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

November 20, 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-Nov-20 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 20 November 2002 Mercredi 20 novembre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATURAL GAS RATES

KEN WHITE

HOME CARE AND EDUCATION FUNDING

NATIONAL CHILD DAY

REMEMBRANCE DAY

SITE OF EARLY PARLIAMENT

HAZARDOUS WASTE

CHILDREN'S TREATMENT CENTRE

LÉGION D'HONNEUR /

LEGION OF HONOUR

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FUNERAL, BURIAL AND

CREMATION SERVICES ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES SERVICES FUNÉRAIRES

ET LES SERVICES D'ENTERREMENT

ET DE CRÉMATION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BEREAVEMENT SERVICES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

EDUCATION FUNDING

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

AUTISM SERVICES

HAZARDOUS WASTE

HEALTH SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

MUNICIPALITIES

HAZARDOUS WASTE

INTERJURISDICTIONAL

SUPPORT ORDERS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

PETITIONS

HAZARDOUS WASTE

CHILD CARE

HYDRO RATES

NATURAL GAS RATES

CUSTODIAL CARE

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

HIGHWAY 69

KIDNEY DISEASE

LONG-TERM CARE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

EDUCATION FUNDING

OPPOSITION DAY

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Wednesday 20 November 2002 Mercredi 20 novembre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The Harris-Eves government must decide whether or not they are going to allow Union Gas to charge the

one-million-plus customers the retroactive fee that they hope to be able to charge. This uncertainty is having a definite impact on seniors' ability to plan for the future. They don't know whether

or not they are going to have a retroactive charge in January or February or March.

It's also having a very negative impact on small business in Ontario. In Sudbury alone, I've received copies of letters that Union Gas is sending out, stating

that the one-time rate adjustment is going to vary. For example, in this business it's going to be $14,349. For that business, it's going to be $25,918. For another business, it's going to be

$40,507.

The government has to act. There is an appeal before cabinet. Ernie Eves and the wishy-washy Tory government must make a decision. The decision is simple. Union

Gas cannot be allowed to do what they want to do. For once in Ontario, stand up for the seniors of this province. For once in your history, stand up for small business. For once, I ask Ernie Eves,

the wishy-washy Premier of this province, to take a stand.

KEN WHITE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I am delighted to inform the members of this House that Ken White, the president and chief executive

officer of the Trillium Health Centre, has won the hospital management category of Canada's Who's Who in Healthcare Awards. This award category recognizes an individual whose management performance

has made an extraordinary contribution to the overall success of a hospital. The criteria are innovation, leadership, impact and overall contribution to the delivery of health care in Canada.

The fact that Trillium's board of directors and senior management team nominated Ken White for this recognition speaks volumes about the high regard in which Ken

is held by both his staff and the community that Trillium serves.

I was honoured to be invited to submit an endorsement of Ken's nomination, and I was proud to do so. I have experienced first hand the skill with which he has

piloted our community hospital through a major evolution. Since Ken's tenure at Trillium began in 1996, Trillium has undergone an amalgamation of two hospitals and opened several new services,

including three major regional programs for stroke, advanced cardiac services and neuro/musculoskeletal. Trillium has also been named one of Canada's top 100 employers, a reflection of Ken's

dedication to innovative employment practices.

I know the residents of Mississauga and Etobicoke join me in congratulating Ken White on this much-deserved award and in thanking him for his exemplary

leadership of our community hospital.

HOME CARE AND EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I have here 3,000 cards signed by seniors from across the Hamilton region protesting the cuts to

long-term care and to home care. Let me read from one of the cards.

"Dear Minister:

"I am extremely distressed by the recent drastic cuts, especially in homemaking services, by the community care access centres, to seniors and people with

disabilities living in their own homes. Most people want to stay at home, but now are unable to access required help. I dread the thought that I, or people I care about, may be forced to give up

independence and move into a long-term-care facility. Homemaking is imperative for persons attempting to remain independent in their own homes because it provides them with a safe and clean

environment. I urge you to reinstate adequate funding to provide the essential services as described in the Long-Term Care Act."

I have under 1,000 cards here signed by parents across the region protesting the cuts to education. I understand that adequate funding for our children's

education is the responsibility of the government of the province of Ontario. I don't believe that the current funding benchmarks are reflective of current costs. I want the education funding gap

addressed immediately.

What is the connection between the cards and the cost to education, and the cards and the cost to home care? It's Jim Murray, the same Tory-appointed supervisor

who is cutting education in Hamilton, the same one who set the criteria, who cut the criteria, and fewer of our seniors are getting good quality home care in Hamilton. Shame on you. The

Tory-appointed axeman should be ashamed of himself.

NATIONAL CHILD DAY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Today marks National Child Day across Canada. It's my hope that on this day and throughout the year

we all strive to make our corner of the world reflect one of this year's National Child Day themes, A World Fit for Children, a world where all children get the best possible start in life and

where adolescents are given opportunities to develop their capacities in a safe and supportive environment.

In my home riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant we are lucky to have a grade 2 teacher who works tirelessly 365 days a year to make a better life for children, not

just here in Ontario but around the world. For 15 years now, Emily Stowe, of Port Dover's Doverwood Public School, has dedicated herself to organizing her school's UNICEF campaign. When it comes to

fundraising for children, Mrs Stowe thinks outside the orange UNICEF box. Emily Stowe has raised money through face-painting initiatives and hat day. This year funds were also raised through a

haunted house display. If you ask her, Mrs Stowe will tell you that she doesn't do it all by herself; she receives help from many in organizing the annual UNICEF campaign.

However, this year Emily Stowe has been singled out as the Ontario UNICEF educator of the year. On this National Child Day I'd like to take the opportunity to

thank Emily Stowe for her dedication to children of the world and congratulate her on her recognition by UNICEF.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Today is National Child Day. The day of the child is an opportunity to focus on

the achievements and the great promise that our children represent in our society. We must take every opportunity to celebrate the potential, strength of purpose and hope that our children and our

youth represent. A wonderful example occurred just this summer in this very city with World Youth Day. We were able to witness the positive impression hundreds of thousands of youth left in the

minds and hearts of people from around the country and indeed around the world. They left us with a tremendous feeling of hope for our future and our world.

However, in Ontario there is still much that must be done for our children. Over 40% of those who use food banks are children. The fastest-growing demographic

among the homeless is families with children. Children in Ontario with special education needs and mental health needs are not receiving the support and services they need and deserve. Dalton

McGuinty has made a commitment to children in his Excellence for All plan. It is a plan that has been endorsed by child advocates such as Charlie Coffey and the Honourable Margaret McCain. Ontario

Liberals are prepared to invest in programs and services that support families and our children because we recognize that our children are our most precious resource and our hope for the

future.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): During constituency week it was my privilege to attend Remembrance Day ceremonies and events across my riding, which I

enjoyed. I would like to commend the Royal Canadian Legion branch that does so much outstanding work to honour the memory of those who have served and those who gave their lives for the freedom we

enjoy today. I'd like to extend my thanks to Jim Connell, president of branch 178, Royal Canadian Legion, Bowmanville, as well as Roy Thompson, president of branch 419, Port Perry. Thanks also to

Doreen Park, who gave a Remembrance Day reading at the Bowmanville cenotaph this year, and each year, I might add. She is retiring, I believe.

These are just a few of the men and women who led in the Remembrance Day observances in my riding.

I'd also like to briefly mention the remembrance cross program supported by branch 178 of the Royal Canadian Legion in Bowmanville. Small white crosses with a

red poppy are placed on each grave of nearly 900 veterans at 10 cemeteries in Clarington. They mark the resting places of those who served in the War of 1812, the Boer War, World War I, World War

II, and the Korean War, as well as peacemakers and members of the armed forces of Canada who have honoured us by their service.

This program was begun in 1992 by Norm Baker and Harvey Jones, both veterans of World War II. The present chairman of the program, Cecile Bowers, has 19

volunteers, including John Greenfield, veterans' service officer for branch 178. These tributes are placed at the end of October and removed after Remembrance Day. The inscription on the crosses

sums up the attitude of all citizens of Durham riding, and that is that we serve and "We remember."

SITE OF EARLY PARLIAMENT

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I rise today to bring to the attention of this Legislature an issue of extreme importance and concern

to every one of us gathered here at Queen's Park, and all citizens of this province. That's the preservation of the site of Ontario's first Parliament Buildings.

Located near the southwest corner of Front and Parliament streets in downtown Toronto, an archaeological dig last year discovered the brick foundations and

artifacts from the buildings that date back to 1798. The remains of these buildings are what is left of the original Parliament of Upper Canada. Amid the rubble are charred floorboards that remain

from the torching during the American invasion of the War of 1812. These buildings were significant enough of a symbol of our emerging government that the Americans went out of their way to burn

them down in 1813.

This discovery is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. These remains of the birth of Ontario's democracy are in danger of being lost forever. A new Porsche

dealership has applied for a building permit to pave over this historic site. The Ontario Municipal Board deadline of December 1 to arrange the purchase of the lot by the city or the province is

fast approaching.

There has been support shown by the owners of the site and within the Ministry of Culture and the Ontario Realty Corp to have this site return to public

ownership where it belongs, but there has been no action despite the looming deadline.

I am calling on this government, and in particular the Minister of Culture, to act immediately to preserve a jewel of Ontario's heritage and a jewel of the

democratic foundations of this province.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Yet again, northerners have descended on Queen's Park because they're feeling left out by this Tory

government.

We all know that what's happened over the last couple of years is that a company by the name of Bennett Inc has been trying to build yet another one of these

garbage plants up in northern Ontario. Imagine, they want to bring all of the toxic waste into the Timiskaming area and they want to be able to do what they want: pollute the area and run away with

all of the profits.

