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

May 15, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-May-15 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 15 May 2002 Mercredi 15 mai 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

TIA SMITH

POLICE WEEK

LORNE HENDERSON

PROVINCIAL PARKS

AINSWORTH DYER

NATIONAL MISSING CHILDREN'S DAY

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

DAIRY FARMERS

VISITORS

LORNE HENDERSON

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES /

SERVICES DE SANTÉ MENTALE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GROVES MEMORIAL COMMUNITY

HOSPITAL ACT, 2002

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT (WORKPLACE CARCINOMA COMMITTEE), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL (COMITÉ DU CARCINOME D'ORIGINE PROFESSIONNELLE)

CORRECTION OF RECORD

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

HYDRO ONE

HEALTH CARE

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

HEALTH CARE

MINISTRY SPENDING

SUPPORT FOR AGRICULTURE

AMBULANCE SERVICES

FIREFIGHTERS MEMORIAL

AMBULANCE SERVICES

HYDRO ONE

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

PETITIONS

HYDRO ONE

RENT REGULATION

COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE CENTRE

HYDRO ONE

RENT REGULATION

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

HYDRO ONE

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CHILD CARE

HYDRO ONE

VISITORS

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE /

DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE

Wednesday 15 May 2002 Mercredi 15 mai 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to express my concern about a report from Hamilton in regard to the dispatch services for

ambulances in the Hamilton-greater Niagara-Grimsby-Brant area. This report, which was tabled and given to the government in October of last year, is an indictment of this government's failure to

properly fund ambulance dispatchers across Ontario. What is more disturbing, Speaker, is that this government had this report in its hands at the end of October. It was only released in the last

few days.

This report talks about delays in ambulances being sent out; this report talks about the fact that ambulances were sent to wrong addresses; this report talks

about the fact that the dispatch service was badly understaffed; this report talks about the fact that computer systems were badly outdated.

What does this government do? They hide it. They sit on this report. There are at least two deaths in the area attributed right now to delays in ambulance

response. This government, instead of coming clean with the public of Ontario, sat on this report, failed to act and now is giving us some feeble excuse as to why they let down the people in the

Hamilton-Niagara area.

We demand answers, and we demand them today. We want to know what action this government has taken, what steps they have taken to fix this problem. Can they

guarantee to Ontarians and people in the Hamilton-Niagara area that these problems have been fixed and that, when they call for an ambulance, one will be there on time and their lives will not be

put in jeopardy by the irresponsibility and gross neglect of this government, as we have seen in this report here today?

TIA SMITH

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I'd like to recognize a young First Nations woman from my riding. She lives at Six Nations and she

steps into her new role as Miss Indian World 2002.

Tia Smith, who earlier this year earned the title of Miss Six Nations, became the first Six Nations woman to be crowned Miss Indian World. This is no small feat,

as she took the honours at the largest powwow in North America: a gathering of nations in Albuquerque, New Mexico. There, in a field of 24 that included some of the brightest and most talented

native women from across North America, Tia Smith impressed the judges with her talent, her charm and her knowledge of native tradition.

The Miss Indian World title is considered to be the highest and most prestigious cultural pageant title. In addition to being a role model, the titleholder

represents all native people and serves as a goodwill ambassador to all cultures throughout the world. Tia Smith will be asked to help bridge cultural gaps between native people and non-native

people worldwide.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Tia Smith for her achievement, to wish her well as she strives to represent not only friends and relatives at

home on Six Nations, but also as she represents native people right across North America.

POLICE WEEK

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I'm honoured today to speak on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus to recognize this week as Police Week.

From Monday, May 13, until Sunday, May 19, citizens in communities across the province are invited to become more aware of the services provided by Ontario police.

With the events of the recent past still fresh in our minds, it's important to remind ourselves of the tremendous job our police services do. These brave men and

women go out every day and put their lives on the line to provide hard-working families with safe communities in which their loved ones can grow up.

Sometimes we take these services for granted. In our hectic lives it is often not easy to reflect on those who work to make our lives better. So let us take the

time now to reflect, but more importantly to express our appreciation. To the men and women of our police services we say thank you. Thank you for the job you do day in and day out. You are

appreciated and respected.

To the families, loved ones and friends of our police officers we say thank you for sharing these noble men and women with us. Thank you for your patience and

understanding about the career path they've followed. To the community partners that help our police services and make their job a little easier we say thank you too.

I ask the citizens of Ontario to visit the displays in malls, in the open houses at police stations and at career days at our schools, and wherever you find a

police officer, take the time to say thank you for a job well done. Let us not take our public servants for granted.

In the provincial Legislature, Police Week is a time to reflect to make sure that we as elected officials are providing support for our front-line workers. We

need to ensure that they have the tools to do their job.

On a personal note, this marks the 125th anniversary of the Brantford police. The Brantford gala drew 900 people to celebrate our police. We congratulate our

retiring Chief Peeling, and we also say good luck to Police Chief Ray Fitzpatrick in his new role. Thank you to our police officers across the province of Ontario.

LORNE HENDERSON

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I rise today to recognize the passing of Lorne Henderson on February 7. Lorne was a member in this

House for the riding of Lambton between the years 1963 and 1985. Some of the senior members in this House would certainly remember him.

Lorne was the ultimate politician. He was first elected in 1946 as a councillor in Enniskillen township. He then represented his community as deputy reeve, reeve

and warden of the county. He was elected to the House in 1963 and re-elected in 1967, 1971, 1975, 1977 and 1981. He served in many capacities as a member, but his most cherished appointment was his

role as Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Lorne was born and raised near the community of Oil Springs. He was truly a farm boy. Lorne's formal education was at the elementary level, but when it came to

politics, he certainly had the equivalent of a PhD. I can only dream about what his thesis would have been, but how to manage a constituency would probably have been appropriate.

Lorne was physically an imposing individual. He was a large man, a man who cared greatly about his constituency. He was once described by a journalist as a

politician who had his ear so close to the ground he could hear the grass grow. He served his constituency well as a member.

After retiring from the provincial scene, he remained very active in the community as a volunteer with many organizations. He was described as Mr Lambton.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I would like to express our deepest sympathies to Reta and the Henderson family.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): In my riding, the beautiful Land of Lakes is known throughout Ontario as one of

the premier locations for outdoor activities. It is the home of the beautiful Bon Echo Provincial Park, famous for its majestic rock, wilderness trails and excellent swimming and fishing.

Consequently, people in my riding are indignant that this government has announced it will not open Bon Echo Provincial Park for the Victoria Day weekend.

I was surprised to learn that the minister had not even established contingency plans during the OPSEU strike to ensure that all parks would be able to open on

time. This government has saved millions of dollars during the strike, and I believe some of those dollars should be directed to a no-holds-barred effort to get the parks open safely.

Businesses in my riding have told me that the Victoria Day weekend is their busiest weekend of the season. Unlike the ministry, these businesses have planned

ahead and have ordered thousands of dollars in supplies to be ready for park customers. Now, at the 11th hour, the Minister of Natural Resources has said that Bon Echo park will not open.

