Falls,

where the company is going to close the mill and lay off 140 employees but is going to continue to run the hydro dam because, under this government's crazy set-up, you can make more money laying

off the employees and simply selling the hydro power into the private market and watch the prices go to $1,000 a megawatt hour. No jobs for people, no future for the community, but the corporate

friends of this government do just fine.

Then there is this government's statement about hydro debt. It's so interesting to read the statement. It points out that in order to hide the high cost of

privatized, deregulated hydro, this government is actually going to run up the hydro debt.

Then we have the other point: the government doesn't have a balanced budget but for the fact that it's going to sell off about half of Hydro One. What's this

like? This is like a farmer who sells off a piece of his farm every year to temporarily impress his friends, without noting that two or three years down the road you don't have a farm any more.

This government is selling off one of our strategic economic assets, our power system, and the whole of the economy, not to mention the consumers, is going to suffer as a result.

VISITOR

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I draw to your attention that my youngest and tallest daughter,

Danielle, is sitting in the members' gallery.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you know, the Provincial Auditor is an officer of the Legislature.

He reports to us as members of the Legislature. It has come to my attention that the Minister of Public Safety has called the auditor's report "inaccurate and misleading." An officer of this

Legislature, according to a member of the crown, has been accused of being "inaccurate and misleading." He further made the inference that the Provincial Auditor was motivated by a political bias.

When asked to be specific, he said: "I can't talk to what his motivations are."

I believe this is very offensive to this Legislature. I believe it is very offensive to the process we try to carry on here and to the examination we're here

to conduct on behalf of the people of Ontario. I request that the Minister of Public Safety withdraw those remarks and apologize to an officer of this Legislature forthwith.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate the point of order

of the member of the third party, but I don't believe the member is in the House at this point in time. It becomes rather difficult to even talk, or speak or accommodate the member of the third

party when he's not here. I beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Thanks very much. The members will know that we can't ask a member to withdraw things that are said outside the House. We have

enough trouble with what members say inside the House. There's nothing out of order. What members say outside the House cannot be policed by the Speaker of the House.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member is now present. I repeat the request I made earlier. If that is not the case, I ask

you to consider whether or not contempt has been shown for this Legislature and an officer of this Legislature.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would ask the member opposite not only

to withdraw, but to apologize. He's basing this on innuendo and rumour. I have never said such things, and I would ask him to apologize to all members of the House.

The Speaker: I thank the minister for his input. You will know that there are disagreements about what people say. Members can disagree on

things and I certainly can't ask all members to withdraw when they disagree; otherwise, we'd never get anything done. But I thank all the members for trying to set the record straight.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. We're now coming up to eight years of the Eves-Harris

management of the province's finances. Today's fiscal statement shows that in order to balance the budget this year, you are going to have to sell off about $2-billion worth of provincial assets

over the next four months. That's the only way, I gather, that you can balance the books. My question to you is this: why, after almost eight years of managing the finances of this province, are we

in a position where the only way the province's books can be balanced is by a fire sale of the province's assets?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): There are a number of forecasts and expenditure plans in the budget. The total picture gives us a

balanced budget. We laid it out very clearly in June. We are following our plan. Job growth is up. Revenue is up. The take-home pay for our families is up. The budget will be balanced.

Mr Phillips: Again, I go back to the incompetence. The people of Ontario simply want an answer, Minister. You just presented a report here,

that you were talking about selling off $2 billion worth of the province's assets in a fire sale over the next four months. I simply want to know, on behalf of the people of Ontario, who have a

right to an answer to this, how in the world is it that you and Mr Eves got the province into a position where the only way our books are going to be balanced is by a fire sale over the next four

months of $2 billion worth of the province's key assets?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Coming from a representative of a government that never balanced its books, I can appreciate that he might find this a bit of a

different situation, because we're balancing ours.

The plan that we laid out in the June budget is very clear. We made revenue and expenditure forecasts. We talked about how we could go forward. We are

following that plan to do what we said we would.

Mr Phillips: This kind of drivel, frankly --

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: You just got up and presented to the people of Ontario a report. We, on behalf of the people of Ontario, are asking you a

question about that report, and it is this. You said you are going to sell off a major chunk of our province's assets. You said yesterday you're going to sell off a major part of Hydro One. The

auditor, in this report condemning the government, urged you caution in it. In fact, I would say he went further than that.

So on behalf of the people of Ontario, I want to know why you got us in the position where you've got us in a fire sale to sell off half of one of the most

treasured assets in the province of Ontario, that being Hydro One. Why did you get us in a position where we've got to do this in a fire sale in the next four months to balance the books? I'd like

an answer perhaps.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate that the honourable member doesn't agree with this government, but no one is parting with control of Hydro One.

We've been very clear what the plan is. We recognize the need for a strategic partner. We've laid that out. The government will retain control of Hydro One as the people of Ontario asked us to do,

but we need a strategic partner for the private sector discipline that that will bring, for the investment that will bring, to make sure that Hydro One can continue to be depended on by families in

this province.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a question for the Premier.

Yesterday, Premier, the Provincial Auditor delivered a stinging indictment of your government. He exposed that when it comes to consulting contracts you're

wasting literally hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, he said that your government is bending and breaking its own rules when it comes to awarding those rather lucrative contracts.

The Provincial Auditor points to a number of untendered contracts that your government awarded. In some instances he says that they purposely broke up

contracts into smaller parts to avoid having to go to public tender and the type of scrutiny that those tenders would yield. In effect you were avoiding or you were attempting to avoid complying

with your own rules.

Now that the auditor has exposed this, will you do the right thing and release every single untendered contract your government has signed in the last seven

years?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I believe the Chair of Management Board can respond directly.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): First of all, yesterday I indicated we welcomed the

recommendations of the auditor. I also indicated yesterday that almost all, if not all of them by today, have those recommendations, have them implemented into the directives. We have the intention

to make sure we follow his advice.

Having said that, I don't believe we've gone far enough. We've taken his recommendations. His recommendations are good, but I believe we need to do a more

comprehensive review of the way the government does business. That's part of what we're doing now, and that's what we intend to do.

As I said yesterday with respect to these contracts, yes, there were some circumstances that had occurred. The auditor has pointed them out to us and we've

taken all the steps we have to do to make sure this does not occur again in the future.

Mr Duncan: Minister, in the Common Sense Revolution, on page 3, you said you would do more with less. It turns out you're doing less but it's

costing us more. On page 9 of that same document you complained about the NDP hiding the number of government workers by putting the vast majority of them on contract. That's a quote. You said that

you would stop that, but in your government, staff quit one day and are hired back the next day at double and triple the cost. For example, when the Premier was Minister of Finance, Bev Hammond was

given an $84,702 consulting contract after she left his office.