Northerners are here today to say, "No, we're not going to accept that northern Ontario becomes the toxic waste dump of all the rest of Ontario and the rest of

Canada."

What's interesting is that even the Ministry of the Environment, when they looked at the environmental assessment process that was undergone, and it was a scoped

EA, had to agree that the proposal by Bennett was severely flawed. Bennett removed themselves from the process. But they're back again.

David Pond and Bennett Inc are saying, "We're back. We're going to come back with another application," and northerners again on their own, the people of

Timiskaming, are going to have to get up, do everything they did once before, twice before, and fight this whole process yet again.

They're here to ask the Minister of the Environment, who is here in the chamber today, one simple thing: "Minister of the Environment" -- that's you, yes, you

standing over there. Hey, Chris, look over here. The people over here from northern Ontario want to know, are you prepared to restore full benefits when it comes to intervener funding in order to

assist northerners when it comes to the fight that they're going to have to undergo with Bennett? Will you restore full intervener funding?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin, for our visitors in the gallery, unfortunately clapping isn't allowed. I would appreciate if

you would honour that tradition.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes, I know, the member likes that, but unfortunately clapping isn't allowed. I appreciate your help with that.

CHILDREN'S TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): Today I'd like to talk about the groundbreaking announcement that Minister Clement made Monday regarding the

creation of a children's treatment centre in Nipissing. Located in North Bay, the children's treatment centre will serve children in Nipissing, Parry Sound and Muskoka. The children's treatment

centre will enhance the recruitment, retention and ongoing professional development of a wide variety of pediatrics-trained health professionals to encourage doctors and health workers to live and

work in the north. It will also create the required setting for parent support and education activities.

I'd like to thank a very special person, Mr Ian Kilgour, who was the task force chair and led this initiative from the very beginning. I'd also like to thank the

members of the Northern Shores Children's Treatment Centre Task Force for all their hard work and dedication to children's services, as well as the Rotary Club of Nipissing and the Rotary Club of

North Bay for their outstanding fundraising events.

Children and youth with special needs and their families will greatly benefit from this new facility. It's something that Nipissing and North Bay have been

wishing for, for many years.

I want to personally thank Minister Clement for announcing the 20th children's treatment centre in the province of Ontario in my riding of Nipissing.

If you ask the average northern Ontarian what they believe is the top priority in their lives and what they believe the government should be pushing for, health

care is one of them. I can honestly say that the people of northern Ontario will reap the benefits of having such a facility. I want to thank everyone who took

part in making this dream a

reality.

LÉGION D'HONNEUR /

LEGION OF HONOUR

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): J'ai l'honneur et l'immense plaisir d'annoncer à cette assemblée que trois grands

personnages franco-ontariens ont reçu dernièrement, des mains de l'ambassadeur de la France au Canada, des décorations de la Légion d'honneur.

Indeed one of our former colleagues, the past member of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Mr Jean Poirier, was promoted to the rank of officier de l'ordre national du

mérite, while M me Gisèle Lalonde was awarded the rank of chevalier of the French Legion of Honour, and Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier the grade of officer.

Ces prix sont remis en reconnaissance de leur grand dévouement pour la cause franco-ontarienne.

Jean Poirier served in this House as a Liberal member from 1984 to 1995, winning four consecutive elections for his riding, and he was also Deputy Speaker from

1987 until 1990. Senator Gauthier, a tireless defender of francophone Ontarians' rights, was a sitting Liberal member of the federal government prior to his appointment to the Senate. Of course,

you may have recognized the name of the lady who led the battle for the preservation of Montfort Hospital, M me Gisèle Lalonde.

J'invite tous mes collègues à applaudir avec moi ces trois personnalités de la communauté franco-ontarienne.

VISITORS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Speaker: In the public gallery today are two constituents who have joined us here at Queen's Park to

bring the cause of long-term-care issues and to learn about the democratic process in this House, Mandy Conlon and her mother, Judith, who have brought these issues and want the Minister of Health

to understand that there are issues today. I'd like to welcome them here.

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 10th report of the standing committee on government

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice and social policy and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 181,

An Act to amend the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 181, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur les services d'aide juridique.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

McLeod, Lyn

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 30.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Monday, October 21, 2002, the bill is ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FUNERAL, BURIAL AND

CREMATION SERVICES ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES SERVICES FUNÉRAIRES

ET LES SERVICES D'ENTERREMENT

ET DE CRÉMATION

Mr Hudak moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 209,

An Act respecting funerals, burials, cremations and related services and providing for the amendment of other statutes / Projet de loi 209, Loi

traitant des funérailles, des enterrements, des crémations et des services connexes et prévoyant la modification d'autres lois.

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

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I'll defer to ministers' statements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BEREAVEMENT SERVICES

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I am pleased to introduce proposed legislation regarding the bereavement services

sector in the House today. The proposed Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, is part of the most comprehensive review of consumer protection legislation ever undertaken in Ontario. It

is part of the Ernie Eves government's consumer protection for the 21st century package, which includes Bill 180, currently before the House. Bill 180, if passed by the Legislature, would

consolidate six core pieces of consumer protection and three sector statutes. It is part of our government's plan to provide strong, efficient consumer protection and a level playing field for

business.

This bill I am introducing today would strengthen consumer protection in the bereavement services sector. Bereavement is a topic that many of us are not always

comfortable talking about. However, all of us can appreciate how important it is to ensure high standards of services and ethics in this area, given the value of the expenditure and the

vulnerability of a person whose loved one has just passed away.

The death of a loved one means that those left behind must make decisions quickly during an emotional time. Often, family members have little or no experience

in purchasing bereavement services.

High standards for those who deliver bereavement services, including private businesses, charitable and religious organizations and municipalities, would not

only benefit consumers but also provide a level playing field for the sector.

I would like to thank the many people who have been instrumental in developing this proposed legislation. Key among them is my predecessor as the Minister of

Consumer and Business Services, Norm Sterling. Former ministers Runciman and Tsubouchi also did a great deal of work in this process. Also, members of the Red Tape Commission have offered the

benefit of their counsel as the government worked toward this proposed legislation. I would also like to especially thank Gary Stewart, Steve Gilchrist, Joe Spina, John O'Toole and Marcel Beaubien

for their assistance in this process.

For more than a year now, representatives from various bereavement services providers and consumer groups have met frequently to provide advice on reform. The

group, which included members representing organizations as diverse as monument retailers and religious organizations, formed the Bereavement Sector Advisory Committee, known as the BSAC

committee.

I want to thank each member of that committee for their hard work and dedication. Several of them are in the gallery here today with us. To mention a few

names, of course the Honourable George Adams, who led the process, Gary Carmichael, Mike Fitzgerald and Lynne Atkinson, Joe Richer and Scott Doney, John O'Brien, Eileen Fitzpatrick, Bob Youngs,

Helen Anderson, Peter Niro, Pearl Davie, Zena Doogay and Norris Zooket, have joined us here today. I thank them for all their efforts on this legislation.

Superior Court Justice the Honourable George Adams QC, whom I introduced, deserves a special thanks for his leadership and guidance in helping to facilitate

the advisory committee discussions. Thank you, Justice Adams, for your work.

The current legislation governing the bereavement sector was written close to a century ago, a time when people still drove horses and buggies, the Wright

brothers were making their first flight, and the world wars had not yet been waged. Lifestyles and social attitudes have changed considerably since then.

As Pearl Davie, the chair of the legislation committee of the Federation of Ontario Memorial Societies/Funeral Consumer Alliance, has said, "Our modern

multicultural society, as well as changes in societal attitudes, require that bereavement sector legislation ensures access to alternatives and increased consumer protection."

There are many factors that have changed the bereavement services sector in the last century. A hundred years ago, the vast majority of Ontarians were

Christian. Today, we see the growth of other religions and funeral practices and greater ethnic diversity. The legislation must be flexible to respond to Ontario's evolving and diverse culture. At

the same time, in modernizing the bereavement services sector, we must respect religious sensitivities and traditions and ensure they are maintained.

As minister, I want to strive to facilitate that by continuing to consult with the religious community and respond to their concerns as proposed reforms go

forward. The proposed Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, would combine two statutes, the Cemeteries Act (Revised) and the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act, into one modern

regulatory framework. It would permit combinations, meaning that a funeral home can own and operate a cemetery, crematorium or scattering grounds and vice versa. This would bring Ontario into line

with eight other provinces and 40 US states while providing greater choice for consumers who want to make all the arrangements in one place.

By permitting new business models, it would also allow businesses to grow and to create jobs. It would allow access to alternative or no-frills services, which

many consumers are looking for today. To help provide some peace of mind to families at this vulnerable time, this bill would require service providers to offer clear information, including price

lists. It would also require salespeople and operators to follow a strict code of ethics.

Our government understands that bereavement purchases are a major purchase at a very sensitive time. That is why this bill provides for industry-funded

compensation funds, so that consumers would be compensated if a licensee fails to provide the goods or service purchased. Currently, only funeral directors have a similar compensation fund. It

would also protect those who choose to prearrange and prepay for their funerals and other bereavement services by providing expanded trust requirements to keep their money safe. Consumers would

also have a 30-day cooling-off period to reconsider their purchases. Those who have purchased a burial plot or interment rights would be able to resell them at a fair price. Under the current

legislation, consumers must sell at the original acquisition price even if they purchased their plot 20 years ago.

This government is proud to introduce the proposed Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002. This bill would provide stronger protections for consumers

in the vulnerable time when they are purchasing funeral, burial or cremation services. I am confident that with the input of consumer groups, religious institutions and a variety of organizations

in the bereavement services sector, we have developed a bill that will meet the needs of both consumers and businesses alike in the years ahead.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I'd like to respond to the Minister of Consumer and Business Services with respect to the announcement of today.

It is a very small, good step, but it doesn't go far enough with respect to offering the protection our consumers deserve.