This is a major blow to local businesses and one caused by the Eves government. If Premier Eves wants to show he cares about businesses other than those on Bay

Street, he needs to direct the Minister of Natural Resources to show some leadership and get Ontario's parks open safely and swiftly so everyone can enjoy the Victoria Day weekend.

AINSWORTH DYER

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On April 23, 2002, Corporal Ainsworth Dyer, 25 years old, was laid to rest. Ainsworth was killed by

so-called "friendly fire" while on active duty in Afghanistan, along with three other young heroes from across Canada. I never knew Ainsworth Dyer, but I attended his high school graduation from

Eastdale Collegiate in the spring of 1997. As he crossed the stage, I handed him a certificate.

I had heard such wonderful things about him from teachers at the school and many others who knew him. He was a big, handsome man who loved to weight-lift and

helped start the weightlifting club at his school.

It was one of the most difficult moments of my life to see this young, vibrant, handsome man lying in his coffin in full uniform. My heart goes out to his

mother, his father, his sister, his fiancée and other relatives and friends whom I met that night at the funeral home. There are no words any of us can say, hero as he was, that can bring him

back and that can help the family as they go through the pain and suffering of this terrible loss.

As Dyer's sister, Carolyn, said, "My brother was a beautiful person on the inside as much as on the outside. I can never be more honoured that he's my brother. I

could never feel more proud, for he's my hero."

On behalf of the NDP caucus, and I'm sure all of us, I want to extend our sympathy to the family and friends of this brave man.

NATIONAL MISSING CHILDREN'S DAY

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I want to acknowledge National Missing Children's Day, which falls 10 days from now, on May 25.

Throughout the month of May, Child Find Ontario is holding their 11th annual Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign.

For the last 17 years, Child Find Ontario has been helping to bring missing children home. Meanwhile children, the future of our society, are still missing, have

run away, have been lost or have been abducted. Some 60,000 missing children are reported each year.

The positive news is that the hard work of the over 1,000 volunteers throughout Ontario, with help from civic and corporate partners, has aided in the location

of over 90% of missing children. Their 24-hour hotline, help from law enforcement agencies, customs and immigration, and the community have all contributed enormously to this cause.

I congratulate Child Find Ontario on its successes and commend the organization for its tireless efforts in this cause. My hopes are that communities will

continue to work together and fight for lost children and their families that they are separated from.

I, along with other MPPs, will wear the green ribbon to show our acknowledgement of National Missing Children's Day on May 25.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): You can understand the absolute chagrin of the opposition benches when we found out this morning that the

dinner between Ernie Eves and Jim Flaherty got cancelled. The linens were set, the silverware was out, the Cohibas were ready, the single-malt scotches were ready to be passed around, Mike Harris

had been brought in to try to bring our two bosom buddies closer together to help them bond as we enter the Ernie Eves era, but what happened?

I can understand Ernie wanting to talk to Jim. Jim had said that Ernie was a pale pink imitation of Dalton McGuinty, that Ernie Eves was a serial waffler. Jim

said that Ernie doesn't have any plans, that he lacked conviction, that he'd make the Tories lose the next election. He said all of that in the leadership campaign.

So the linens were out, the table was set and somebody cancelled. Did Ernie cancel on Jim, or did Jim cancel on Ernie? What could have come between them yet

again? Is there a division in the ranks over Hydro? Could it be that what Mr Flaherty said outside of cabinet, that they ought to privatize Hydro, is the policy? Or is it what Mr Stockwell said,

that in fact public ownership should remain on the table? What a shame the dinner was cancelled. Those two need to do some bonding. But if they don't, Dalton McGuinty is ready to lead this province

and cancel the sale of Hydro One.

DAIRY FARMERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): In my first member's statement in this new session of the Legislature, I want to offer my appreciation to

our farm families, who do so much to enhance our standard of living, quality of life and way of life in the province of Ontario. The dairy farmers of Waterloo-Wellington are an excellent example of

this.

According to the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, there are about 709 dairy farms in Waterloo region and Wellington county, which ship about 254 million litres of milk

to processors, worth almost $142 million. Close to 1,000 families work on our dairy farms, which provide a total of nearly 2,800 jobs. To illustrate the positive local economic impact of our dairy

farms, we would need about 4,700 jobs paying $30,000 a year to replace Waterloo's and Wellington's milk income.

In February this year, I attended the Waterloo-Wellington dairy day in Drayton, where producers talked about a quality assurance program that detects and solves

quality control problems literally before they happen. I thank all the organizers and presenters for their contributions to the dairy day.

I also want to thank the Wellington county dairy farmers for organizing a tour for me in April of Arnold Vervoort's farm near Fergus and Keith Burns's Burnside

Farms in the township of West Garafraxa to provide me with an on-site look at the work they do.

Based on these consultations, it's easy to conclude that dairy farmers in Waterloo-Wellington are seeing that best practices are shared, are implemented and that

they get better all the time, supported by the supply management marketing system that I know is very strongly supported by our new Minister of Agriculture and Food, who is present in the House

today.

All members should be very grateful for the efforts of our farm families, who labour to feed us all.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As today is being named National Medicare Day, I seek unanimous consent of

the House to have a brief discussion by all parties on National Medicare Day.

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

VISITORS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You and this assembly might be interested in knowing that visiting from

England are Phil and Sheila Coren. They're accompanied by their son Michael.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We're very pleased to have the Corens here from England.

I'd like to inform the members that we have with us today in the Speaker's gallery Mr Tom Watson, Member of Parliament from Westminster, accompanied by Mrs

Watson.

LORNE HENDERSON

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I request unanimous consent to make some remarks about a distinguished former member of the Legislature of

Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Hastings: I rise today with considerable sadness, because it's just a number of months ago that we lost one of the most distinguished members

of the Ontario Legislature by the name of Lorne Henderson, who served his family, his community, his party, his people and this province with outstanding elegance, with outstanding dedication to

the public service cause.

Lorne Henderson served for some 22 years in the Ontario Legislature as the member for Lambton. He was first elected in 1963. He served in a number of ministerial

capacities, primarily as Minister of Agriculture of Ontario and Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing.

Prior to his election to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Lorne Henderson served his community in a variety of capacities, including the very distinguished

wardenship of Lambton county.

From those modest beginnings, from those experiences in his life as a farmer, I can tell you personally that Lorne Henderson was one of the hardest working

public servants in the province of Ontario. How do I know this? During the 1970s -- although it is somewhat ironic to speak in this context today -- I served as his executive assistant from 1975

when he was Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing.

Lorne was a grassroots politician, as most of us are. He was a results-oriented type of guy, and during my tenure of about a year and a half as his executive

assistant, you could find out the personal nature: what kind of character, what kind of gentleman Lorne Henderson was. I can tell you, Speaker and all the people who are here today and all his

friends and neighbours, that he was a large man in a physical sense, but that was matched much more by his largeness in spirit, his awesomeness in soul.