The auditor looked at consulting contracts in just six ministries. In every single ministry he found abuses totalling in the millions of dollars.

Will you now agree that a special audit needs to be done that includes every single ministry of your government? Will you agree that in order to find out how

the Eves trough got so full, we need to have a full, independent, forensic audit of the consulting contracts of every single ministry?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I indicated yesterday that in addition to what we're doing in terms of reviewing the procurement and consulting areas, the

government has now embarked on a tremendous exercise, called program review, to review everything in government. That has never been done before in a very comprehensive way.

I will tell you as well that not only do we take the auditor's recommendations to heart, but have implemented almost all of them and will implement all of them

before the end of the year. We'll go further than that and take a very comprehensive look at the way government does all business. We intend to do this in any event.

Yesterday, when the leader of the opposition stood up -- he's not here right now -- he indicated that I shouldn't talk about their past record because it was

the last millennium. I wonder whether that mean's he's saying people like Jim Bradley or Alvin Curling are dinosaurs, because they were around then, and I guess they survived that ice age.

Yesterday he indicated many instances of the type of circumstance the people across are pointing out to us. What they were criticized for by the auditor in their day --

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

Final supplementary?

Mr Duncan: This is the government that has sent in forensic auditors to look at school boards. This is a government that set up snitch lines

on welfare recipients. In fact, the Provincial Auditor has pointed to some serious rot in your own government.

Let's look at some examples. Paul Rhodes was rewarded with $248,142 worth of contracts. The person running your next election campaign got a contract from the

Ministry of Finance for $67,157.

While your cabinet ministers are out in the hallway feebly attempting to discredit Mr Peters, we think it's time to see some real action and close off the Eves

trough. Will you now agree to table in this House every single untendered contract your government awarded in the last seven years, as well as all contracts awarded to former political advisers,

whether tendered or untendered, in your government, and will you agree to a full, independent forensic audit of every ministry and its untendered contracts and documents, so there can be an honest,

full and clear accounting of what I think, and what the auditor believes, is an abused process --

The Speaker: The member's time is up.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's fairly ironic: yesterday I stood in my place quoting the auditor's report about some of the abuses that occurred,

whether it was consultants being paid more than ministry staff or a consultant being paid more than ministry staff hired on a continuous basis or poorly defined cost of government. By the end of my

statement and the quote from the auditor's report, they were quite surprised that the government I was talking about was the Peterson Liberal government.

You stand up there with a holier-than-thou view of life, but let me tell you what we've done. We've embraced what the auditor has said. We've accepted his

recommendations; we've accepted them all in this area. We're moving forward with them, and in fact we're using that as a jumping-off point. We're going to implement more stringent rules, because we

believe it's important to have accountability. That's what we're going to do -- not what you did, which was nothing.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Over the last two years, your government has sold off part of our

hydro system, the Bruce nuclear station, to a British company that is now bankrupt and is allowed to operate only because of loans from the British government. Through hydro privatization and

deregulation, we have seen hydro rates go through the roof in the province. Over the last two days, we've seen the Independent Market Operator issue warnings of an emergency regarding hydro supply.

Now the auditor raises the point that selling off part of Hydro One is not a very good idea.

In view of all the things that have gone wrong with your strategy of hydro privatization, could you tell the people of Ontario why you want to continue on the

course of selling off 49% of Hydro One?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, Bruce A is being brought back on stream, which never would have

happened if somebody hadn't taken it over. Hydro rates in the province are guaranteed for consumers until at least 2006. He criticized the way Hydro One was being run every day in this House, stood

up on his feet and screamed and yelled and said, "It's being run terribly." We are bringing some private sector discipline to that entity without parting with control of the entity. So I think he

should be very happy today.

Mr Hampton: I want to talk about this private sector discipline. The only thing that's keeping British Energy and Bruce nuclear running is a

government bailout. The only thing that is hiding the high cost of privatized, deregulated hydro is another government bailout. The only thing we got from the first move to privatize Hydro One was

Eleanor Clitheroe's $2.5-million salary, a $6-million severance payout and a yacht. Is this what you refer to as private sector discipline, Premier, and if so, how does this help Ontario's hydro

consumers?

Hon Mr Eves: No, exactly the opposite. That's why we have to bring private sector discipline to the entity. The government he talks about

bailing out happens to be a Labour government in Great Britain. I'm not surprised.

Mr Hampton: I gather the Premier is thankful that a Labour government is throwing him a lifesaver.

The auditor's report is like a how-to guide for people who want to make big bucks off the government. This government handed a consultant a $3-million

SuperBuild consulting contract even though everybody else bid half that price. Then untold numbers of consultants were paid over and above the absolute ceiling for consultant payments. Get this:

consulting rates went from $725 a day in April to $1,800 a day in May to $2,600 a day in September. This is private sector discipline. Premier, is that the kind of private sector discipline you

want to bring to Hydro One, by selling it to your corporate friends?

Hon Mr Eves: I don't know what this supplementary has to do with the previous two questions, but I'm sure the Minister of Finance can answer

this different question that the leader has now posed.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): The auditor has pointed out that an inaccuracy occurred in one of the particular tendering processes.

That has been corrected, as it should have been. In the meantime, we got great value on that particular project. The advice they gave us was very helpful, very useful, to successful completion of

that project.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: The auditor was very clear. On dozens of contracts you grossly overpaid, and in many cases you got private sector discipline that

produced a product that was worthless, that was useless.

I want to go back to the Premier on this issue of hydro because, Premier, this is a strategic economic asset for the people of the province. What the auditor's

report tells us is that your so-called private sector discipline amounts to one rip-off of the public after another: overpayments, payments that were not -- in effect, there was no request for

proposals or there was no competition or people went out the door on Monday being paid $40,000 a year and came back on Thursday as private sector consultants at twice the price.

How does any of your experience in terms of wanting to move everything to the private sector help Ontario citizens, Ontario consumers, in terms of a strategic

economic asset, their hydro system, Hydro One, which you now admit you want to sell?

Hon Mr Eves: Talking about privatizations and rip-offs, he was part of the Bob Rae government, whose plan to privatize Highway 407 was to ask

for private sector bidders to build the highway. If they made hundreds of millions of dollars, they got to keep it, and if they lost hundreds of millions of dollars, Bob Rae was going to pay for

it. Meanwhile, he was part of the cabinet who decided to fork out $1.3 billion of taxpayers' money to build the highway so they could give it away, cover any losses that future prospective

purchasers might have and allow them to keep all the profits. No wonder they don't like privatization. That's their idea of privatization: costing the taxpayers billions of dollars and giving away

assets, and guaranteeing the losses of private sector companies. No wonder you have something against privatization. I agree with you that that is absolutely nuts.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you need to check the history books, because the person who gave away Highway 407 was none other than Ernie Eves, who

sold it at a fire sale price, and the company that you sold it to waited a little over a year and then flipped it at three times the price. That's what you call a giveaway, Premier.