I have to say that two years ago I introduced a bill in this House, Bill 54, which dealt with the major components that consumers in the community face, a much

more complete, much more concise, much fuller bill which indeed would have given the consumers of Ontario the protection they seek from the government when it comes to that particular time. Some

80,000 people die on a yearly basis. It is a serious concern for the family members when it comes to dealing with the situation at that particular time.

Unfortunately, Minister, what you have introduced today does not address the major component, when you have to choose a funeral home or a service centre. A

service centre can have a funeral home, according to your laws of today, but not according to laws, but they are doing it today. The legislation you have introduced today does not offer that

protection to the consumers in Ontario -- it does not.

Minister, as you say about your bill today that you're willing to combine the two bills to offer more protection to the consumers of Ontario, I say dig out

Bill 54, read it very well and include it in this legislation so that indeed the consumers of Ontario can have that peace of mind at the time they most need it. It's fine to license the headstone

retailers and casket operators, but it does not deal with the real problem, that at a time when people really don't need anything else -- it's not addressed here.

I'm telling you today, Minister, to take a look at your legislation. Indeed you are allowing cemeteries today to have funeral homes. Your piece of legislation

here does not address the problem that you are associating with this piece of legislation by allowing that on cemetery property versus the private supplier/provider.

I believe that consumers today have a very serious problem when it comes to choices. You're saying in your legislation that you are allowing for more choices.

Well, let me ask the minister, what choices are you offering the consumers when it comes to more protection? This piece of legislation only gives the consumers a choice of which casket or which

headstone. With all due respect, you have to go deeper than that and say, "I'm offering more protection. I'm changing the act, which has not been changed in the last 90 to 100 years."

When it comes to reality, the protection is not here. We cannot support the bill as it is because it does not give any protection to the consumers. You're

giving a 30-day cooling-off period. When someone has died and the family members have to make a choice at that particular time, they haven't got 30 days. Your 30 days is for those who want to make

arrangements from now till God knows when, when they are called, and they can change their mind if they want a more expensive casket or headstone. That's fine and dandy.

I want you to say today to the consumers in Ontario, "I will indeed be looking at the funeral laws the way they are being conducted today," and offer them

peace of mind. There is no protection with respect to the legislation that you have introduced today.

Minister, if you really want to strengthen and provide service and protection to the consumers of Ontario and to those 80,000 family members, then I would say

to you, include Bill 54 in this legislation. Send it out for debate. Listen to both the consumers and the industry. Then hopefully you will come back to this House with a bill that is worth

supporting by the consumers out there and by this House.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): New Democrats appreciate the advance notice we received of this announcement and of this bill being

introduced. I appreciate the timely delivery of a copy of the bill. I've given it but cursory examination. The bill in many respects appears to be a consolidation of but existing legislation. This

isn't atypical from this particular minister, because the House has been dealing with his so-called Consumer Protection Act, which is but a restatement, in so many respects, of the existing

law.

I want to tell you that members of this New Democratic Party caucus, be they from the north or Toronto or Hamilton or Niagara, have very good reports to give

to this House about the conduct of funeral home operators in their communities. I speak very specifically about the types of funeral homes and funeral directors that tend to prevail especially in

smaller-town Ontario, like the communities I come from, which are family-owned and family-operated funeral homes.

New Democrats ask other members of this Legislature to do as we intend to do, and that is to ensure that those small family-operated and -owned funeral homes

have an opportunity to examine this legislation, and to ensure that those same operators have access to a public hearing process, which necessarily should follow second reading debate on this

bill.

First, it's acknowledged, it's been stated and it will be restated during the course of discussion around this that a funeral expenditure is one of the largest

single expenditures any family faces. Second, the cost of funerals, according to the anecdotal evidence we're receiving, is increasing. Perhaps that's the nature of the beast.

One of the concerns we have is that legislation like this ensure that families of a deceased family member or friend have access to the most economically

possible funeral arrangements that can legally be provided. We think it's imperative that that option has to be given to grievers at the time of making funeral arrangements. Quite frankly, we've

witnessed far too many funeral scenarios wherein the costs accepted by the people, arranging the funeral at a point of incredible grief and intense emotion, have become almost crippling, if not

indeed crippling, to those families after the emotions have soothed a little and there is the realization of what's happened to them as they've gone about making arrangements.

Of particular concern of course is the combination proposal, funeral home operators also owning funeral plots. I call upon members in this assembly to very

carefully scrutinize it with the assistance of their owner-operated funeral homes, like I have down in Niagara Centre and like every other member of this caucus and most members of this Legislature

have. I know it's been a matter of concern in the past. I suspect it will warrant some consideration now.

I regret to note there's very little in this bill addressing the heritage nature of burial sites in this bill, in and of itself. You know, Speaker, that there

are a number of areas across the province where that issue is very much causing great concern with ethnic communities, among others, as to ownership and control of historical and heritage burial

sites.

The act does make reference to aboriginal burial grounds. I noted with interest that one of the people consulted was Marcel Beaubien. We all know that Mr

Beaubien has some very specific experience with respect to aboriginal burial grounds. I'm not sure of the extent to which he influenced the consideration in the bill of aboriginal burial grounds,

but we know he's had a great deal of experience, most of it as of yet undisclosed, as we await discovery on the lawsuits that are very much in action and that this government clearly doesn't want

to resolve with a public inquiry into the killing of Dudley George, now far too long ago but still in fresh in the memory of every member of this province.

Concern about the fact that the Red Tape Commission made submissions or had some impact on the bill causes us to be cautious about the legislation. It warrants

consideration; it warrants thorough debate. Quite frankly, it warrants committee hearings. I don't know what promises the minister made to participants in the advisory process, but the minister had

better be prepared to get this bill called for second reading debate. He's scheduling it for committee. New Democrats are going to insist on it.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): On a point of order, Speaker: To recognize National Child Day, Voices for

Children sent every member of the Legislature a button which reads, "Listen to a child today." I would seek unanimous consent that we would be allowed to wear these buttons today in the

legislature.

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

VISITORS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is my pleasure to introduce today a delegation from my riding of

Hamilton East, behind us, and along with the delegation my mother, of course, which means that one day of the year I'm actually going to behave in here. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We certainly welcome Mrs Agostino and her group again this year. Welcome.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent for third and fourth reading of Bill 204,

the No Freezing in the Dark Act, since people continue to have their hydro shut off.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I've never heard of a fourth reading.

The Speaker: We stand corrected. The member is asking for second and third reading of Bill 204. Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I hear

some noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): The question is to the Premier. Premier, did you consult with Chairman Bill Farlinger of OPG prior to the

electricity marketplace opening on May 1?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): No, I did not.

Mr Bryant: I find it unbelievable, or unbelievably reckless, that the Premier of Ontario did not contact the chairman of Ontario Power

Generation before opening up the marketplace. One of the most momentous decisions that you made as the Premier of Ontario, after becoming the Premier, one of the biggest decisions that you had to

make was with respect to the opening of this marketplace. It had enormous consequences. The question is this: what assurances did you receive from Ontario Power Generation that justified your

opening the marketplace on May 1?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member goes on and on about Ontario Hydro. I see his leader is here to talk about energy and his energy policy. I

haven't checked the Web site today to see if they have one today. We do have ministers of the crown who are responsible to run their ministries. It's not appropriate for the Premier of the province

to check every single decision that is made in every single ministry or by every single government agency.

Mr Bryant: This wasn't just any decision made by the Premier of Ontario. This was whether or not to open up the electricity marketplace. Your

predecessor, Mike Harris, picked up the phone and called the Chair of Ontario Power Generation before announcing that the market would open on May 1. But you're telling us that you're just a little

too busy and too taxed to do the homework and find out whether or not in fact the electricity marketplace was ready before you opened it? Either you didn't do your homework or you were reckless

beyond belief in opening up the marketplace on May 1. Which is it?

Premier, I'll tell you something. If you think the people of Ontario think it's OK that the Premier of Ontario was too busy to do his homework and find out,

before the electricity marketplace was opened, that it was ready, I think you are going to receive a rude awakening at the ballot box. I would say to you, sir, what homework did you do before the

marketplace opened on May 1 that justified your opening up --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member's time is up. Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: To the honourable member for St Paul's, that was a great three-minute speech and 10-second question.

With respect to his point about OPG and the opening of the marketplace, first of all, as we have explained in this Legislature many times, there were several

factors that contributed to high fluctuations in prices per kilowatt hour, being the hottest summer --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: I didn't check with Bill Farlinger to see if it was going to be the hottest summer on record since 1955. I didn't check with Bill

Farlinger to see if the experts at OPG, with respect to the nuclear facility at Pickering -- to see if it was going to be delayed after the market opened, for yet a seventh time. I didn't check

with Bill Farlinger to see whether or not one of the units at Bruce, during routine maintenance, might be accidentally damaged and therefore be down for two or three months.

But you are so wise, I say to the honourable member for St Paul's, you're taking so many acting lessons and you're so good on TV that I think you should tell

us today what the weather's going to be like next July, August and September. You should tell us whether or not there's going to be any damage done to any unit during any maintenance next year, and

you should tell us, because you're obviously smarter than any nuclear physicist out there --

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up. New question.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I have a question of the Premier. Yesterday the people of Toronto learned that you are no different

from Mike Harris when it comes to cutting services out of public education. On top of the $2 billion you cut while you were Minister of Finance, your appointed supervisor wants to cut even more

from the city of Toronto. The York Adult Day School in my riding and the Maplewood school in Scarborough are slated to close this year. Some 3,000 adult students will see their programs cut. The

remaining adult education centres have waiting lists. They can't take on any more students.