He was really a happy trooper underneath his gruff exterior. I can often remember being at the end of his very persistent demands: "Where are you on that,

John?" "Why hasn't that been done?" "When will that be concluded?" He wanted things done, and he wanted things done quickly. And those things referred to his constituents. He was fully cognizant,

always present -- prescient, I would say -- in terms of looking after the needs of the constituents of Lambton whom he served with so much distinction and dedication for all those years.

When he was Minister of Agriculture in the cabinet of Premier William Davis, you certainly knew that agriculture was at the forefront in government policy of

the last Davis administration. He was persistent. He was always requiring that the government of the day look after the needs of agriculture. When he was minister, agriculture across this province

had an outstanding voice, one in which the needs and requirements of the farmers of this province were well served. When I did work for him as executive assistant, as minister without portfolio I

think he transferred in an unconscious sense the natural connection between rural Ontario and urban Ontario, which is much missing today. In my first term here I had the opportunity to merge those

two interests, and I would attribute that natural connection over time to the persistence and the outstanding accomplishments of Lorne Henderson when he served as the Minister of Agriculture of

this province.

So I say in reflection that it was a real privilege to have served him as executive assistant and to have learned so much from him in the way he went about

looking after his constituents, in dealing with the demands of public life in those days. My condolences to his family and friends, for he will be missed for the distinguished service he provided

to this province for 22 years in this Legislature and beyond.

Up above, I'm sure he is demanding of Peter that there be an accountability of the needs of the public up there in terms of agriculture. That's what he really

stood for in the province of Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's an honour for me to pay tribute to Lorne Henderson in the House today. It's with a good deal of

sadness that we learned of his passing in February of this year, when the House was not in session at the time to pay tribute to him. He was an individual whom you will never forget if you served

with him; perhaps, a person more representative of the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s than you would find in the composition of a present Legislature across this country, particularly in a place like

Ontario.

What you recall of him and what you learn of a person often is found in the pages of newspapers. The other day, I was going through several clippings about

Lorne and how he was quite a character in this House. Yes, he was an individual who would be the first to admit he had a grade 8 education and spoke with less than perfect grammar. But he had an

awful lot of what you would call common sense; not the kind of common sense I see contained in something called the Common Sense Revolution, but the genuine common sense of a person who was close

to the land and close to people and who brought a lot of wisdom to the Davis cabinet. Some of the people who dominate these cabinets from time to time know what it's like in downtown Toronto but

not necessarily in downtown Petrolia. Certainly, he knew very well what it was like in the rural parts of Ontario, and he could relate very well to folks in those rural communities.

Marcel Beaubien gave a tribute to him earlier today in the time allocated for members' statements, and one of the comments he made I would repeat. I remember

my friend Conway saying this of Lorne at one time, and I want to repeat it, Marcel, because it is so true of him. Lorne's ear was so close to the grass that he could hear it grow. That's what kind

of grassroots politician he was.

I was looking at a column -- interestingly enough, it appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix in 1980. It starts off this way: "In this age of slick politics,

Ontario Agriculture Minister Lorne Henderson belongs to a vanishing breed of back-concession politicians.

"The 59-year-old hog farmer does not rely on consultants and experts -- he checks the public pulse by talking to constituents over fences and at kitchen

tables."

Don MacDonald, a former leader of the NDP and a person who was in this House for a long period of time, recalled that Henderson was "a very tough, adept Tory

backbencher who built his credits within the party, and presumably with the Premier, by serving the backbenches, battling for their interests and not neglecting his own along the way."

They go on to say in this article, "He may not be smooth but he knows politics: he once turned a local hospital closing into an expansion in the midst of

government restraint.

"And when Premier William Davis came to town to help present the cheque to local hospital officials" -- and this is vintage Lorne Henderson -- he said, "`Me

and the Premier brung you this here cheque.'" Everybody understood what he said.

He was very much beloved in this House, particularly by those who were part of his committee, which was the tile drainage committee. We don't travel very much

any more in Legislative committees. They are watched assiduously by members of the media, who often don't know when the House is sitting and isn't sitting, but they certainly know if members are

travelling somewhere. Lorne Henderson was the chair of the tile drainage committee. He felt that they had to travel to very exotic places such as Florida, perhaps Europe, Quebec and other provinces

to determine what the situation was with tile drainage in those areas. When people complained about it, he simply looked at the results and said this would have a revolutionary effect on farming

methods here in Ontario.

Lorne, as has been said, was a huge, imposing man. It said he was six foot one, 270 pounds. He always seemed to be taller to me, but of course a lot of people

seem to be taller to me. He seemed to be a giant of about six foot five, with one of the hugest hands you'd ever see. But that hand was always outstretched, not only to those who followed him, who

were his fellow Conservatives, but to those of us who were in the opposition and, I'm sure, to people across the province. While Lorne valued loyalty from those in his constituency, he also

recognized that he was elected to help people of all political stripes and to be of assistance.

Constituents found they could communicate with him. Before there were constituency offices, it was a real challenge for members to deal with the problems of

their constituents. Lorne would simply have them down to the farmhouse, around the kitchen table, in the living room, chatting about their problems on a weekend, perhaps 35 or 40 people at a

time.

So a giant of Ontario politics has been lost to us. A giant of Lambton county and southwestern Ontario will not be there although, as members from that area

would know, almost to the day before he died he was holding court at Tim Hortons doughnut shop at that time, expressing his views. So he was not going to cotton up to the likes of Dr Bette

Stephenson, who winced more than once when Lorne spoke in the House. I think it was at the grammar. But everybody knew exactly what Lorne wanted to say. As a person from an era when constituency

politicians were valued, when we didn't have television in this House, when we relied upon the print media and perhaps a little radio coverage, Lorne Henderson was a hero in his own part of Ontario

and certainly throughout rural Ontario.

I want to quote something else he had to say to demonstrate that. At the time of the controversy over increasing health insurance premiums, deterrent fees were

being considered. This is what Lorne Henderson had to say: "That may be all right for city folks, Mr Premier," Mr Henderson argued at one cabinet meeting, "but back home in Lambton, detergent fees

won't wash." So Lorne knew exactly what he was talking about in terms of the people in his own area. If once in a while the letters were mixed up in the word, nobody really cared. He was so

beloved, he was so well-known, he was so strong in his views and in his desire to express them in this House and elsewhere that he was an effective MPP.

All of us, I know, join in paying tribute to him. Sean Conway, a member here, served as a member at the time that he was here, and there are a few others on

the government side of the House who served when Lorne was here. We will all remember him fondly. He has left his mark in Ontario politics and certainly in the county of Lambton.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It is my privilege to speak about Mr Henderson today. Of course, as you know, I've only been here for six

months and I could not possibly have worked with him, but I do remember as a much younger man watching the debates of this House and reading the paper every day about what took place, and his name,

Lorne Henderson, was constantly in the newspaper, constantly there, speaking on behalf of the people of Lambton county and his riding.