I want to take you back to Hydro, because you were the government that said that if you privatized our hydro system, which you intend to do with Hydro One, in

effect the debt would go down. But, Premier, the auditor says that through your privatization scheme, while you've been manipulating this and doing that and trying to sell off this, Hydro's debt

has gone up by $700 million. In fact, in your own economic statement today you allude to the fact that Hydro's debt is going to go up even more because you're going to have to find some way to

finance the cover-up, the rate caps which are designed to hide the high cost of privatized, deregulated electricity.

If you're forcing up the debt at Hydro by $700 million already, and you admit in your own economic statement that you're going to force it up even more, how

does this private sector discipline help the hard-pressed hydro consumers of Ontario? You're just loading more debt and more cost on to them. How does this private sector discipline help them?

Hon Mr Eves: A member of the New Democratic Party is probably the last person who should be standing in this House and talking about adding to

debt. First of all, the Minister of Finance's statement today shows that the overall debt is down $500 million. That's what it shows. The reality is, as he knows, that OPG, in the rates they were

charging and continue to charge to customers, have to set aside, and they have well over $700 million set aside, to be paid out in rebates to consumers. That's what he wanted; that's what he's

getting.

If he wants to go back to the Highway 407 example, he was one of the members who stood in this House and said we'd never get what your government put into it:

$1.3 billion. What we got was $3.1 billion, plus another $500 million to $700 million in future improvements that they had to do. We got close to $4 billion for an asset that he was going to give

away. He was going to give away the $1.3 billion, plus he was going to give away any future profits or future losses. We got $4 billion for the taxpayers of Ontario to get the money back from the

asset you wanted to give away, and we don't happen to believe that we should be in the toll highway business. You did.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a question to the Chair of Management Board respecting Management Board directives and tendering.

Minister, in the weeks leading up to Walkerton, the then-Minister of the Environment was Mr Dan Newman. Your government at the time brought in a consultant, Gord Haugh, on a contract to run Mr

Newman's office. Mr Haugh was the same consultant who had been paid at an annualized rate of $300,000 as Tony Clement's press secretary. He also ran your election tours in 1995 and 1999.

Yesterday we learned the price tag for Mr Haugh's two-month stay at the Ministry of the Environment. He was paid $55,000 for two months' work. On an annualized

basis, that's $329,400. After yesterday's scathing report on the abuse of consulting contracts, do you believe your guidelines are serving the people of Ontario well?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): I will reiterate the fact that we have brought in new

directives that clearly and definitively follow the recommendations of the auditor.

You were asking about consulting services. Now, as opposed to in your day -- and we'll get into that in a second, in response to your next part -- we've

included such sections as fully documenting the process for determining, first of all, the availability of internal ministry or government resources prior to going to consulting services. We are

also looking for tag-on reports at the end of contracts that set out clear contractual obligations and that also ensure, in the event we bring in consultants who bring specialized knowledge to the

government, that there is a transfer of that knowledge to our employees so we can then retain and use our government employees first, prior to using consultants.

This is clearly in our directives, which we've implemented now. We're taking the instructions and the recommendations of the auditor to heart. He clearly had

good suggestions. Governments prior to us didn't do things that way either, so be careful where you're going.

Mr Duncan: Well, it gets a little worse. When Mr Haugh was making the equivalent of more than $300,000 a year, he was also running up quite

the expense account. In just six days, Haugh billed taxpayers more than $6,400 in expenses, including $2,500 for hotels, $600 for phone calls and $2,783 for meals, including six bottles of

wine.

I have in my hand a memorandum dated April 13, which is called an "Exception for sole-sourcing in the minister's office." This alleviates the minister and the

department from any kind of process you've established. He was engaged for a two-month period to provide the following: communications advice to the minister, personnel screening, staff selection,

media training, preparation for the opening of the House, question period and other events.

The question is: how is it that a consultant with a document that clearly exempts any kind of public accountability, any kind of accountability to your

department, your responsibility -- how can this happen, and will you now release all the untendered contracts that your government has entered into across all the ministries? That's the only way

we'll get to the truth of all these matters.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Clearly we've taken further steps than the auditor was suggesting, but let's put some context to this. Sometimes when you

read public accounts, it is interesting reading material. There are a number of public accounts from -- let's see, the Ministry of Labour; Mr Sorbara was the minister then. Let me share with you

some of these from the public accounts: ARA Consulting, $158,000; Bay Consulting Group, $32,000; Harry Waisglass Consultants Ltd, $59,166; JB Marketing, $75,000; McKim Advertising Ltd, $113,000.

This goes on and on, and these are only part of the ones that say "consultant" in here.

Clearly it was very important not only for us to bring in these rules and directives to comply with the recommendations the Provincial Auditor has given us,

but we believe we have to go further than that. We've already gone to the point where we've got the implementation of the recommendations. We're going further now to a full consultation and review

of the government rules to make them tougher and make sure they have the integrity that's required of government in the future.

ONTARIO INNOVATION TRUST

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation. It is my understanding

that your hard-working parliamentary assistant from the great riding of Nipissing, AL McDonald, recently announced funding of $3 million to the University of Waterloo. Maybe it's because I've been

away much of the time in the last little while, but I didn't realize this announcement was being made. I was wondering if you could tell this House what the funding will accomplish. Also, Minister,

where is the money coming from?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): This is about the Ontario Innovation Trust and a major investment at

the University of Waterloo. The $3-million investment will support the establishment of the Institute for Quantum Computing at the University of Waterloo. This is an important initiative for the

university and one the government proudly supports.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The investment will enable the institute to set up a theoretical and experimental program to study the implications of

quantum mechanics for information processing, which I know is a matter of great interest to the member opposite from Hamilton.

The funding came from the Ontario Innovation Trust. Since its creation in 1999, the trust has committed investments of $50.8 million in infrastructure support

for 86 research projects just in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. Funding partners have added $77.9 million, for a total of $128.6 million invested in research infrastructure. These investments in the

Waterloo region underscore our commitment to research that drives our knowledge-based economy. This is essential for the future prosperity of all Ontarians.

Mr Wettlaufer: It's pretty evident that this government is committed to investing in science, technology and innovation. The success of the

University of Waterloo is very important to the people of Kitchener and Waterloo. The university employs many people in the area and the positive economic spinoffs from its success are felt

throughout the region, not just direct employment but indirect employment in many facets of the region.