Premier, you more than anyone should know that we are in a knowledge-based economy. At a time when we should be encouraging more people to acquire the skills

they need, you are turning your back on these people. Is this the way you show your commitment, or your supposed commitment, to public education -- by shutting these students out?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the honourable member, with respect to the Toronto District School Board,

first of all, many Liberal members have stood up in this Legislature and predicted many things when a supervisor was appointed to go in -- and in fact, when you go back to when an inspector was

appointed to go in -- and look at the Toronto District School Board. You said that special education would be cut; it has not been. You said that the number of teachers would be reduced; it has not

been. You said that the pools would be closed; they have not been. On almost every single point that you and your Liberal colleagues made, you were wrong.

In fact, the supervisor has now managed to increase funding to the classroom, which is where it belongs, and in case you're interested, they put more money

into textbooks, more money into computers, more money into the classroom, more money into hall monitors, more money into school safety.

For your information, the education system is about the education of the child, not about how many staff that are doing nothing we can have in an

administrative building belonging to a union.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): Mr Premier, in the age of information technology we learned yesterday that you are prepared to sit idly by

while $10 million is slashed from the Toronto school board's computer budget. Students that could have had access to the latest technology will instead have outdated, old computers or, worse,

nothing at all. You're going from one out of six to one out of 10. Premier, it is frankly unbelievable that you're prepared to take this money out of the children's classroom.

It is unfathomable that in this knowledge-based economy you refuse to recognize that our children need and deserve to have access to the very latest technology

available. Premier, would you tell Toronto parents and students how cutting the budget for computers and technology is going to help them?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, we are increasing the suggested budget by the supervisor, increasing spending on computers in the classroom. The

previous question suggested that education spending has been reduced; it has not been reduced.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Eves: It has not. It started out at $12.9 billion and it's now at $14.36 billion. That's an increase, in case you're interested, of

$1.5 billion. Dr Rozanski is reviewing the funding formula on top of that, and we increased funding during the fiscal year by $557 million.

I know Liberals have problems with numbers. Their problems with numbers translated into a $10-billion increase in our provincial debt while they were there,

and on top of that they increased the debt of Ontario Hydro by $8 billion. They claim they balanced the books when they really had a $700-million deficit. So I'm not about to take any advice from

you about numbers. Only a Liberal could think 12.9 was larger than 14.4.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Mr Premier, for eight years I've seen you stand up in the House. I've seen John Snobelen, I've seen all

your Ministers of Education and yourself stand up and say you cared about education. Well, here's what you've done. For the last eight years you have caused havoc in our public schools. You have

closed schools, you have cut programs, you have created chaos in our public schools, and now you stand up and gloat about it. You're proud of it.

Yesterday you cut $90 million out of our schools. That means there are 100 fewer secretaries in our schools. They're the gatekeepers in our schools. There's 65

fewer vice-principals. They take care of discipline in our schools. They're not going to be there any more. I've got schools in my riding where the roofs aren't going to be fixed. I have toilets

that aren't going to be fixed. I have schools falling apart, and you have the guts to stand up there and say you are proud of this cut --

The Chair: I'm afraid the member's time is up.

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, money spent in the classroom is actually increased under the supervisor's recommendation. He talks about the

commitment to education of this government. This government has increased education spending by $1.5 billion and we are reviewing the funding formula, as we promised to do, at the same time.

We are the first government in the history of the province of Ontario that has made sure that special education funding actually goes to special education.

We have built more schools than David Peterson's government did or than Bob Rae's government did during a five-year period of time.

We will continue to improve public education in the province of Ontario, but I can assure you of one thing: we won't say one thing in Timmins and another thing

in Toronto, like your leader does, about public education.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. This is the last warning for the member for Eglinton-Lawrence. If he continues shouting across, we'll just throw him out

for the day.

It is now time for the leader of the third party's question.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, this is a new report released by the North American Electric Reliability Council. They do

studies across North America to tell us if there will be enough hydro this winter and they're warning that the situation in Ontario this winter "could spell trouble." They say that with just normal

winter temperatures, Ontario's average electricity capacity margin is only 10%. It's over 18% in Quebec and over 20% in California.

Premier, you try to hide the skyrocketing cost of privatized, deregulated hydroelectricity from hydro consumers with your pre-election rebate scheme. How are

you going to hide the brownouts and the blackouts?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, he's a great --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): You'll declare them illegal: no brownouts under the Eves government.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Vaughan-King-Aurora, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, I feel that the member for Vaughan-King-Aurora is feeling a little lonely. Maybe he'd like to join the NDP caucus so

he could get a question on in question period.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: On second thought, maybe that's not such a good idea.

We have taken steps to protect the consumer, as you are aware. I presume you're in favour of that and will support that when the legislation is introduced

shortly.

A lot of fearmongering went on at this time about a year ago that the leader of the third party --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the third party then suggested brownouts and blackouts. Perhaps he'd like to itemize all the hundreds of blackouts

and brownouts we've had in Ontario in the last 12 months. Would you like to itemize them all for us, please?

Mr Hampton: Premier, the question was -- even international experts now are identifying that under your scheme of hydro privatization and

deregulation over the last seven years, you've left us with not enough electricity. I just asked you, how are you going to cover up the brownouts and blackouts? It's so obvious that your rebate

cheques for hydro are an attempt to cover up the high cost and an attempt, by the way, to buy a few votes before the election.

It's pretty clear that not enough electricity does mean the possibility of brownouts and blackouts and it does mean that those private hydro companies that you

want to see in the province will jack up the price, and then taxpayers' dollars will have to go to pay them off, to hide it from the consumers.

I know you believe that you can fool the people with a $75 cheque just before the election, but how do you prevent the brownouts and blackouts?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, there has not been a brownout or a blackout in the province of Ontario. He said the same thing a year ago. He was

wrong then and he's wrong again. What has he got against consumers being reimbursed every cent they were charged above 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour since May 1? What has he got against that, and

does he not want that to happen?

Mr Hampton: Premier, I'm not prepared to take

part in what is so obviously a pre-election bribe. You have a tête-à-tête with

Ralph Klein and he says to you, "Ernie, this is what we did in Alberta: we gave them a fat rebate just before the election, and then as soon as the election was over we took the rebate off and the

hydro bills went sky high again." And what does Ernie do 10 days later? He announces the Alberta rebate and says, "Oh, before the election we're going to send you out a cheque, but don't ask what

happens afterwards. Don't ask about electricity supply. Don't ask where the money comes from when the private companies jack the price of hydro up to $1,000 a megawatt hour."

Premier, the question is this: if you think you can bribe people with a pre-election $75 cheque, at least tell them as well how you prevent the brownouts and

blackouts because your hydro privatization plan isn't drawing any new electricity supply to the province. You owe people that. What's the answer?

Hon Mr Eves: To the leader of the third party, first of all, he keeps talking about brownouts and blackouts, knowing full well that none has

occurred and none is going to occur. He's the greatest fearmonger going. He's driven around the province in his little bus trying to tell people there's going to be a blackout any day now. He's

been doing that for a year, and he's been wrong every single day for 365 days in a row. The odds are not good for your being right one of these days, Howie.

We have a nine-point plan that deals with protecting consumers as we go forward. We also have a plan that protects consumers until at least 2006. We also have

a plan that will encourage people to locate generating facilities here in Ontario. You will have an opportunity to vote against the consumers if you want, to vote against the initiatives to try to

encourage people to locate here and generate more power-producing facilities in the province. You can vote against all of that if you want to. We'll be interested to see how you vote.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Again, to the Premier: I would have thought that your painful experience with hydro would have taught

you that privatization isn't the answer. But last week at midnight your government sends out requests for proposals for private MRI clinics. Why would you send them out at midnight unless you have

something to hide? You've already announced that you also want to get into private hospitals.

I know of course that the Liberals want to keep an open mind on privatized health care, but I want you to know where New Democrats stand. Privatized health

care doesn't work for people. Privatized health care may work for corporate profits, but it doesn't work for people. Premier, while we're waiting for Mr Romanow to provide his report to the

Canadian people, will you call off your scheme for private MRIs and privately built hospitals?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I refer the question to the Minister of Health.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): There are a few points that should get on the record. First of all, this initiative

of greater access to diagnostic services, universally accessible, part of our publicly funded system, was announced in the throne speech; it was announced in the budget. I myself made an

announcement that we were moving ahead with the project.

The honourable member, the leader of the third party, should get his facts straight. This has been part of public discourse for months. This government is

committed to greater diagnostic services in hospitals and we announced three new MRIs last week as well, which he didn't mention in his question, I noticed. But the cities of Ottawa and Owen Sound

are certainly grateful that we have moved ahead with MRIs in hospitals, and we are moving ahead with stand-alone clinics just as the NDP government moved ahead with independent health facilities in

previous governments.

Canada Health Act; greater services to the people of Ontario -- that's what this government is all about.

Mr Hampton: The Premier ought to know that the Romanow commission has already gathered together a number of studies that show that in fact the

patient results from a privately operated health care system are subtandard compared to a publicly operated system. Just today, yet another report was released showing that for-profit hospitals

mean substandard care.

It's quite interesting. You put out your request for proposals for private MRIs at 11:59 pm, one minute before midnight,

as if you're afraid to let the public of Ontario see it. Premier, if you're that afraid and if the so-called meetings to discuss the request for proposals are closed to the public, if someone from

the public who wants to go to them can't get in, why don't you call off your whole agenda and let the Romanow commission put forward a program for medicare -- a program for publicly funded health

care, publicly administered health care -- rather than the backdoor privatization that seems to have such favour with you? Why won't you at least do that?

Hon Mr Clement: Well, we're having a little bit of fun on this side of the House. Perhaps he thinks we are using crop circles to announce

these things as well. Did you not read the throne speech? Did you not read the budget?