He had a 40-year career -- that's a long time for a politician -- that spanned this Legislature, spanned being the reeve, spanned being a councillor in his

local community, and he made his mark. He was an MPP for 22 years, and seven of those years he served in the cabinet, until 1985, when he chose to retire.

Many will remember him, and people have remembered him, as a warm and compassionate man who came from a rural community and gave back much to that same rural

community. But people perhaps do not remember or did now know what happened after he left in 1985, which I think bears well on the man and bears well on what he has attempted to do for the people

of his community and of the province. When he retired from politics in 1985, he went on to become a director of Union Gas; he served as a director of the Lambton housing authority; he served as a

director of the Lambton Economic Development Commission; he was a proud member of the Royal Canadian Legion, having fought in the Second World War, and he continued to be a legionnaire throughout

his life. He was on a host of service clubs in his community, delivering for the people who lived there.

It has been said, and it is true, that he held court in his farmhouse each and every week and that people would come from all over Lambton county to talk to

him about their needs. He had someone who would write down what was necessary, and he would then come back to this Legislature on Monday and do his utmost for each and every person who had

approached him.

Bill Davis said something, which I read in an obituary in the Globe and Mail, and I'd just like to quote it: "He held agriculture, government services and

other cabinet portfolios under former Premier Bill Davis, who sometimes sent him as an emissary to northern and rural communities to do what he did best: listen to the people."

In researching this, I had an opportunity to find out from Elie Martel, who was in the House in those days, a little story that I think says a lot about the

man and a lot about the gentleness of the politics of those days. Elie Martel likes to tell the story of how he and Floyd Laughren and Bud Germa were all together in Sudbury. There was to be an

opening of a hospital. Who was sent up to open the hospital but Lorne Henderson. They were there, and they were wondering what the government was going to do in opening the hospital and what was

going to be said. Lorne made a little speech about the opening of the hospital, but then he pointedly invited the three opposition NDP MPPs from the area to come for the photograph, because he

said, and he explained, that they were the people representing the riding and that they had done just as much as he had in making sure that hospital came to that community.

Oh that things were the same today. In eulogizing this man and talking about him, we should all remember that politics can be far more gentle than it often is

in this House. He was one of those practitioners who saw good on both sides.

I have a couple of quotes, again found in researching, which I think say much about the man, his humour and his compassion. I found these in the Sarnia

Observer. I think they say very much about him and his personality.

One is from Andy Brandt, who, when asked about Lorne Henderson, said, "That was his true calling. Nobody knew more about agriculture or was more sensitive to

the issues. He was very down-home. I went to see him as minister. He was in his office in his blue serge suit and white socks. He was wandering around the office in his socks."

Carol Neathway, chairperson of the Charlotte Eleanor Englehart Hospital, of which he was appointed a lifetime member, remembers him this way: "I remember Lorne

Henderson as Santa Claus at children's Christmas parties. He would tell them their father's name and their grandfather's name. Even if they didn't believe in Santa Claus, they were just blown away

by it."

Mr Henderson leaves his wife, Reta, and his children and all the people who knew him. They knew him and they loved him, and the town's people have lost a true

champion. I would like to thank Lorne Henderson for a lifetime of service, not only to his community, but to the province of Ontario. Let us all hope we are able to do as good a job as he did in

his 22 years in this House.

The Speaker: I thank the members for their kind words, and I will ensure that copies go to the family.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES /

SERVICES DE SANTÉ MENTALE

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent for each party

to speak for approximately five minutes on the issue of mental health.

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

Hon Mr Clement: This, of course, is in the wake of national Mental Health Week, which was last week. I thank honourable members for allowing

us to speak about this this week.

Directly or indirectly, mental illness affects many people in Ontario. It can affect our personal lives, our extended families, our workplaces. It also affects

Ontario's health care system and the provincial economy as a whole.

I want you to know that my ministry is committed to ensuring that people with serious mental illness can get the help they need.

Le ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée s'efforce de faire en sorte que les personnes aux prises avec de graves problèmes de

santé mentale reçoivent de l'aide au moment et là où elles en ont besoin. L'engagement du ministère est indispensable à la réalisation d'un système de

santé mentale intégré qui profite tant aux clients, aux familles et aux prestateurs des services qu'aux collectivités.

This commitment is crucial to the realization of an integrated mental health system, a system that will benefit the client, the families, the provider and the

community.

In this new system, we see a clear need to keep moving toward community-based care. Since the 1960s and the introduction of alternative service options, there

has been a decreased need for prolonged institutional care. But until very recently, the service advances that allowed for earlier discharge and less institutional care were not matched by

development of appropriate community services outside the hospital. So we found ourselves in a revolving-door syndrome: hospital discharges went up, but so did hospital readmissions. That's why we

need to move toward an integrated mental health system that is capable of delivering the highest quality of care in an institutional setting only when necessary, and capable of meeting and

supporting clients on the other side of that door.

I'm proud to report today that our government is making this change. In 1994-95, 75% of government funding was hospital-based and only 25% supported

community-based services. In 2000-01, that ratio was 56% hospital to 44% community.

I'm proud to say that our government is spending more, not just on community-based services, but also more overall. In 2001-02, provincial spending on mental

health services was more than $2.6 billion. That supports community-based services, homes for special care, psychiatric hospitals, general hospital psychiatric units, Ontario health insurance plan

payments, drug programs and institutional long-term-care services.

This $2.6 billion includes $377 million that has been invested over the last six years to add critical services, including assertive community treatment teams,

client-driven initiatives, as well as increased support for case management and crisis response services across the province. That reinvestment also provided housing support for people with serious

mental illness. In fact, last year alone over 2,000 new housing units were created, and we are on target for 3,600 units by 2003.

One of the Ontario government's most significant legislative achievements and initiatives during this period was proclaimed on December 1, 2000. Brian's Law,

or mental health legislative reform, 2000, is part of our plan to create a comprehensive, balanced and effective system of mental health services. Brian's Law responds to the voices of families,

clients, inquest juries, health care providers and police.

I would be remiss if I did not say that I am indeed standing on the shoulders of giants in this regard. My predecessor as the Minister of Health, the

Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, and my seatmate to my immediate left, the Honourable Brad Clark, had a great deal to do with the success of that legislation.

Mental health remains a priority for the Ernie Eves government, and the people of Ontario who live with mental illness can count on our continued support.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I am pleased, on behalf of my caucus and our leader, Dalton McGuinty, to join in this rather belated

recognition of Mental Health Week.

I want to express my appreciation to the many groups, service providers and individuals who are on the ground in our communities, working to enhance mental

health and working to provide service for those with mental illness or advocating for the services that are so desperately needed. I want to recognize, for example, the work of the Canadian Mental

Health Association, the association of community mental health centres, the Friends of Schizophrenics, Children's Mental Health Ontario, patient councils and community councils and patient advocacy

groups. These are the people who know only too well the challenges of providing support and care for those with mental illness in our communities; who know the stresses that mental health workers

are experiencing trying to respond to the needs; who know the desperation of families who see loved ones suffering and can't get help; who know the despair of being ill and having no place to

go.