Minister, I am very happy to hear the government is supporting such an important initiative with the university. It is my understanding that since its creation

in 1999, the Ontario Innovation Trust has helped many other research institutions around the province. I wonder if you could please inform the House of what else has been done to support innovation

in Ontario.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I thank the member for Kitchener Centre for the question.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Flaherty: Since its creation in 1999 -- I know the member will want to hear this -- the Ontario Innovation Trust has committed a total

of $654.6 million in 808 projects at more than 30 institutions throughout Ontario. These are universities, colleges, hospitals and research institutes. Including the Canada Foundation for

Innovation money, this is an investment of more than $1.1 billion in research infrastructure in Ontario.

The member opposite is right when he mentions the Provincial Auditor's concern. As a result of that, the board, which is an independent board of the trust,

hired a consultant to ensure that the best practices and accountability were implemented by the OIT, as well as a requirement that the OIT fund be audited annually by an independent third

party.

This is a major investment in research infrastructure, which is absolutely essentially in a knowledge-based economy --

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

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is to the Minister of Public Safety. The independence and the integrity of an officer of the

Legislature, the Provincial Auditor, is a cornerstone, a hallmark, of our democracy and our system here in Ontario. Yesterday in the House you were quibbling with the numbers of the Auditor

General. Outside the House apparently you said, and it is on tape, that the auditor's conclusions were misleading. This is a very serious allegation of a minister of the crown. I ask you to please

clarify: are you impugning the integrity and the independence of the auditor general? If you are not, why are you questioning whether or not he misled the people of Ontario? Will you clarify this,

Minister?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): I indicated yesterday that the numbers indicated in the Provincial Auditor's

report were not the numbers the ministry recovered by simply checking CPIC with respect to a response to the auditor's report. The auditor indicated, and he did it in his report, that he was using

an estimate based on a visit to five probation and parole offices, and extrapolated, based on what he found in those five offices, that that was a situation that existed across the province. He

used an estimate of 10,000 outstanding warrants; in reality, the number off of CPIC was 5,900.

He also suggested there were a significant number of serious offenders with outstanding warrants that were not being pursued. In fact, once again, reviewing

that, the number was 178. When you look at 65,000 to 70,000 individuals that probation and parole have to monitor on a daily basis, that's a very modest amount. I think we have something to be

proud of rather than to be concerned about.

Mr Bryant: The minister wants to quibble with the numbers from the Provincial Auditor, but I think most Ontarians find it extremely chilling

that there are thousands, literally, of sex offenders out there in the province who are supposed to be supervised by this government and who are in fact not getting the treatment needed to protect

Ontarians from sex offenders. I would have thought that the minister would not be defending that kind of result.

The minister says, "It's only 5,900 outstanding warrants. It's only 178 of them that are serious." I would have thought that no government would tolerate

anything less than zero tolerance when it comes to cracking down on dangerous criminals who breach their probation and parole orders.

The bad guys out there must be saying, "What's the point of meeting our probation and parole orders, because the government of Ontario isn't going to do

anything about it?" I would have thought that the minister would not defend even one of those bad guys being out there violating those parole orders. You may think that's OK; I say, the people of

Ontario do not.

I ask you, Minister: are you really going to defend this record?

Hon Mr Runciman: Talk about scare tactics: the member is engaging in that exercise today. The reality is, if he wants to talk about parole

boards, he should talk to his friends in the federal Liberal government. I think we have a lot to be proud of on this side with respect to the parole board -- the significant decrease in releases

through the parole board versus what was the case with the Liberal government and NDP government.

We have given additional money to the ROPE squad to pursue people who have outstanding warrants against them. Many of the 5,900 people are for technical

breaches. The serious offenders are being pursued very actively.

With respect to sex offenders, if they're given a conditional release or put on probation, our hands are tied with respect to the decisions of the courts. If

they do not mandate treatment, we are not in a position to offer it. In any event, they have the right to refuse.

So again, this is something of a red herring being reinforced by the Liberals in terms of their concern for law and order in this province. Their record does

not support the fact that they really care. When they were in government they had very loose parole rules as a government. They did not have the numbers of police officers on a per capita --

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

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, we all know that

Ontario is the only place in Canada where the federal and provincial governments operate two separate training and employment systems. These are programs that help both unemployed and underemployed

people receive training so they can make a greater contribution to the workforce. This is not an efficient use of taxpayer resources. It means confusion and duplication for people who need help

entering the labour market in Ontario.

Some time ago, the federal government promised to sign a training agreement with Ontario to create a single, results-oriented system that would provide greater

benefit to people who need training in our province. Minister, what is the status of negotiations on a labour market development agreement between Ontario and the federal government?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm happy to respond to this

question. I think the people of Ontario should know that we accepted the offer from the federal government in July of 2001. Despite this, the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada has told

us that they do not intend to sign an LMDA for Ontario. Ontario is the only province or territory that has been denied an LMDA.

What does this mean? This means that people on employment insurance in Ontario do not have the kind of access to training programs that every other person who

pays into the EI fund does across this great country. We need a training agreement in order to be competitive.

Last night, members from the Liberal caucus and the NDP caucus attended the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters' reception; they went there and smiled and

acted like they knew nothing. They do know nothing. Why are you waiting? Because you think you could be the government, to ask the federal government to get this job done? Whom do you represent in

this province, anyway? Get up there and get it done.

Mr Miller: I'm pleased to support the efforts of our government to secure a training agreement with the federal government to deliver more and

better services to Ontarians.

Ontario is the economic engine of the country, as demonstrated by the finance minister's report today. It has the largest workforce and need for skilled

workers. By supporting the workforce in Ontario, we are having a positive impact on the whole national economy. Some members of the federal government have claimed that two separate systems,

federal and provincial, ensure a strong support for training in Ontario. I know that our government is increasing the resources it devotes to training programs, especially apprenticeship training

for work in skilled trades. Minister, can you give us an update on the support that the federal government is providing to Ontario under the current system?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: It's really refreshing to have the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka care about people who have opportunities for training

programs. It is so refreshing. None of you people care. You haven't done one thing to talk to your federal Liberal colleagues to get up there and talk to the Prime Minister. Not the minister; she

has no authority. I will tell you right now. Listen to this: in 2001 HRDC had a budget of $538 million for Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. It is getting too noisy in here. I don't want to have to get up again.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The only reason they are screaming is that they think they'll be the government and then they'll do something. Give me a

break. In 2000-01, Human Resources Development Canada had a budget of $538 million in Ontario. They only spent $380 million, which is a shortfall of $150 million. Instead of this money going into

apprenticeship training, it's going into kiosks. This is not a federal government, this is not a Liberal provincial government that gives a hoot about --