In his own riding, in his own community, there are diagnostic services being performed right now by stand-alone clinics that have been part of the Ontario health system for decades.

this government is committed to. That's what we are all about. The honourable member can talk all he wants about studies about what happens in Arkansas or Alabama or I don't care where, but that's

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Premier. Premier, I want to ask you about affordable housing in this province. As

of today, in the city of Peterborough over 1,100 households are on a waiting list for affordable housing. It can be a wait of up to 10 years to get into one of these facilities in Peterborough. In

the city of London there are 3,500 households with up to a four-year waiting period. There are 10% fewer rental units on the market in London today than there were since your government took

office. In Guelph-Wellington, 26,000 households are on a waiting list, with a wait of three to five years; 4% less availability on the market today than when you took office.

Premier, we know what you've done. You've gutted rent controls. You've abandoned support for non-profit housing and affordable housing. Can you tell us the

other side of the story? Can you tell us how many new affordable housing units have been built in Peterborough, London and Guelph-Wellington since your government took office?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I refer the question to the Associate Minister for Urban Affairs.

Hon Tina R. Molinari (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): On May 30, 2002, the federal government signed a deal with the

province to ensure funds for affordable housing under the affordable housing agreement. The Ontario government and the municipalities are pleased that the federal government has remained committed

to seeing that the deal goes through.

We recognize that affordable housing is a joint responsibility requiring the support of three levels of government. The proposed new affordable housing program

is a short-term step to encourage new affordable housing in construction. The province is close to launching the new program. The first project funded by the program will be starting this year.

Mr Agostino: That answer certainly helps the people of Guelph-Wellington, London and Peterborough who are waiting four to 10 years for

housing. The deal you signed with the federal government is a joke. You have not put one new cent of money into that program. You've taken money that was in place and you've moved it around with

the municipalities -- not one new cent. In the city of Hamilton there are 3,500 households on a waiting list for up to five years, with 5% less market availability today than there was five years

ago.

Interjection.

Mr Agostino: The member from London likes to heckle, but can he tell his residents why they have to wait five years to get affordable housing

in the city of London? The reality is, you gutted rent controls, you walked away from the table, you abandoned municipalities, you abandoned individuals in Ontario when it comes to non-profit

housing. It is a disgrace that in this province that people in cities such as Peterborough have to wait 10 years for affordable housing, that in London you have to wait five years and in Guelph you

have to wait four years. It is an embarrassment to this province and this government. You are responsible for this, Minister. Again, today, can you explain to the people of London, Guelph,

Wellington and St Catharines how many new units have been built since your government came to power in 1995?

Hon Mrs Molinari: This government believes in tax incentives and the creation of more affordable housing for business. Let me put on the

record the Liberal government's housing record.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Keep it down. It's getting noisy in here. The same crew is always yelling and screaming across.

Hon Mrs Molinari: It's nice to have silence in the room when I put the Liberal government's record in the open. The average rent increase

under the Liberal government was 12% yearly. The money they wasted: $27 million for six housing projects in Toronto that were never built; the NDP and Liberal legacy of a $1-billion housing

boondoggle; $300 million for consultants' fees --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, take their seats. The member for Kingston and the Islands, I'm naming him and I'm asking Mr Gerretsen to leave the

chamber right now -- number 34 that I've now removed during question period.

Mr Gerretsen was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Associate Minister, we've lost a little bit of time, but you can start over and continue, please.

Hon Mrs Molinari: I can start over? OK. So the average rent increase during the Liberals' reign was 12% yearly. The money they wasted: $27

million for six housing projects in Toronto that were never built; the NDP and Liberal legacy of a $1-billion housing boondoggle; $300 million for consultants' fees; $550 million for architectural

fees; $50 million for legal fees. Philip Dewan, chief of staff for Dalton McGuinty and former president and CEO of Fair Rental Policy Organization, said, "Much of the criticism has justifiably

focused on Ottawa, which has failed to act on urgently required measures such as fair tax treatment of rental housing to make new construction affordable" --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

AUTISM SERVICES

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question today is for the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services. This

past Monday I was very pleased to join you and the Minister of Citizenship in an announcement for substantial new autism funding. This announcement is particularly interesting to me because autism

affects many families in my riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale. I realize that you explained during the news conference that the new funding was for autism. I want to make sure that my

constituents did not miss this very important announcement. Could you please tell my constituents and this House exactly what this announcement was about?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I thank my colleague for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale for his

attendance at the event and for the question today. I was also joined at the news conference by my colleague the Minister of Citizenship, the representative of Mississauga East. It was a wonderful

announcement. Today, as we celebrate the International Day of the Child, we have a great deal to celebrate on this side of the House. We have done so much for children and we're particularly proud

of this landmark announcement.

Over the last few years, Ontario has shown itself to be a leader in offering services to autistic children and their families. This new announcement has

secured our position as a North American leader in both the scope and the breadth of the comprehensive program. I announced an additional $58.6 million for services for children with autism, which

will bring our government's total commitment, on behalf of Premier Eves, to almost $100 million by 2006-07. This new money is going to two kinds of programs: intensive behavioural intervention and

broad traditional programs.

Mr Gill: I know that families across Ontario will be very pleased to learn about this new funding. It is especially good to know that this

government is doing everything it can do to address the waiting lists by providing additional funding and the recruitment and training strategy. Minister, my constituents would like to more about

how the government plans to address the shortage of professionals to provide IBI, which is intensive behavioural intervention, and I would like to know how this new funding helps families with

children over six years of age.

Hon Mrs Elliott: Thanks to my colleague. This program will invest in two kinds of programs -- intensive intervention programs for children

aged two to five. One of our difficulties is that we have a shortage of professionals. That is why we are looking for ways to find people to enter this field to eliminate the waiting lists that

presently exist and to build capacity so that we can address the problem.

With the help of colleges and universities, as part of this program we are going to develop curricula for training programs. We are going to invest in a

recruitment strategy. For children who are over the age of six, we are going to have different kinds of programs: a transitional and support service to ease children from the early intervention

programs into the school age. We are also, under the Minister of Education, going to pilot autism program standards in the year 2003-04. These will be forums to teach teachers and special education

teachers more about how to help children with autism.

Finally, it can't be forgotten that we have four other programs that offer services to children with autism, in addition to the $500 million that we've

increased in special education programs. A landmark program --

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

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, as you know, on November 1, the Ministry

of the Environment issued a deficiency statement regarding the Bennett hazardous waste incinerator EA that was unprecedented in its scope and magnitude. In fact, the four-page letter pointed out

not only examples of the gross omissions, inconsistencies and discrepancies in the EA, but it ordered Bennett to overhaul their whole documentation and all its appendices. It is apparent you should

have terminated the process, but instead you have given the company a second chance to resubmit their application.

Minister, isn't it clear that a company such as this that is so careless and reckless with its EA documentation can't really be trusted to run a toxic waste

incinerator 1,200 metres from homes and schools in the town of Kirkland Lake?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): No, that is not an accurate synopsis of the circumstances. What

happened was, they made their application and the Ministry of the Environment reported back that it was deficient. We felt it was significantly deficient. We then issued that letter to Bennett.

They have an option under the act to reapply within seven days; that's the law. They can choose to reapply in seven days or not, but there's no way in the world that the Ministry of the Environment

can say that if they don't apply within seven days, they can never apply again. It is a free country. It is a democracy. If they choose to make application, they may do so.

But this has got to be clear to you and the good folks around there: this Ministry of the Environment is very conscious, very cognizant, very aware of the

environmental issues. They made a very straightforward and stern decision, addressed the issues, and said they were deficient; in some cases, woefully deficient. I think we should take our hats off

to the good people at the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr Ramsay: It is very clear to the 50 people from my riding who have come down here today that basically the process allows a second

opportunity and maybe a third opportunity -- as you say, it's a free country -- for this company to continually apply to position a hazardous waste incinerator in northern Ontario, in the town of

Kirkland Lake.

By allowing this process to restart, you're again inflicting great pain and anguish on all the people who want to stop this and protect their environment. You

will again be putting the onus on ordinary citizens to really do the public fight to protect the environment, a job that you should be doing, with their private resources and their time and their

energy. That's the point of this. Hundreds of people have given their time and money and effort to protect their environment and their livelihood, and now you say they might have to start the

battle all over again. This process is wrong and it's punitive to all the people in Ontario.

Minister, who's going to compensate my constituents for this continuing battle they have to wage to protect the environment? When are you going to provide

intervener funding so that we can get proper, professional opposition to these projects so that we can start to debate the science and make sure that Ontario's environment is safe?

Hon Mr Stockwell: The fact remains, and I suppose the second answer is going to be very similar to the first answer, we can't unilaterally

tell somebody in this democratic free nation that we live in, "No, you can't make application for use of your land." What we can do as the Ministry of the Environment is to ensure that any

application meets the very tough, stringent environmental laws and rules that were put in place by this government and previous governments.

The argument you make is rather moot, I suppose, because when both opposition parties were in government, you could have drafted a bill that said, "You get one

application and one application only, and you may never make it again." But the point of the matter is simply this: we have a democracy where they can make application and the Ministry of the

Environment can review that application with environmental goals and deeds as the end game. Now, they didn't meet the environmental goals and deeds of the end game. The Ministry of the Environment

did their job. It is protecting the people of this province. All I can tell you is that this was a system you worked under, it's a system we're working under, and we believe it's a good system.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): A clarification for Hamilton East: there are a number of affordable housing projects on the table at the

moment in Peterborough. Get your facts straight.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Take your seat. Don't start with that. You don't get to --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Take your seat. Don't start doing that. That's what gets this place going, when you make stupid statements like that. I'd ask

that you not do it. Member for Peterborough, ask your question.

Mr Stewart: I don't think it was a stupid question, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: You're not going to get in an argument with me. You're not allowed to go across to the other side during questions; you don't get

to ask questions of the opposition. I ask that you not do it. Do you want your question or not? Otherwise, we'll go in the rotation to the next person if you want. It's up to you: do you want the

question or not?