Mental illness never seems to make it to the top of the government agenda when health care needs are being addressed. There are reasons for this: those who are

ill are too often unable to advocate for themselves; families of people suffering from mental illness often fear that going public will just make things more difficult for their loved ones; mental

health professionals are too stretched just in providing care to have time for political action; all too often mental illness only attracts public attention when something tragic happens, and then

the attention is usually negative and brings further stigmatizing of those who are suffering. But the people who do understand what is happening and where the gaps are in care and community support

are speaking out more and more. They are recognizing more and more that the advocacy for those with mental illness is essential. Their voices are getting louder and more insistent, and that is

exactly what is needed. I want to congratulate and encourage all those who are determined to put the needs of the mentally ill at the top of the government agenda.

I will not join the government in its self-congratulation on its record when it comes to mental health. Let me make public some of what has happened in mental

health just in the five months that this House has been in recess. First of all, as an example, St Michael's Hospital terminated the employment of all its clinical psychologists because there is no

funding for this vital service. Second, the Minister of Health came to Nipissing during the by-election with an announcement -- more money for drug addiction treatment -- only the announcement just

replaced half of the more than $4 million that was cut from addiction services last year. It didn't replace any of the $4.8 million that was cut from community mental health agencies last year.

Then we had just last month the announcement in the Lakehead Regional Family Centre in my own riding, the only treatment centre for children in northwestern

Ontario. They announced they will have to stop taking new cases, new children's and family cases, if there's not some relief of their financial deficit. That centre has been managing a caseload

that has increased by 150% since 1995, with an 8% reduction in its core funding. Children's mental health centres across the province are desperately in need of $60 million so that treatment can be

provided to very troubled at-risk children and their families. These centres have struggled for a long time to deal with long waiting lists of children and families who need service. Today they are

being absolutely overwhelmed with referrals from boards of education who no longer are able to provide psychological services.

Then we had the OPSEU strike, a strike that was allowed to drag on for over eight weeks while this government ignored the deteriorating conditions of those in

psychiatric hospitals. Maybe they forgot they were still responsible for these hospitals, because they were intending to close most of them as part of the hospital restructuring exercise. The

closure of those psych hospitals has been put on hold, mercifully, thankfully, until the community supports can be put in place, but the whole mental health reform process is stalled. Deteriorating

conditions in our psychiatric hospitals were occurring well before this strike began, and they'll continue until the government remembers that mental health reform is supposed to be part of its

agenda. That is just a little of the record of the last five months.

We also know during that period implementation teams that were set up to look at the need for community mental health services have been working toward final

recommendations. Those implementation teams have already finalized recommendations for the new homes for persons with special needs program, but the Minister of Health has essentially told the

Ontario Homes for Special Needs Association that the implementation of this program is not even on the radar screen. In the meantime, there's increasing fear that this government will end up doing

to mental health what it has already done to community care: get rid of those noisy community advocates and run community mental health with one large, central organization.

This government did take one major initiative in the area of mental health: it passed Brian's Law. They claim the goal of the legislation is intended to

provide care earlier to those with mental illness. They claim it was the beginnings of more community-based care. So far, it is a way to force people into hospital earlier even though, ironically,

the hospital beds aren't there. Community care certainly is not there yet. If the homes for persons with special needs program is not on the radar screen even though they've been working on it for

two years, when are the recommendations of the implementation teams on the need for community services going to get looked at?

I conclude by suggesting that mental health was important to this government when a tragic incident made headlines, but it has slipped right off the agenda

again. Those with mental illness continue to be doubly victimized by their illness and by a government more concerned with tax cuts than with care.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): The week of May 6 to 13 was the Canadian Mental Health Association's Mental Health Week. I want to

acknowledge in particular here today Patricia Bregman, who is the director of programs for the Canadian Mental Health Association of Ontario. This year is special because the Canadian Mental Health

Association, Ontario division, is also celebrating its 50th year of making sure mental health matters.

I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the association for their leadership in community mental health innovation. We should also note that May 12

to 18 is Suicide Prevention Week, an occasion to raise awareness of suicide and related issues. The theme of the week is, "You can help," focusing on the various roles we can all play in suicide

prevention.

We all need to acknowledge that mental health problems can occur in any family in any community. These problems can be devastating to families, costly to

communities and costly to the health care system. Fortunately, most mental health problems can be treated and even prevented, but prevention requires an investment in community mental health

services.

Studies show that treatment at any age results in a 62% to 76% reduction in mental health problems, an incredible success rate. Why, then, did this government,

in the midst of Mental Health Week, choose to disregard mental health services in their speech from the throne? Is this just another example of the indifference that this government has shown to

mental health issues and to people and families who have to address mental health issues?

Our health critic, the member from Nickel Belt, wrote to the Minister of Health on April 25 asking what specific action he intended to take to increase base

funding for community mental health agencies. Regretfully, so far we've not received a reply.

The former Minister of Health announced nearly three years ago that the Conservative government would be providing a 2% increase in funding for both addiction

treatment and community mental health services. At the time, everyone was given to understand that the funding was to be ongoing funding, multi-year funding, not a one-time-only grant, but then the

Minister of Health was forced to admit that it was only one-year funding. That was acknowledged again this past October at the Canadian Mental Health Association's annual conference by the current

Minister of Health.

The minister also promised he would work with the Canadian Mental Health Association to obtain other ongoing funding resources, but regretfully, any meeting to

follow up on that has yet to take place.

We all need to recognize that community mental health services need an increase in base funding. It's time this government recognized that people with mental

illness are involved in ongoing treatment and this need for ongoing treatment doesn't end with the fiscal year.

I want to note that in the recent Nipissing by-election the government did announce $1.8 million in new annualized funding for addiction treatment, but that

addiction treatment aspect does not relate to community mental health. In fact, it all comes out of the problem gambling pot. Those people who are focused on the issues of community mental health

are still waiting for this government to live up to the expectations that were created and the commitment that was made.

I also want to make special mention of this government's failure to support children's mental health services. There are 8,000 children waiting an average of

five months to get community mental health services in Ontario. Moreover, because those people who work in children's mental health have not received any sort of recognition in terms of payer

benefits for some time, there is now a huge wage gap, which results in a high turnover of children's mental health workers, which means that most children will see two or three different workers

during their treatment. This lack of consistency means children are stressed, and obviously it impedes treatment.

We need $50 million to stabilize and revitalize treatment programs in Ontario for children. At least 60% of that money should be used to increase salaries so

that they remain competitive and that people who work in the area of children's mental health aren't forced to leave. This revitalization plan could reduce waiting times and serve 10% more children

and their families.

Investing in these children now means families can stay together, and it also reduces the social, health and economic costs in the medium term and the longer

term. In other words, it makes good sense.