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

CANCER TREATMENT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have two questions to the Premier. On the same day that Roy Romanow was telling Canadians that there is no

evidence that for-profit clinics provide cheaper or better care, your government extended the for-profit cancer treatment clinic at Sunnybrook for another six months. The decision was made behind

closed doors at a meeting at Cancer Care Ontario. This is the second time you have renewed this contract, even though the Provincial Auditor has shown, first, that it costs $500 more per patient

for treatment than in the public system; second, the original contract was awarded without an open, competitive tender; and third, no effort has ever been made to see if this work could be done in

the public system. Premier, it's time to cancel this for-profit contract and invest this money in the public cancer system. Will you do that?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Health will respond directly.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I welcome the opportunity to respond. In fact, the contract has been extended so

that we can do precisely as the honourable member suggests and have competitive bids for the provision of the service. It's a simple extension of the contract until the bid process can go out,

pursuant to the Provincial Auditor's request. It is another example of us heeding the advice of the Provincial Auditor and moving ahead with Cancer Care Ontario, with having a bidding process that

we can all be proud of.

Ms Martel: The current contract isn't due to expire till February. Isn't it strange that it was renewed on the same day that Roy Romanow

released his report? But there's no justification for continuing to pay for this for-profit provider. The minister will know that the president of CCO himself has already publicly said that there

is not a crisis in cancer treatment. So why is there a need to continue with this for-profit clinic? I think your government is responding to a very questionable political lobby. We know that the

Premier's special adviser on health, Ms Kristina Filmer, was registered as a lobbyist for this for-profit cancer clinic before she rejoined his staff. We also know that the for-profit clinic has

been handing cancer patients a letter, as they leave after their cancer treatment, urging them to lobby the government to keep the clinic and their treatment going. I think that is a very

questionable tactic by a health care provider. There is no need and there is no justification to continue funding this for-profit cancer treatment. Will you do the right thing now, cancel this

contract and use this money in the public cancer system?

Hon Mr Clement: The reason this is quite humorous is because there has been an extensive letter campaign from Maude Barlow and all the

assorted persons who are part of various left-wing causes. But I'm glad the honourable member mentioned letters, because I'd like to read into the record some excerpts from certain letters from

patients, which is what we care about on this side of the House, rather than the ideology of the other side.

One patient says, "It's time to express my appreciation for the fine work done by you and your staff at Canadian Radiation Oncology Services. Your clinic

provides a valuable and much-needed service. Cancer patients are spared a protracted wait for treatment and are able to access radiation therapy in a timely and efficient way."

I could go on: "I'm writing to thank the CROS clinic." "Many thanks for making this clinic a place for help, resources and reassurance." "Thanks for making my

problem" -- which was to be able to have tests done and offer suggestions. "I wanted to thank you," and, "How much we appreciated the caring and efficiency" --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister's time is up.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Today survivors of domestic

violence, women and children from rural areas, join us. Many of these families here in the gallery above today are from Norfolk county. Women in rural areas face special barriers. They are a $60

cab ride away from Ontario Works, which provides no transportation help and suspends payment if they miss one appointment. Other barriers include high rents, a result of no rent controls, and

landlords unwilling to rent to women on welfare.

The provincial government used to assist women with these barriers by funding second-stage housing. You pulled that funding the minute you got into government

in 1995. Second-stage housing gives families a year of affordable housing, security and much-needed on-site counselling, after being in emergency shelters.

Jennifer is here today. She voluntarily gave her children up to children's aid so that she can find affordable housing. Minister, will you do the right thing

and reinstate funding for second-stage housing and give these rural women and their children a second chance to a secure life?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): This is a question about

affordable housing, so I'll give the question to the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services.

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

has a number of different facets to it, so it is very difficult for us to know how to answer that. She's talking about a number of things. I think the focus of her question is women who are fleeing

domestic violence situations, and I think on all sides of the House, if we're talking about a situation where women have to flee their homes with their children in fear for their lives, then we all

agree that we must do what we can to help those people.

Our commitment on this side of the House is unequivocal. We spend about $160 million across a variety of ministries, trying to find ways to provide programs to

help these individuals who are in desperate need in a desperate time in their lives. Whether it's through shelters, through counselling programs, through 24-hour help lines, we try very hard to

provide the kinds of services that will help them when they need it at a critical time.

Mrs Bountrogianni: My supplementary is for the minister responsible for women's issues. My question is on second-stage housing. Let me tell

you what these women told me today. "Many of us had to relocate in order to be safe." One of them said, "I live on a bowl of bran cereal every day so that I can feed my kids. It kills me to tell my

children that there's nothing to eat when they're hungry." Jennifer said, "I had to give my kids up so that I'd know they could eat."

Imagine, in the year 2002, giving up your children so that they can eat. Most of us are parents here. The women ask in desperation, Minister, "What do people

like us do? What will happen to us?"

Don't insult them by referring the question. I want you to answer this question. You are the minister involved. Shelters are much needed, yes, but they are a

short-term emergency respite. Last year the Provincial Auditor found that 1,000 women were turned away from one shelter alone. This is where second-stage housing kicks in. This is what you cut in

1995 totally, and I'm proud to say that under a Dalton McGuinty government we would reinstate second-stage housing.

The women from rural Ontario are here to ask you, Minister Cunningham, "Will you reinstate second-stage funding?" They're here to ask you, "What will happen to

us?"

Hon Mrs Elliott: Because municipalities know better what kind of housing will work in their communities, the kind of second-stage housing my

colleague across the way is referring to --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order, order. Stop the clock, please.

Interruption.

The Speaker: We've removed everybody from that side because I don't know who's a part of it. I would ask the co-operation from those who are

remaining. I have allowed some people to stay. It's very difficult to know who is part of a group when we throw them out. I would ask for your co-operation if you do stay. Obviously, you know that

you won't be able to shout out, and I hope the members who remain will adhere to the rules.

It is the minister's turn to respond.

Hon Mrs Elliott: I think this speaks to the concern that we all have in trying to find solutions to some of these very complex and troubling

problems.

Second-stage housing is the responsibility of the municipalities. We've put in an additional $4 million to try and assist with that. We have increased the

number of rent supplement units for abused women, and of course in each of our ridings those women who find themselves in an abusive situation have priority for the existing social housing.

On a different note, I guess, what are we doing to assist women who find themselves in the situation of welfare? When I travelled this summer I spoke to a

number of women whose marriages have broken up or who have found themselves in difficult situations and are trying to make it on their own. I talked to them about how the welfare situation was

helping them. What I can report to this House is that those women said to me that our changing the welfare system from just a cheque, a deadend of ongoing dependency, transforming that into an

opportunity to learn new skills, to get a job, to find income, to stand on their own two feet, was the best thing that we could do for them. Our welfare transformations were working for them and,

more important, for their families.