Mr Stewart: Yes.

The Speaker: Good. Go ahead.

Mr Stewart: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. During constituency week, I had the opportunity to speak with a

number of my constituents about a very important issue to rural Ontario: nurse practitioners. As you know, the pilot project for the nurse practitioner program is in my riding, in the municipality

of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen. Since its inception last year, there have been a number of rumours and media reports within the community that the government is going to pull the funding and the area

will lose its nurse practitioner.

Minister, can you clarify this situation once and for all so that I can assure the people of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen that their government is committed to

providing them with access to primary health care?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): If I may, I'm glad that my colleague from Peterborough raised this issue, because I

know it's one that he has taken a great personal interest in, providing a great deal of hard work on behalf of his constituents. I think that is appreciated, if I may say so, by my fellow caucus

members as well.

I can announce at this time, and I can do so to this chamber and to the people of Peterborough county, that the nurse practitioner program will in fact

continue in Havelock-Belmont-Methuen township next year. Last night, the Peterborough Victorian Order of Nurses advisory board came forward and agreed to sponsor this very program. The Ernie Eves

government will now provide funds to the VON in order to ensure continuous nurse practitioner coverage in the township.

I would like to thank all of those who were involved for their effort and hard work on this issue, and I can tell you that the nurse practitioner program is

another example of the Ernie Eves government providing the best publicly funded and universally available health care possible.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Minister, for your response. I'd also like to thank you, the Eves government and all of the people in the community of

Havelock-Belmont-Methuen for your involvement in this particular issue.

I also understand that the Ministry of Health attended the World Health Organization conference last week. I heard that at the conference, Ontario and the

Ernie Eves government received a special recognition that praised Ontario's universal influenza vaccination program. This is a great accomplishment. As Ontarians, we all should be proud of this

achievement. It just proves that if you want the best health care anywhere in the world, you should come to Ontario.

I was wondering if the Minister of Health could inform my constituents about where to find information about the vaccination program and where they can get the

flu shot in the Peterborough area.

Hon Mr Clement: I'm happy to inform the honourable member in this House that it was an honour to represent Ontario at the World Health

Organization conference, where in fact we as a province were recognized by Klaus Stohr, the program leader of the global influenza program for the World Health Organization, for Ontario's

world-leading role in the fight to eradicate the flu, and we should be proud of this accomplishment.

For more information on the flu shot, I encourage Ontarians to phone 1-866-FLU-NYOU, or 1-866-358-6968. Of course, one can always access HealthyOntario.com.

That is one other way to get that personal information. They can also phone the Peterborough County-City Health Unit at 705-743-1000, or they can visit clinics in their community, for instance the

one at the Peterborough Regional Health Centre tomorrow and Friday of this week, located at One Hospital Drive. The clinic will be open from 10 am to 10 pm. Please get your flu shot. It's important

for yourself and the health of your community as well.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Education. If your supervisor is allowed to cut hundreds of

responsible adults from our schools, our students, I put to you, will be put in danger.

Vice-principals, lunchroom supervisors, educational assistants, school secretaries, caretakers, youth counsellors and attendance counsellors -- all are

responsible adults who watch over our children every day in more ways than one. Principals told me that cutting them from our schools is an accident waiting to happen. They warned of a Walkerton in

our schools.

Why are you putting our children at risk by removing more responsible adults who watch over them from our schools?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): Unfortunately, we continue with the same type of dire predictions as we heard

prior to Mr Christie announcing his balanced budget. You talked about the parenting centres going, the pools going, cuts in the classroom, cuts in special education: none of that has materialized.

In fact, we have increased funding for classroom teachers, textbooks and classroom supplies. We have increased the spending on hall monitors, so we have increased school safety. Everything that has

been done has been to focus on the child in the classroom.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Minister, when I warned your government about privatizing the water testing labs, I got the same

answer. Then Walkerton happened.

Let me tell you that a six-year-old child was sexually assaulted in a school in my riding. The accident has already happened there and the parents, that child

and the community are still trying to deal with it. People are already concerned about their children's safety.

The administration that you're talking about are real people. They are the men and women, the eyes and the ears in the school, who watch and look after our

children. When you mention administration, Minister, you are talking about the eyes and ears who watch our children. I'm asking you today to face reality. These children are now being put at risk.

Tell it like it is. Tell us that you will put these people back in our schools.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I appreciate the member's concern for our children, but the member needs to keep in mind a couple of things: number one, our

government has recognized that our schools need to be safe environments. That's why we introduced the Safe Schools Act. That is very important.

Furthermore, Mr Christie has responded to the need as well by increasing the number of hall monitors. This has been taken into consideration. I would just

Interjections.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): Hall monitors. That means more security.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member for Scarborough Centre can't continue with that. I ask Mrs Mushinski to leave as well. Her

minister had to sit down because of her own member.

Mrs Mushinski was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Stop the clock, sir. I think we lost track of time a little. I think the minister had some more time, if she wishes.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I simply wanted to emphasize the fact that the issue of hall monitors was a very important issue. The number of hall monitors

in order to help and protect students and keep students safe under this budget has actually been increased.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. Today we have more evidence of the need for a public inquiry into

Ipperwash. You'd be aware that the judge at the trial involving the death of Dudley George said, "I find that the accused ... knew that ... Dudley George did not have any firearms on his

person when he shot him," and that the story of the rifle and muzzle flash "was concocted ex post facto in an ill-fated attempt to disguise the fact that an unarmed man had been shot."

Today we find in the government document that the government is saying the protesters were armed. How in the world can the government say that the protesters

were armed when the judge, supported by the Supreme Court of Canada, concluded that the protesters were not armed?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I refer this to the Attorney General.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Indeed the honourable member has raised very similar issues in

this assembly on numerous prior occasions. I have said on those occasions that this is a matter in front of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario. I think we should be respectful of that fact.

This is a matter that should be determined by an independent, impartial trier of fact. It is not a matter that a politician who is partisan should determine, regardless of which side of the

Legislative Assembly they happen to sit on. These are all facts that are in front of the court, and I have the utmost confidence that in due course they will make the right decision.

Mr Phillips: I realize that former Premier Harris has a civil case. But just because there are civil cases before the courts does not stop me

from asking questions here in the Legislature and should not stop a public inquiry.

I want to raise a second point that the government has said. You have said that the protesters were illegal occupiers. You should be aware, Attorney General,

that your own crown attorney was forced in court, when he acknowledged that you had evidence of a burial ground, to drop all of the charges against the protesters. In fact, it says here in your own

document from your crown attorney, "Further, it has been clearly indicated by the provincial division judges at pretrials that this defence will succeed in all instances when it is raised," ie, of

the burial ground, and therefore the crown withdraws all charges.

Again I say to you, you have said in the court document today that they were illegal occupiers, but your crown attorney was forced to drop the charges against

these people in court because you had no evidence that they were there illegally. Why in the world are you putting out documents saying they were illegal occupiers when you yourself, the

government, dropped the charges because you knew you had no evidence that they were illegal occupiers?

Hon Mr Young: I say again that this is not the appropriate forum to determine matters in dispute that are in front of the court. The

honourable member has chosen a paragraph to refer to in what is indeed, as I have here, a 37-page factum that has been filed by the court. He's chosen to ignore all the other paragraphs. He's done

so presumably because it advances his partisan case, his position.

I say to you, sir, with the greatest respect, we should leave this matter to the independent, impartial court that has been assigned to deal with it.

MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question is for the Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing responsible for urban

issues. As you know, Scarborough East is a predominantly urban riding. I must admit I'm pleased to hear the dialogue coming from the government concerning the vitality of urban centres all across

this province. I believe it's important for those who live in urban areas to be assured that we, the Conservative government, have invested in strong communities that will remain globally

competitive in the 21st century.

Minister, yesterday the federal government finally realized, through the Sgro report, that different urban regions actually have unique needs. Can you please

tell this House how our government has already recognized the unique needs of urban communities across this province?

Hon Tina R. Molinari (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for Scarborough East for his question and for

his interest for his community. This is an important issue not only for the constituents of Scarborough East but for constituents in all of Ontario.

This year at the AMO conference, Premier Eves emphasized the need to respond to the challenges facing cities and urban centres. Our province is willing to join

in the emerging dialogue as long as it addresses the real needs of our cities. The process surrounding this dialogue must involve all levels of government working toward co-operative, long-term

solutions for municipalities rather than ad hoc, one-off solutions.

I am pleased to report that my urban forums have been an excellent way to better understand and address the issues of all the opportunities within the urban

centres.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm certainly happy to hear you are making great progress meeting with representatives from urban municipalities across the

province to better understand their issues. I'm also happy to hear that the government's commitments are being followed up by actions.

But yesterday the federal government laid out its plans for Canadian municipalities in the Sgro urban task force report. I have to admit I was encouraged by

the direction that was taken to ensure our cities remain competitive globally. But knowing that Ontario gives $32 billion a year more to Ottawa than we get back, let me say it's high time the

federal government recognized that they should be making reinvestments in our province, the province that carries the rest of Confederation behind it.

Tell me, Minister, as you've been meeting with the people you described in those urban town hall meetings across the province, are they encouraged by the

federal report and the federal Liberal promises?

Hon Mrs Molinari: We are encouraged by the direction the federal government laid out in the Sgro report. Our government agrees that the

continued competitiveness in urban centres is important. We are pleased that the feds have also clearly recognized what we, the province, have been saying all along; that is, the feds have a

significant role to play in the long-term needs in helping municipalities deal with infrastructure challenges.