Finally, Speaker, as this is National Medicare Day, I think it's important to acknowledge the future of mental health services. Where is the commitment from

this government to ensure the provision of mental health services is part of the so-called Ontario Family Health Network? We believe real, meaningful primary care reform has a central role to play

in the provision of mental health services in our communities. We want to ensure that mental health professionals and trained nurse practitioners, not just physicians, are part of primary care

reform so that community mental health gets on to the radar screen.

This year more Ontarians are without mental health services because of this government's past decisions. Children at Covenant House no longer have access to

the psychology clinic at St Michael's Hospital, because it was cut; 20 high-risk children in Sarnia-Lambton no longer have access to programs provided by the family solutions program, because this

government terminated their funding. Children's mental health advocates from Thunder Bay and from across my constituency of Kenora-Rainy River have called or written over the past few weeks to say

that children's mental health services in the northwestern part of the province are in critical condition.

What does this mean? Well, we hope that on this day, when the government chooses to recognize Mental Health Week, the government will commit to real and

meaningful investment in mental health services. Our families, our communities, deserve nothing less.

The Speaker: Reports by committees? Introduction of bills?

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today is National Medicare Day, and people across this country are sending a message that they

want medicare protected and expanded, not destroyed. I seek unanimous consent that the Legislature proclaim every May 15 to be Public Medicare Day in Ontario and that all members follow NDP members

and lead by wrapping their desks with the medicare ribbon.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No, and I would kindly ask the members to collect the ribbons. There was not unanimous consent.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for members to drape their desks with the national

public medicare ribbon, as is being done in communities across this province where people are binding these ribbons to their fence --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes. Just so we know, so we don't have to have the Sergeant-at-Arms remove

them, I would ask the members to please withdraw. As you know, we're not allowed to have protests in here.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GROVES MEMORIAL COMMUNITY

HOSPITAL ACT, 2002

Mr Arnott moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr5,

An Act respecting Groves Memorial Community Hospital.

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

Pursuant to standing order 86(a), this bill stands referred to the Commissioners of Estate Bills.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT (WORKPLACE CARCINOMA COMMITTEE), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL (COMITÉ DU CARCINOME D'ORIGINE PROFESSIONNELLE)

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 20,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to require the appointment of a workplace carcinoma committee / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la

santé et la sécurité au travail en vue d'exiger la constitution d'un comité du carcinome d'origine professionnelle.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Cancer Care Ontario states that 9% of all cancer deaths are attributable to workplace cancers. Canadian cancer

statistics indicate that 455 people die from cancer every week, which means that 40 workers a week die from workplace cancers.

This bill, if passed, amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act to require the minister to appoint a workplace carcinoma committee responsible for

advising, investigating and reporting on matters concerning workplace cancers.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm referring to this assembly's Hansard of May 13, 2002. During question

period on that date, in response to a question put to him by a government backbencher, the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet, when speaking of the OPSEU strike, stated that the government had

alternatives, "rather than simply giving in to a $1.3-billion demand, which represented around a 43% increase."

In fact, at the strike deadline, the demand of OPSEU was a 5% increase over each of three years --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the member take his seat. Would you get to the point of order. I'm not going to allow you to make

statements in here and get around it by making points of order. I gave you some latitude. If you could please suggest what the point of order is, rather than making a statement first. This time I

gave you a lot of latitude. I don't like to get up very quickly, but you know I'm going to have to. We're starting a new session. I try to be easy. As you know, I'm a reasonable person, but you

can't start off with statements like that. Is there a point of order in there, please?

Mr Kormos: I know that the Chair of Management Board had no intention and did not mislead this assembly. I'm asking you to give him an

opportunity to correct the record and correct the inaccuracy of his response on that date.

The Speaker: The member will know -- the Chair of Management Board is signalling me.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): Mr Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to

correct the record. In fact, our statistics came from our ministry, and I did say that it was a $1.3-billion demand and a 43% increase. In fact, I was wrong. It was a $1.3-billion demand, but it

wasn't a 43% increase. That represented a 63.81% increase.

The Speaker: Thank you for the clarification.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday your energy minister confirmed that one of the options

you are considering -- one of your never-ending and growing list of options -- is something called a strategic sale; that is, a sale of Hydro One to a single company. He tells us that you are

actively considering selling our one and only electricity highway to one company, probably a foreign company.

Premier, I believe it is the height of irresponsibility for the Ontario Premier to be considering the sell-off of our only electricity highway -- that's the

one that brings electricity into our homes, our businesses, our schools and our hospitals -- to a foreign company. Will you now take the opportunity, Premier, to rule this option out, tell us it is

no longer on the table?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, I don't believe the Minister of Energy said that we were

considering selling it to a foreign company and, second of all, we are listening to the people of Ontario with respect to what options they would prefer to see their government go in the future

direction of Hydro One.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you will be interested to learn, then, that one of the foreign companies that is very interested in purchasing Hydro One

is National Grid USA. That is a global electricity transmission company with assets in the US, the UK and South America. National Grid is represented by a Mr Hugh MacKenzie, a friend and adviser of

yours who has been hired to lobby you and your government with respect to the sale of Hydro One to one National Grid USA.

Maybe you will take the opportunity, Premier, to assure us that Hydro One will in fact not be available for sale to National Grid USA or to any other foreign

company, because that would be tremendous news to Bay Street and wonderful reassurance, at least on one score, to the people of Ontario.

Hon Mr Eves: I've already said that so I'll repeat it again. We are not considering selling Hydro One in a specific sale to any foreign

entity, period. I don't believe the Minister of Energy said that yesterday either. You must be really hard up for stuff for question period today.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you can understand that to the objective observer it is exceptionally difficult to figure out where you people are from

one day to the next with respect to the future of Hydro One. This never-ending hand-wringing and inability to come to a landing with respect to the future of Hydro One is at minimum embarrassing

and in the worst case it sends a terrible signal to the international markets.

So just to be perfectly clear, Premier, you are now assuring us that Hydro One is not available for sale to a foreign company. Would you also confirm for us

that it is not available for sale to any single company of any kind?

Hon Mr Eves: Today he's on the side of international bankers; on Monday he was on the side of the people. Today you want us to make a quick

decision and not get all the facts; before, you wanted us to consult with the people.

We are going to consult with the people of the province of Ontario and, after we consider what they have to say to us and the different options, we will let

you know what direction the government is going in and then you can feel free to criticize that decision if you so choose.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question, leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: To the Premier as well. Premier, the Minister of Energy also said yesterday that the main sequence of events leading up to your

decision about what to do with Hydro One is as follows: first, you intend it get enabling legislation from this House before it rises for the summer break, and then sometime during the summer you

intend to make a final decision with respect to Hydro One. What you are in effect intending to do, Premier, is to ask us to give you a blank cheque with respect to the future of Ontarians' Hydro

One transmission grid.