LEGAL SERVICES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Attorney General. Minister, you recently introduced legislation to regulate

the use of contingency fee agreements. You and I both know that for many working families, affording a lawyer can be very, very difficult. The costs associated with starting a civil action can be

very discouraging.

Access to justice is particularly crucial because the courts of the province play an important role in resolving disputes. What improvements would this

legislation provide for access to justice and, in particular, to families with very modest incomes?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate my colleague from Simcoe North raising this very

important issue. Indeed, I think the greatest single challenge that we have in this problem in relation to the justice system is one of access. That's why the Ernie Eves government came forward and

tabled a piece of legislation that includes regulation of contingency fee arrangements, and, what that will allow is for individuals to enter into contractual arrangements with lawyers to ensure

that they don't have to pay anything until there is a resolution of the case that results in money coming to them.

We recently had the opportunity to read the decision that was rendered in September of this year by Justice O'Connor. Obviously, shortly after he rendered his

decision, we began to study it, and in accordance with the direction from Justice O'Connor, we are now in a position to move into this area and to regulate this important field.

Justice O'Connor clearly said that contingency fees were legal. It's now our obligation as a government to ensure that proper regulation is in place.

Mr Dunlop: Minister, one of the key parts of the contingency fee system is the cap that will be set on payments. It's important that the

system balance the rights of the lawyers to be paid for their services with the interests of the clients. We must make sure that no one can be exploited in any unscrupulous conduct.

What steps will you take to make sure that the system we put in place is fair to our clients and also to protect the interests of the consumer?

Hon Mr Young: Certainly it's very important that the government become involved at this point in time, and we certainly don't want to have a

situation where lawyers across this province can enter into situations where they receive multi-million-dollar sets of costs and the injured party, the individual who has experienced damages, is

not in receipt of the money that they are entitled to.

I will say to you that most lawyers operate in a most professional fashion, but I think it is incumbent upon this government to ensure that we have a system in

place, we have rules in place, to avoid any difficulties. There are a number of ways we can do that, and this legislation will allow us to proceed forward either by way of a straight flat cap that

would apply to all damages and then the lawyer for the injured party would just get a portion of that, or alternatively we could have a sliding scale or we could have some wording ensuring a fair

and reasonable outcome that the judiciary would ultimately interpret.

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): My question is for the Premier. I have a copy of a letter written by former Agriculture Minister

Coburn to Gord Coukell, chair of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, dated December 5, 2001, a year ago tomorrow, during this government's foolish attempt to ram through a repeal of the Edible Oil

Products Act. The letter reads, "I, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, am willing to submit to you today that in order to ensure the proper safeguards are in place, it is my

intention to amend Bill 87 at the earliest possible date to remove reference to the June 2003 repeal of the Edible Oil Products Act."

The letter is clear. The deadline must be amended out of that legislation, the former minister states, "at the earliest possible date." We sat through an

entire spring session and now we're in the last days of the fall session, Premier, and nothing has been done. Your Minister of Agriculture has sat on this.

The question here is simple: when exactly do you intend to make good on the commitment to the Dairy Farmers of Ontario?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The minister responsible for rural affairs can respond.

Hon Brian Coburn (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): In response, the Minister of Agriculture and Food is certainly aware

of this situation and is working with the stakeholders, the dairy farmers and the other stakeholders in this particular situation and is working toward a solution on it.

Mr Peters: Mr Speaker, my question was for the Premier, and certainly the minister of rural affairs has been hived off from agriculture so it

troubles me to understand that.

Mr Premier, supply management has provided this province with the safest and most nutritious milk supply in the world and your government's foot-dragging is

jeopardizing that. Without delay Ontario would become the black hole of North America for non-regulated blended products.

I have another letter, this one written by your current Minister of Agriculture just two weeks ago, regarding your government's commitment to supply management

and I quote, "Nonetheless, it is important that supply management commodities continue to evolve in order to respond to the changing environment in which they operate." What is that, Premier? Do

you have qualified support for supply management? What evolution is the ministry talking about? The Dairy Farmers of Ontario are here today, and I'm sure they'd love to hear your answer. Poultry,

eggs and tobacco would be fascinated as well.

What is your secret agenda for supply management? First you fail to honour your commitment to the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and now your support for supply

management comes with a codicil. Premier, what is going on here?

Hon Mr Coburn: Certainly our government has an outstanding record in terms of consulting with our rural stakeholders, the Dairy Farmers of

Ontario and other rural stakeholders. It's a very important part of our economy here in Ontario.

We are currently conducting extensive consultations. For example, on the Nutrient Management Act, we have had and are continuing consultation with the Dairy

Farmers of Ontario with respect to the edible oils act and food safety. These are ongoing consultations, and the Ministry of Ag and Food is conducting those, and we'll work with them toward an

appropriate solution.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, can you please tell my constituents

in Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale and other Ontarians what our government is doing to promote clean and green energy in Ontario?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): We established an all-party committee of this House, the

select committee on alternative fuel sources, chaired by my colleague the member for Northumberland, Doug Galt, where a good number of members from all parties came together to look at suggestions

and recommendations on how our province could promote clean, green energy. Many thought these recommendations would gather dust. I can say that over the past month and a half this government has

been working tremendously hard to implement those initiatives. We appointed Ontario's first Commissioner of Alternative Energy, Steve Gilchrist. Steve will work very closely not just with the

Minister of Energy but with the Minister of the Environment and his staff and the Premier's staff as well.

We're also bringing in a whole series of initiatives to promote solar power and wind power. I was very pleased to be in Bruce county with my colleague Helen

Johns to open the first commercial wind farm in Ontario, which is good news. I was pleased to see my colleague Steve Gilchrist open another one.

Mr Gill: Thank you, Minister, for your response. Our government's action plan to lower and freeze the price of electricity and to create

standardized billing is great news for Ontarians.

Can you please provide us insight into why every member of the opposition stood in their place yesterday and voted against giving speedy passage to the

government's legislation, legislation which will bring financial relief to seniors, businesses and millions of people in Ontario?