We will continue to demand that the federal government play a greater role as a full partner to help fund infrastructure needs and that they are coordinated

with the provincial governments and for municipal priorities. Our government looks forward to working in partnership with the federal government once they make long-term funding guarantees for

municipalities. They must also recognize the fiscal imbalance that is existent between the federal government and the province of Ontario and all the provinces.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. On November 6, I asked if you had stopped the tar

pond sludge from Sydney, Nova Scotia, from being accepted into Ontario and dumped into the landfill in St Clair township. From the response you provided at the time, you obviously didn't understand

the question, nor did you know your facts.

On November 8, 2002, the waste management branch of the environment ministry confirmed that the Brigden site near Sarnia is the only site in the province with

a permit to bury untreated hazardous waste. I'd like to go further: it is the only place in North America that allows this type of dumping. So I'll ask you again: will you stop the highly toxic tar

pond sludge from Sydney, Nova Scotia, from being dumped in Ontario?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): The fact is that we have harmonized with the neighbouring

jurisdictions our levels for dumping with respect to sludge. There is a certain requirement that anyone who wants to do that would have to meet according to Ontario provincial standards. The only

way they can do the dumping is that they meet the Ontario provincial standards, which have been harmonized.

To put the case to the point, if you look back to the dumping in previous administrations, hazardous waste imports have now gone down by over 31%. Why did they

go down 31%? Because we changed the regulations to force people who were trying to dump this sludge in the province to conform to tighter regulations that conform to other jurisdictions around us.

So it's going down, and next year we expect it to go down again. Our regulations are tough, we've made them tougher and the fact of the matter is that they have been harmonized, something previous

administrations didn't do.

Ms Di Cocco: Minister, you've harmonized it so well that we're trucking it in from Sydney, Nova Scotia. There's nothing closer that will take

the waste. I'll tell you, you really are a piece of work. How is it in the best interests of Ontario to allow 9.3 million pounds of this highly toxic substance from the Domtar tanks in Sydney, Nova

Scotia, to be dumped in Ontario? You tell me how that is in the best interests of the public and the best interests of the people of Ontario. Your ministry doesn't know that you've changed the

regulations, and neither does the site in Brigden. Have you changed their certificate of approval? I don't think so. Minister, will you stop that substance from coming into Ontario?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Well, here's how the system works: you change it by regulation. The regulations were changed by this government to force any

people who are importing this stuff to meet the requirements and regulations that the government has set down. We changed the regulations. That's why it has been reduced by 31%. The question that

you put forward is that the staff doesn't know about this --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Oh, that's way out of order. I saw what she said. It was far worse than what my friend the minister said the other day, and

I think you should stand up and withdraw that.

Mr Speaker, the honourable member did the honourable thing yesterday and withdrew. I think that honourable member should do the honourable thing and withdraw

that comment.

Ms Di Cocco: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I will withdraw the comment that I made.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member, and the minister I think has about 10 seconds to wrap up.

Hon Mr Stockwell: What I want to say is that that material -- and I'll go even further. If you have a community group that would like to meet

with me so I can explain the new regulations and tell them all the work that we've done to make sure that this meets the requirements, I'll be happy to meet with that community and explain to them

the process. I think we should get into direct dialogue between me and that community rather than you and that community, so I can get them educated.

INTERJURISDICTIONAL

SUPPORT ORDERS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to our Attorney General. Minister, I know that the people of Durham and the people of Ontario share

your commitment that families and children who rely on support orders receive the payments they are entitled to. It's simply a question of fairness and respect, not the least of which is the law.

I'm very disappointed that some individuals try to avoid their legal responsibilities by moving out of the province, indeed out of the country. These people feel that by leaving Ontario's borders

they are able to turn their backs on their communities, perhaps their families, and indeed the law.

Minister, these people need to know that leaving Ontario -- they should realize they can run but they can't hide from their obligations --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. We'll let the member speak. Order, please. We almost have -- time's up, and the member wants to ask the

question. I'll let the member start over again.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: You're almost done now.

Mr O'Toole: In that case, there's more to be said on this issue, but certainly I want to leave our Attorney General an appropriate amount of

time to respond in defence, not just of the people of Durham, but in fact of Ontario. You can run but you can't hide from our Attorney General, and I can tell you that those individuals fleeing the

law and the court orders are denying access to their families and their children.

What recent actions, Minister, have you taken to ensure that the money owed to these families will be collected regardless of where the parent lives? Indeed,

Speaker, this is all about protecting children. I know our Attorney General wants to respond to this.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): This is indeed an important point. I appreciate that it's the end

of question period, but there are a lot of individuals across this province, and indeed across the country, who would be very interested in this very positive development.

No child should ever go without simply because one parent moves into another jurisdiction across this country, or for that matter anywhere. What we have done

under the leadership of Premier Eves is we have brought forward legislation that was signed into law yesterday, Bill 131, the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, that will simplify the method

by which parents in one jurisdiction can have support orders enforced in other jurisdictions. It is reciprocal. I'm very proud of that fact. I'm very proud of the fact that literally thousands of

families will now find it easier to have those support orders honoured and to have the funds delivered to where they are supposed to be delivered, in most cases to some of the most vulnerable

people in our society, young children.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish to express my dissatisfaction with the Premier's answer to my

question today. I have filed the appropriate document challenging the Premier. I know he won't show up -- but it would be different -- to a late show.

Interjections.

Mr Cordiano: Why not? That would be the appropriate --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member. He has filed that; that's very good. We will make sure that happens.

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: On September 23, I tabled a petition in this House and it was to be

responded to by the Minister of Housing. We have no response to date, and the 24 sessional days are long past. I am seeking that an answer be given.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member for the point of order. The members will know that the requirement has gone past the time, I

do believe, so the minister, hopefully, will get a chance to respond to that and I'm sure he will.

PETITIONS

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I have a petition here signed by 8,080 people from Timiskaming-Cochrane in regard to Bennett

Environmental toxic waste application.

"Whereas the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act has been significantly weakened with regard to the regulations concerning the siting of landfills,

incinerators and other project proposals, thereby allowing northern Ontario to be unduly targeted as a waste zone; and

"Whereas American experience has show that all, even state-of-the-art, incinerators produce and emit dioxins, furons, lead, mercury and cadmium at levels that

create significant measurable health impacts on the affected communities; and

"Whereas the proposed Bennett incinerator is in violation of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment guidelines;

"We, the undersigned, petition you, as the Premier of the province of Ontario, to turn down the current application for the Bennett toxic waste incinerator

proposed for Kirkland Lake; and

"We, the undersigned, further petition you, as Premier of the province of Ontario, to replace the current Environmental Assessment Act with legislation that

gives affected communities a full environmental assessment including intervener funding and a comprehensive and public hearing."

I will affix my signature to this.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): This petition has been sent to me by Jubilee Heritage Family Resources in Sudbury. 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 funding 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 this.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I'm presenting this petition on behalf of the member for Oakville. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the province has stated its commitment to ensuring affordable hydro rates for the citizens of Ontario;

"Whereas the province's recent move to deregulate hydro rates and place them within the competitive context of the open market has resulted in actual and high

rate increases, including retroactive ones, for Ontarians, summer heat waves notwithstanding;

"Whereas these hydro rate increases, above and beyond what citizens have paid before deregulation, present a great burden to many young families and those who

are on fixed incomes;

"Whereas the province itself admits that a review of hydro rates is necessary and has inaugurated one, albeit one with an overly lengthy mandate;

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

"That the province be directed to freeze hydro rates to last year's levels immediately during its current review of its deregulation policy and move forward to

protect citizens of Ontario against such exorbitant rate hikes."

It's signed by many hundreds of constituents of the riding of Oakville. Might I add, the member for Oakville was absolutely right.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have more petitions related to the Union Gas retroactive delivery charge and the need for

the government to act, which backs up the plea made earlier in the day by my colleague from Sudbury, Rick Bartolucci.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act disallowing the retroactive

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

further retroactive rate increases."

I am strongly in support of this and am happy to sign my name. I will pass it off to Jared, one of our new pages. Thank you very much.

CUSTODIAL CARE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"The regional council of Niagara have presented to the social services minister the following recommended changes to the legislation:

"

(1) That the province of Ontario amend the Child and Family Services Act to recognize custodial care by extended family members as a legitimate intervention

and that the related funding to support these care arrangements be made available;

"

(2) That the temporary care allowance rate pursuant to the Ontario Works Act be altered to reflect established rates for similar care by foster parents;

"

(3) That the regional municipality of Niagara, along with the Niagara Family and Children's Services, train their respective staff on the program options

available to extended family members wishing to care for children;

"

(4) That the region of Niagara, along with Family and Children's Services, advocate for the recommended changes with the Ministry of Community and Social

Services as well as relevant associations, such as the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies;

"

(5) That other consolidated municipal services managers be informed of this issue through circulation of this committee report;

"

(6) That the province of Ontario be encouraged to consider a legislative change to permit open adoptions;

"

(7) That the regional chair correspond with the Minister of Community and Social Services to advise the minister of these recommendations;

"We, the undersigned support these recommended changes to the legislation."

I of course have affixed my signature as well and I send it to you with page Brian from Sarnia.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas some motorists are recklessly endangering the lives of children by not obeying the highway traffic law requiring them to stop for school buses with

their warning lights activated;

"Whereas the current law has no teeth to protect the children who ride the school buses of Ontario, and who are at risk and their safety is in jeopardy;

"Whereas the current school bus law is difficult to enforce, since not only is a licence plate number required but positive identification of the driver and

vehicle as well, which makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction;

"Therefore,

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

"That the measures contained in private member's Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to protect children while on school buses, presented by Pat

Hoy, MPP, Chatham-Kent-Essex, be immediately enacted. Bill 112 received the unanimous all-party support of the Ontario Legislature at second reading on June 13, 2002.

"Bill 112 imposed liability on the owner of a vehicle who fails to stop for a school bus that has its overhead red signal lights flashing....