If you honestly think that we are going to roll over and allow you to obtain a blank cheque so that at some time during the course of the summer, under cover

of darkness, you can make your final decision with respect to Hydro One, you have another thing coming. So would you please, Premier, here and now guarantee to us that when it comes to the future

of Hydro One, we will have an opportunity in this Legislature to debate the very specific plan you have for it and an opportunity to vote on that very specific plan?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, Mr Justice Gans's decision raises several important items which I think and the province of Ontario thinks the

people of Ontario should have clarified. Are there inherent rights of ownership in Ontario or not? Does the province have the ability to dispose of assets it owns or not, or of any government

agency, for that matter? There are several other important issues that Mr Justice Gans's decision raises which should be clarified. I suggest, with respect to legislation, that you wait until you

see that legislation before you criticize it.

Mr McGuinty: What I want to know, Premier, is whether or not we are going to have an opportunity in this Legislature to debate and vote on

your very specific plan with respect to the future of Hydro One. That's what I want to know, and I'll put the question to you again: will we have that opportunity in this Legislature? Yesterday

your minister was telling us, "You're going to get enabling legislation; you're going to get the blank cheque," and then, away from the people of Ontario, who would like the opportunity to vote on

this, and away from us, their duly elected representatives, who should have the opportunity to vote on this, you intend to make your final decision. Will we or will we not have the opportunity to

debate and vote on your very specific plan for the future of Hydro One?

Hon Mr Eves: You will have an opportunity to debate the legislation that is presented to this Legislature. You and the people of Ontario will

have an opportunity to have as much input as is needed to thoroughly debate this issue about the future of Hydro One.

Mr McGuinty: You know, Premier, you just recently had your throne speech delivered. It marked the threshold, you told us, of a new era. This

was a government that was going to have the courage to listen. This was a government that was going to be both responsive and responsible. Do you honestly think that ramming this bill through in

short order, in connection with a very important matter of public policy, and then making the final decision under cover of darkness, away from this House, speaks to that wonderful notion of

responsive and responsible government?

You told us you were going to be different from the last guy. Well, I can tell you that your plan with respect to this bill and this policy speaks loudly about

the last guy. It doesn't make you different from the last guy; it makes you the same as the last guy. Premier, if you really want to be different from the last guy, then have this courage that you

refer to to say no to Mike Harris, no to Bay Street and yes to the people of Ontario, who want to keep their Hydro One in their public hands.

Hon Mr Eves: Three minutes ago the leader of the official opposition was arguing in favour of an immediate decision to satisfy the

international banking community. Now he's saying he's against the public consultation process that the minister has already been through and he's against the consultation process with respect to

the legislation that will be introduced. There will be a public consultation process, there will be debate by legislative committee and consideration by a legislative committee and it will be voted

on on the floor of this Legislature.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Premier. I have to say you're now changing your hydro policy almost as quickly

and as often as the Liberals.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: I know it hurts.

Premier, yesterday we learned that for 18 months your government and the Independent Market Operator covered up a Hydro report which indicated how much

electricity prices could go up after deregulation and privatization. Today we learned that your cover-up extends even further. Your government, through the Independent Market Operator, refuses to

disclose the specific reasons for electricity price increases. So people see a spike in the price of electricity, and the IMO says, "We're not going to let you know what happened. We're not going

to give the public that information."

Premier, why is your government so intent on covering up all the information that the consumers and people of Ontario need to know about hydro prices and when

and if they are getting ripped off?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): In fact, the IMO is there with its rules in place to protect the consumer of

Ontario, to do exactly the opposite of what the leader of the third party suggested.

Mr Hampton: Premier, why did they cover up a study which predicts exactly how prices can ricochet up after privatization and deregulation, and

why, over the past two weeks, has the Independent Market Operator refused to disclose why we're seeing price spikes? In other jurisdictions, when there's a price spike, people can find out which

company has withdrawn their generation or which company is not producing electricity at the rate they said they would.

In California, this kind of price manipulation happened under Enron. You must have heard of their market manipulation strategies -- Death Star, Get Shorty, Fat

Boy -- all of them now under criminal investigation in the United States.

If you want this so-called open market, then you've got to allow people to have access to the information. Why is your government so intent on covering up the

kind of information people need so they can make informed decisions?

Hon Mr Eves: The reason the government has chosen the route it has with respect to the IMO is to protect the Ontario consumer from events like

the ones that happened in Alberta, like the ones that happened in California. Because they had a full disclosure system of their independent market operator in those two jurisdictions, you got

companies like Enron playing with the market. We want to prevent that from happening here, and that's exactly why these rules are in place, to protect the consumers of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: This is a new philosophic direction: people will be protected by secrecy. The only people you're trying to protect are your

friends on Bay Street. That's why you've kept secret the studies which indicate how prices will go up, that's why you've kept secret the studies which indicate the true value of the Bruce nuclear

station and that's why you're keeping this information secret. Because when people can understand which companies are withdrawing generation, when people can understand how much generation is being

withdrawn, they would be able to point out exactly when and where market manipulation is occurring.

No one except the generators and profit-driven corporations is going to be served by that kind of secrecy. No one, especially consumers, is going to be served

by your government and your government's agencies keeping these studies and reports on electricity pricing secret. You should know that. Why won't you make all of these studies public, make all of

this information public? If you're not prepared to do that, then do the right thing and cancel this whole misguided project.

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the rules were established after consultation with many people in the marketplace and others. The rules were

established to protect the consumers of Ontario. Even Tom Adams, the executive director of Energy Probe, agrees. Initially, he thought the rules that Alberta had in place for full disclosure were

appropriate, and now he realizes that was a mistake and he fully confirms the approach that Ontario is taking to protect the consumers of the province.

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

Mr Hampton: To the Premier, I gather now this is your official policy: secrecy is good for consumers and secrecy is good for the ordinary

person.

Premier, it goes even further than this. Your former Minister of Energy boasted about three months ago that he had a study which said that prices under

deregulation and privatization will be lower. We wanted to follow up on that study, because if you're going to make this boast, then we should be able to read it. We called and asked for that

study, one that was put out by a Professor Lazar. We were told that in fact he didn't have the real study. It's put out by an organization in the States called PIRA. So we contacted PIRA. PIRA

wants $5,000 to access the study, but then you have to sign a whole bunch of confidentiality agreements that say you can't make the study available to ordinary people.

Once again, Premier, these are not your friends on Bay Street. It's not their electricity system. This Hydro system belongs to the people of Ontario. What

justification do you have for keeping study after study, information after information source, secret and covered up from the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Eves: I refer this question to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): The study is available and it's been done privately by the

company and Mr Fred Lazar. He provides the advice, recommendations, the consultations he went through to get the study. He provided us the information for the study. We have digested that

information and it has provided the information that, in the long run, the people of the province of Ontario will save between $3 billion to $6 billion through privatization.