Hon Mr Baird: I too shared the surprise that the member from Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale had when we saw all the Liberal opposition

members try to delay passage of this bill. As the public will know, this House is adjourning for Christmas and for the holidays in a few short days, and some want to sit here while hydro customers

are concerned about their families and their futures and debate and debate and debate. We want to provide relief to that farmer; we want to provide relief to that small business; we want to provide

relief to the auto workers in St Catharines. That's why, on a bill every member of the official opposition says they support and want to pass, it's important that we have a vote and get on with

providing some relief to the hard-working citizens and people of Ontario. They're supporting the action plan to lower hydro bills, and they want to see it brought into law.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. You know that the situation on our

highways in northern Ontario is not getting any better. In fact, this last weekend 180 kilometres on Highway 11, from Smooth Rock to Hearst, were closed. Why? Because the private sector contractors

couldn't put salt on the road. Minister, are you going to finally admit that your privatization scheme ain't worth the salt --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I think when we made a move to make government more efficient in that area we

certainly improved the standards that had existed before. If the Minister of Transportation were here, he would indicate to the honourable member that very good standards are in place -- in fact,

some of the best in the world -- with respect to snow removal and de-icing. In fact, this year we're doing pilot projects in the honourable member's part of the province with even newer technology,

which we hope will make our winter road conditions even safer for drivers in this province.

Mr Bisson: Minister, we're not feeling any better in northern Ontario, because every time you take your car out on Highway 11 or any of the

provincial highways it's the same story: the road is closed by the OPP. Why? Because the private snowplows are either not clearing the snow off the roads or they're not dropping the salt on the

highways.

I asked a question of the Chair of Management Board last year with regard to the question of the privatization of contracts for highway maintenance, and the

response I got from the minister of the day was that if there wasn't a saving for the taxpayers, they wouldn't go ahead with the privatization of winter road maintenance. The auditor says you

haven't saved money. Will you finally admit this is a question of you not doing better with less, but us getting less because you're giving the private sector more?

Hon Mr Wilson: Regardless of who's delivering the service, as the honourable member knows, standards are in place. They're world-class

standards and we're very proud of them. In fact, we've spent over $1.6 billion on improving highways in northern Ontario since this government came to office in 1995, an absolute record for any

government in the history of this province. We don't need any lectures from the honourable member about improving highways, road conditions and safety in northern Ontario. In spite of an

$11.7-billion deficit in their last year, and several multi-billion-dollar deficits in the fiscal years prior to that when they were in government, they didn't do anything to improve northern

Ontario highways.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish to express my dissatisfaction with the answer that was

provided to my oral question. Under 37(

a) of the standing orders, I have filed my dissatisfaction, for a late show.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member. The member will know he needs to file it with the table.

PETITIONS

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): One of the great frustrations to the people of Marathon and the area is the fact that the

Attorney General has not appointed a full-time justice of the peace to replace the ones that were let go more than eight years ago. I have a petition signed by 379 people in Marathon, one tenth of

the population, related to this issue:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the town of Marathon does not have a justice of the peace to serve our community and Heron Bay;

"Whereas Marathon used to have two justices living here; however, they retired in 1995, and were never replaced;

"Whereas Marathon and Heron Bay residents are now forced to travel to Manitouwadge or Thunder Bay to acquire the services of a justice of the peace. This is

unacceptable and unfair;

"Therefore, we want the Ontario government to appoint a justice or several justices of the peace in Marathon."

I am grateful to Rose Marie Comeau for putting this together. I am very pleased to add my name to the petition and ask the Attorney General to move quickly in

this regard.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly from the Welland campus of Niagara College and also from E.

Marks of Toronto. It reads as follows:

"Whereas 70% of Ontario women with children under age 12 are in the paid workforce;

"Whereas high-quality, safe, affordable child care is critical to them and their families;

"Whereas the Early Years Study done for the Conservative government by Dr Fraser Mustard and the Honourable Margaret McCain concluded quality child care

enhances early childhood development;

"Whereas this government has cut funding for regulated child care instead of supporting Ontario families by investing in early learning and care;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Ontario government adopt the NDP's $10-a-day child care plan and begin implementation by reducing full child care fees to

$10 a day for children aged two to five currently enrolled in regulated child care, by providing capital funds to expand existing child care centres and build new ones, by providing proxy pay

equity for staff and by creating new $10-a-day child care spaces in the province."

I agree with the petitioners. I have affixed my signature to it.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the province of Ontario has experienced record levels of electrical consumption this summer, along with lower than expected generating capacity to

meet the demand; and

"Whereas this has resulted in higher electrical bills for Ontario consumers; and

"Whereas short-term spikes in the cost of power are a particular hardship to persons on fixed incomes and a detriment to business in Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario act immediately to develop a plan for protecting consumers against excessive short-term

increases in the cost of electricity. We further request that the government of Ontario also review the impact of charges other than wholesale electrical rates, including the goods and services tax

(GST) and the debt reduction charges appearing on electricity bills of Ontario consumers."

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I keep getting petitions about the ever-increasing hydro rates. I'll read this petition to you, Mr Speaker:

"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, 2002; 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 ... Eves government appointed the board of directors for Hydro One, who approved exorbitant salaries and compensation packages for Hydro One

executives;

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

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

Since I agree with this petition, I'm signing my name to it.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have petitions that read as follows:

"To the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the Harris government's plan to privatize and deregulate Ontario's electricity system will lead to higher rates because private owners will sell more

power to US customers whose rates are typically 50% higher than Ontario's; and

"Whereas selling coal plants like Nanticoke to the private sector will lead to more pollution because the private owners will run the plants at full capacity

to earn a profit; and

"Whereas electricity deregulation in California has led to sky-high rates and blackouts; and

"Whereas Ontario needs a system of public power that will ensure rate stability, environmental protection and secure access to power;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the undersigned call on the government to scrap electricity deregulation and privatization and bring in a system of accountable

public power. The first priority for such a public power system must be incentives for energy conservation and green power. Electricity rates and major energy projects must be subject to full

public hearings and binding rulings by a public regulator instead of leaving energy rates to private profit."

I agree with the petitioners, and I've affixed my signature to this.

CAT SCANNER

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, request approval for installation of a CAT scanner at the Woodstock General Hospital. It is an essential piece of equipment for the

practice of modern medicine. The arrangements to go to London for a CAT scan are unsatisfactory, cumbersome and cause unnecessary delay. It is standard equipment for a hospital of this size in

North America. All counties in southwestern Ontario have at least one CAT scanner except Oxford county."

It's signed by a great number of my constituents who live in Woodstock and the surrounding area, and I sign this petition along with them because I believe

it's the right thing to do.

HYDRO RATES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"The following signatures are signatures of complaint in regard to the severe and drastic increases in the hydro bills of customers in St Catharines and the

surrounding area. Such increases have been difficult for seniors, people on fixed incomes, disability pensions, and low and middle incomes. As well, it is not our responsibility to assume Ontario

Hydro debt. We pay while big corporations get breaks.

"If such unrealistic increases continue to occur, average people will become increasingly irate, if they have not already, and find it difficult to maintain

normal, happy homes, let alone people in restricted situations.