"And we ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

I have affixed my name to this petition.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): These petitions are from residents of Hamilton. They 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 have affixed my signature to this.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a continuing petition with regard to the multi-laning of Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound.

It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

Whereas in the last three years, 46 people have died on that stretch of highway between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

Whereas so far this year 10 people have been tragically killed on that highway between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

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

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

Whereas the Premier of this province, Ernie Eves, will be in Sudbury tomorrow night; and

Whereas the community of Sudbury demand that the Premier of this province announce a start date for the four-laning of Highway 69 tomorrow night in Sudbury;

and

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition and give it to Lauren, our new page, to bring to the table.

KIDNEY DISEASE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): This petition is signed by people from Hamilton. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned residents of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislature to the following:

"Whereas kidney disease is a huge and growing problem in Canada;

"Whereas real progress is being made in various ways of preventing and coping with kidney disease;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to encourage the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to explicitly include kidney

research as one of the institutes in its system, to be named the Institute of Kidney and Urinary Tract Diseases."

I have affixed my signature to this.

LONG-TERM CARE

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

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

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

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

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

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

resident for nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

the government's own study."

I affix my signature. I'm in agreement with the petition.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This is a petition addressed to the government of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, recognize that:

"

(1) Electricity rates in deregulated, private, for-profit markets such as Alberta and California fluctuate wildly in supply and price, and are a much higher

price than in comparable public power systems;

"

(2) Deregulation in California caused more blackouts than Ontario has suffered from ice storms or other natural disasters while public power has protected us

from market fluctuations in supply as well as price;

"

(3) At-cost electricity has helped build and support Ontario's economy, while deregulation would destabilize the economy, with soaring rates, reduced

reliability and increased production costs leading to plant closures, job loss and economic decline;

"

(4) Soaring electricity rates would put a significant burden on school boards, hospitals, public transit and other public services which cannot afford to pay

double for their electricity;

"

(5) Seniors and other members of our communities on fixed incomes would be hard-hit by increasing rates, and the living standards of millions of Ontarians

will be harmed;

"

(6) Privatization will trigger NAFTA provisions, making it practically impossible to reverse this dangerous experiment and would cost us Canadian control over

electricity;

"

(7) Privatization, deregulation and loss of sovereignty would close the door on public accountability of the industry in regard to environmental safety and

energy security concerns; and

"

(8) An alternative exists in the form of a truly accountable, transparent and affordable publicly owned and controlled system operated at cost for the benefit

of all Ontarians;

"Therefore, we demand that the Ontario government immediately halt the planned privatization, sell-off and deregulation of the public electricity system."

I have affixed my signature as well, as has Ms Martel from northern Ontario, my colleague in the NDP caucus.

EDUCATION FUNDING

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

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least" $2 billion "from our schools and

is now closing many classrooms completely; and

"Whereas international language weekend classes are a needed part of learning for many students in our neighbourhood; and

"Whereas the Education Act, specifically regulation 285(5), mandates provision of these programs where demand exists; and

"Whereas the Conservative government funding formula is forcing the Toronto District School Board to cancel these Saturday classes for groups who want this

programming;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to instruct the Minister of Education to restore meaningful

and flexible funding to the Toronto District School Board, to ensure that they are able to continue to accommodate these Saturday international languages classes."

I wholeheartedly agree with this petition, as do my colleagues, and I have affixed my signature to it.

OPPOSITION DAY

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the leader of the third party, Mr Hampton from Rainy River.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I move the following resolution:

Be it resolved that skyrocketing hydro bills have shown beyond any doubt that Ontario's hydro system must be operated as a non-profit public service;

That no portion of Hydro One or Ontario Power Generation should be sold or otherwise transferred into the control of profit-seeking corporations;

That hydro bills for all customers, including the price of the electricity itself, must be regulated on the basis of power at cost by an independent public

utilities commission;

That Ontario Power Generation should get back into the business of building generating capacity, starting with a major commitment to green power, conservation

and efficiency but also including a significant amount of gas-fired power. Enough new generation should be built to allow all Ontario's coal-fired generating plants to be shut down by 2007. OPG's

plans for new capacity should be subject to public review and a final decision by the independent public utilities commission; and

That it is now urgent to terminate the disastrous experiment with a so-called competitive market in electricity.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Hampton has moved opposition day number 3. There was one misprint in mine. Should that be 2007?

Mr Hampton: Yes, 2007.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The Chair recognizes the leader of the third party, from Kenora-Rainy River. I'm sorry to have missed the

"Kenora" earlier.

Mr Hampton: That's all right, Speaker. I know that as constituencies change with every federal redistribution, your constituency may disappear

in this election.

I can think of no issue that is more urgent for people across this province. We have seen over the last four years a Conservative government tell the people of

Ontario that privatizing our hydro system, turning what has been a not-for-profit hydro system into one that is owned by several profit-driven companies, and deregulating the price would be good

for consumers. That was the government's line. In fact, they spent millions of dollars on television advertising campaigns, on newspaper advertising campaigns, telling people across the province

that privatized, deregulated hydro would increase supply and lower the price.

For our part as New Democrats we pointed out time and time again to people that no matter where you look, privatized and deregulated hydroelectricity has

indeed not worked very well. Certainly the instant examples that come to mind include the situation in California, where prices literally went through the roof and where there were rolling

brownouts and blackouts. And we learned after the fact that there never really was an electricity shortage in California; it was just that when profit-making companies get their hands on the

generation and supply of electricity, they have every incentive to engage in market manipulation, creating artificial electricity shortages and then driving up the price and gouging consumers. That

happened in California, and people know about it.

Then we saw the episode in Alberta, where people literally saw, after deregulation and partial privatization of the system, that people's hydro bills went up

500%. Montana: people saw their hydro bills, after deregulation in the state, go up four times. If we want to look farther abroad, many parts of urban New Zealand went without hydroelectricity on a

continuing brownout and blackout basis for months following hydro deregulation there. And then we have the case of Great Britain, where they essentially had to re-regulate the system in order to

cut out some of the market manipulation, but the re-regulating of the system has meant that some of the companies that were in fact gouging consumers before are now bankrupt; British Energy comes

to mind.

New Democrats pointed out time and time again that deregulation-privatization was not going to result in adequate or reliable or predictable supply of

electricity; if anything it would create conditions of chaotic supply. And what do we have now? Today a report comes out from an independent body, the North American Electric Reliability Council.

It's their winter report for 2002-03, and what do they say about Ontario? They say that the reserve capacity in Ontario, for those days when you have peak demand or peak need for electricity, isn't

sufficient. They say that we've only got a 10% reserve supply. Even California has an oversupply of 20%. Quebec, next door to Ontario and which has not-for-profit, publicly owned hydroelectricity,

has an over 18% reserve capacity. But following five years of this government's fascination with privatized, deregulated hydroelectricity in the province, we are in a situation where we could well

face brownouts and blackouts this winter. Imagine, when it's 20 below zero or 30 below zero in a community in this province and the power goes off and there's no electric heat.

This government wants to pretend that's not a problem. In fact, this government believes that by mailing out some $75 rebate cheques they can cover up the

problem, they can hide the problem. This government has created a very, very serious problem indeed, and merely mailing out some pre-election hydro rebate cheques, a sort of pre-election bribe to

people, in the hope that they can cover up the problem by doing that just illustrates how bankrupt this government is in terms of its whole misguided hydro privatization and deregulation --

completely bankrupt.

In the months of August, September and October, people across the province started to figure this out; in the months of June and July, they started figuring it

out too. The government said there'd be lots of power, but the hydroelectric Independent Market Operator, about every second week during the summer, was putting out an advisory, "Please, consumers

of Ontario, can you shut off the air conditioner? Can you stop using the electricity that you need, because we're in a brownout situation?"

It was very interesting in question period today. The Premier tried to deny that there had been brownouts. Somebody needs to inform the Premier that this

summer the IMO categorically states there were no less than six brownouts in the province of Ontario. A brownout is defined as a situation where there is not enough electricity to meet the demand,

and you then either face rolling voltage problems or you have to ask people to reduce their demand for electricity in order to avoid a real disaster. Somebody needs to inform the Premier that there

were in fact six brownouts this summer.

In the summer you can perhaps deal with those without too serious consequences, but in the winter when it's 30 below, or colder in many communities in the

province, and you face a brownout, that is very serious stuff indeed. This government needs to recognize that it is its misguided hydro privatization and deregulation scheme that has led us to this

point and put people at this kind of risk.

The people discovered, this summer and this fall when they started getting their hydro bills, what hydro privatization and deregulation means when they started

getting all these warnings from the IMO: "Please turn off your air conditioner. Please turn off your lights." I don't think the government's propaganda campaign is going to fool anyone. I don't

think the $75 pre-election bribery cheque is going to fool anyone either.

People know what happened in Alberta. They know that the Premier had a tête-à-tête with Alberta Premier Ralph Klein two weeks ago. Ralph Klein

told Premier Eves two weeks ago, "After the price of electricity went through the roof in Alberta following privatization and deregulation, we were in political trouble there too. But we just

floated some pre-election rebate cheques and people swallowed it. And then after the election we ended the rebate cheques, and their hydro bills went through the roof -- but we still got

re-elected." That was the Alberta strategy.

It's very clear that Premier Eves and the Conservative government think the same pre-election bribery will work here in Ontario. But I have to tell you, I

think Ontario people have been watching what happened in California, Alberta and Montana. People are aware that Montana, in the state elections two weeks ago, voted overwhelmingly to get rid of the

deregulation scheme and re-regulate the price and supply of hydroelectricity in that state. So I don't think people are going to fall for this pre-election bribe, this $75 gift in the mail, just

before the election.

There are very serious issues here that have to be addressed. I want to address them. Unlike our counterparts in the Liberal Party -- it's hard to say what

their policy is now on electricity. It was pretty clear,