"As citizens of Ontario, this is our opportunity for our voices to be united and heard in opposition to these unrealistic increases."

I affix my signature. I'm in complete agreement.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I have a petition that carries over 2,500 signatures of people dissatisfied about

electricity deregulation, which brings it up to 9,037 signatures.

"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 price of 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 kilowatt hour; and

"Whereas competition in the electricity market has been scared off by the uncertainty of the Harris-Eves government's attempts to sell off a portion of Hydro

One, leaving electricity commodity prices high; and

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

may have a voice on this issue."

I also affix my signature.

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have received thousands upon thousands of signatures. I continue to read this petition in the

Legislature.

"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 increase 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."

This is signed by many good persons from places across my riding such as Blenheim, Thamesville, Dresden, Chatham, Merlin and Highgate. I too have signed this

important petition.

HYDRO RATES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have petitions signed by people from Milton, Mountainview and Brampton, and it reads as

follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas electricity bills have skyrocketed under the Harris-Eves government's flawed electricity plan; and

"Whereas some consumers have signed higher fixed-rate contracts with retailers, without adequate consumer protection; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has failed to address electricity supply shortages in Ontario, forcing the purchase of American power at premium prices,

driving up prices still further; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government appointed a board of directors for Hydro One that has been paying themselves extravagant salaries, compensation packages

and severances for senior executives; and

"Whereas Hydro One bought 90 municipal utilities, serving about 240,000 people across Ontario, at premium prices and with borrowed funds. These purchases with

borrowed funds have increased Ontario's debt burden; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has added additional fees and taxes on to local electricity distribution companies. These charges have also been passed

along to consumers;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris-Eves government take immediate action to ensure that Ontarians have fair and

reasonable prices for the necessary commodity of electricity in Ontario and that the Harris-Eves government and its leader, Ernie Eves, call a general election on the instability of the energy

market so that Ontarians may have a voice on this issue."

It has been signed. I totally agree with it and will sign it as well, and I'll hand it over to our page, Evan, here.

NATURAL GAS RATES

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board

Act disallowing the retroactive 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."

This is signed by hundreds of residents from areas such as Merlin, Cedar Springs, Chatham, Blenheim and Ridgetown. I too have signed this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition here from residents of Don Valley East to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

effective August 1, 2002; and

"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 per 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 the government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents

need; and

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

Ontario's long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan;" and that would be back in 1999, "and

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

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

"We demand that Premier Eves reduce 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 wholeheartedly agree with this petition and I have affixed my name to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): The motion reads that, pursuant to Standing Order 46 and notwithstanding any other

standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 209,

An Act respecting funerals, burials, cremations and related services and providing for the amendment of other statutes, when Bill

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

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Hudak has moved government notice of motion number 80. Minister?

Applause.

Hon Mr Hudak: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank my colleagues for their adulation and their applause --

Interjection: Colleague.

Hon Mr Hudak: OK, colleague -- on this motion.

I'm very pleased to speak on the motion with respect to Bill 209, also known as the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002. I had the pleasure to

speak on this bill on first and second readings. I will add some thoughts on the debate I've heard to date on this legislation and give an indication of why I, as the minister responsible for the

bill and as an MPP, feel it's important to move forward expeditiously on Bill 209 to ensure that the next steps can be taken for consumer protection in this area and, finally, I would argue, to

modernize legislation that is practically 100 years old. It was almost a century ago when this legislation was first written. At the latest stage -- it has been on and off over decades -- the

latest discussions have been in the works for a number of years.

You could say with a grain of fact to it that some of the staff in the ministry who have worked on this bill are getting near retirement, they have been

working on this bill for so long. I know there have been four ministers -- I'm the fourth -- in this government who have worked on Bill 209, in the run-up to the bill, the consultations, the policy

decisions, and now in its form, Bill 209. That's just this government. I know previous governments attempted to deal with this legislation. There were some changes in 1989 or 1990, but no

substantial reform in this sector for 90 to 100 years, despite the fact that in reality cultural practices, preferences, the cultural face of Ontario have changed substantially from a century

ago.

As well, there has been throughout that time a great deal of discussion, not only in government circles but among people who are interested, who have a

business interest, a personal interest, or from the point of view of the consumer, a consumer protection interest in this industry. This consultation, in a more intensive form, has been happening

over the last couple of years, culminating in the Bereavement Sector Advisory Committee, aka BSAC, report submitted to Minister Sterling not too long ago, the principles of which form the basis for

Bill 209 that we have in the Legislature today.

I want to not only talk about the importance of the bill and the timeliness with moving forward to the next step, but to respond to some of the comments people

have made with respect to Bill 209. I want to point out that this is not a partisan bill. It's not something where I was sitting in my office one day daydreaming of the bereavement sector and

thought I should move forward with this type of legislation.

The work on this bill had started long before my time. The point I am making is that it was not a partisan bill or an election campaign item. I don't recall it

being part of a campaign. It was something that was made by the industry themselves in consultation with the consumer sector. You want to make sure. The Stewart family, for example, want to be

assured of Will's future, that Will will have options when he is making those plans. Will is a young fellow, but we all have to be realistic that the time comes for all of us, and we need to know

that we have the consumer protections in place for our loved ones who live beyond us, or that we make the decisions ourselves ahead of time in some sort of planning.

We want to make sure that the consumer protections are in place, that decisions are made with as clear a head as possible, and also that the legislation is

modernized so it can reflect the realities of today and the choices we all can make.

A bit of background: it began in the more concentrated form in 1998 when Minister Tsubouchi asked the Red Tape Commission to consult and come up with some

policy options. That was done with members of funeral home businesses, small and large cemeteries, I have mentioned consumers, monument builders, casket makers, transfer agencies -- those

industries that are involved in the bereavement sector.

The Red Tape Commission made some recommendations that were used for further consultations. My predecessor Norm Sterling I think deserves a lot of credit for

the developments that have taken place. In 2001, Mr Sterling was the minister who established the Bereavement Sector Advisory Committee, the BSAC committee that I mentioned a bit earlier, a group

with representation from all the participants in the sector and, importantly, with the consumer voice being there at the table to act on behalf on those who are going to be using the service at

some time in their lives.

An important ingredient for success was the presence and the leadership of esteemed Justice George Adams. Justice Adams's expertise and skills helped to

develop a consensus around that large table that had chairs assigned to the various individuals in the sector and to consumer groups to reach a consensus on a number of the principles. In fact, all

18 of the BSAC principles have been embraced in Bill 201.

Interestingly, I want to point out to members of the House that of the 18 recommendations, fully 17, or 94%, deal with consumer protection. So we can say, I

think very fairly, that this bill, pure and simple, deals with consumer protection issues in embracin