Mr Hampton: Here we have the Minister of Energy standing up and making bald statements again. If anyone wants to get the study, to test any of

the assumptions or to test any of their projections, you're told, "We could maybe give you the study for $5,000, but you're not allowed to disseminate any of that information to the public." That's

what's wrong. You give this information to your corporate friends on Bay Street, you tell them, you give them access to information, but to the people whose hydro rates are going to go up you say,

"Oh no, you can't have any of the information." And hydro rates are going up. The Toronto Transit Commission estimates their electricity costs are going up by 20%.

If you are truly the Minister of Energy, and you're supposed to be looking out for the people of Ontario, make all of these studies, all of this information,

public so that people can be informed and they can tell this government honestly what they believe. Why are you covering up all of this information?

Hon Mr Stockwell: The leader of the third party says hydro rates are going up, but that's not the case. According to the hourly energy prices

since market opening on May 1, yesterday the average price for hydro was 3.2 cents. When the market opened it was 4.3 cents. So why do you say that market rates are going up when you know for a

fact that market rates are not going up, they're in fact down?

As far as the TTC is concerned, the TTC made a business decision that they based on information they received. If that's the decision the TTC took, then that's

the decision the TTC took and they're going to stand by their decision and rise and fall based on that decision. In my opinion, sitting here today, you're making the charge that hydro rates are up.

The fact of the matter is, hydro rates since market opening, May 1 to May 14 -- not one single day on average have the rates been higher than the pegged rate of 4.3 on May 1. So your assumption is

fundamentally flawed, just like everything else you've been saying about this for the last five months. Nothing you say is accurate.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Premier. Mr Premier, is your government open to keeping Hydro One as a crown

corporation?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Yes.

Mr Bryant: On Monday, we're told by the minister that the status quo is off the table. The status quo equals Hydro One as a crown corporation.

On Tuesday we're told by the minister that in fact the status quo is off the table, so somehow you're going to keep it public but keep the status quo off the table. My question is, is the status

quo on the table or is it off the table? Because this government has polluted the Hydro One debate with the smog of inconsistency, confusion and incompetence. Our question is, is the status quo on

the table or is the status quo off the table if in fact Hydro One may be kept as a crown corporation?

Hon Mr Eves: I think I've already answered the honourable member's question. His flair for the dramatic is somewhat entertaining, but I don't

think it really resolves this.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): My question is for the Minister of Health. The Ministry of Health has made significant

investments in improving the quality of cancer care at Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie through the women's imaging centre and the expansion of chemotherapy services. However, as you are aware

from your visit to the riding in February, a regional cancer care centre is needed along with the expansion of RVH due to population growth and its regional role as a health care provider.

Minister, what is the status of the RVH regional health care cancer centre and the RVH expansion?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for his question. Indeed, he is working hard to bring

the best possible health care services to the people of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. I want to commend him for all of the work he is doing, including sponsoring promotional breakfasts and supportive

breakfasts for women's cancer research and treatment and prevention at Royal Vic, and other things.

As the honourable member knows, because he represents this area, the Barrie area is experiencing significant growth in population, and of course Royal Vic,

after its opening, has been a site for expansion of health care needs.

I did visit his riding in February. I did indicate a desire to push on ahead with the regional cancer centre. This is in the wake of a district health council

report that said the need was there on a five-years-out basis. I am sponsoring a meeting of the ministry, of Royal Vic, and of the local Cancer Care Ontario in order to move this project along.

Mr Tascona: Thank you, Minister. Also in February, you attended Sandycove Acres to discuss health care issues and the medical clinic that

closed there last year. You were provided with a proposal to reopen the clinic. What is the status of reopening the medical clinic at Sandycove Acres?

Hon Mr Clement: As the honourable member knows, we have been in quite extensive discussions with the Sandycove residents and some of the

sponsors. We thought we had a deal back in September. The deal fell apart. The organizers of that clinic did not feel the increase in funding that we had proposed was going to be successful or

viable. I met with the residents, as the honourable member knows; he had representatives there as well. I obtained first-hand information about the need to retain the outreach program and how it

would have a positive impact on community health in the community. That proposal is with me and I await the finalization of my budget in order to proceed.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question?

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier. In January, the Minister of Health, Tony Clement, said that you were

clearly promoting a parallel two-tier system which violates the sanctity of the Canada Health Act. He said, "Ontarians are quite supportive of paying for these kinds of medically necessary services

with their OHIP cards, not with their Amex cards."

You, Premier, on the other hand, said, "It sure doesn't make any sense to me," of the Canada Health Act that prevents people from paying for services if they

want to.

Premier, today is National Medicare Day. Now that you've said whatever it takes to take your seat in this House as leader, where exactly do you stand on

two-tier health? Where do you stand on people being able to pay for services and therefore being able to jump the queue for medical services?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I don't believe that people should be able to jump the queue. That's the

whole point. But there are some instances in the system today where people do pay to jump the queue. Our objective is to eliminate those circumstances and make a single-tier public health care

system accessible to everybody in the province of Ontario where they need it and when they need it.

Mrs Pupatello: OK, maybe it depends who you're speaking to and what the purpose of the speech is, and then you change your mind. But here's

what you said exactly: "It doesn't make sense that people can pay for MRIs for their pets in the middle of the night but can't pay for themselves." You said, "If I have $10, $20 of disposable

income, or whatever the number is, and I want to do something for my mother for her health, I can't." You were bothered by that, Premier. You said, "Is your cat more important than your mother? How

about your daughter? Is she more important than your cat?" That's what you said one night.

Very quickly, though, based on your leadership campaign, you beat a hasty retreat and then you said, "No, no, no. That's not what I meant." But in fact that's

exactly what you meant.

Now as Premier, in charge of health care for Ontarians, we want to know exactly where you stand. Do you believe that people should be paying for those services

and therefore be breaking the Canada Health Act? Your throne speech made innuendo at best, but nothing clear. Just like this first month in this House, Premier, you are clear about nothing. Where

exactly do you stand on --

The Speaker: The member's time is up. Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the House hasn't been sitting for a month. This is the second week it's been sitting. Second of all, the honourable

member is referring to a comment that was not made in an evening at all; it was made on an afternoon in Barrie. Number two --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Well, her facts are totally wrong.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, I think we need some fish to feed them over there. They're getting a little grumpy today. I didn't know there were

that many Ottawa Senators fans on the other side of the House. I understood they'd be disgruntled today.

What I said was --

Interjection: You're going to upset Norm.

Hon Mr Eves: There's the odd disgruntled one down here, too. I understand. I've heard Norm all morning.

To the honourable member: what I was talking about on that occasion was a woman on the leadership campaign trail who had indicated to me that she did not see

the point of being able to pay for an MRI or a diagnostic procedure for her pet, but she couldn't help her mother. That is the case in some cases in the province of Ontario, where people are able

to pay for their pets for services they can't get for their relatives, including their mothers.

We are trying to eliminate jumping the queue and paying for services for all Ontarians so they have access to the health care they need, where they need it,

when they need it, as we did in Thunder Bay yesterday with the announcement of the regional hospital and a new northern medical school.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. After years of

accusations and fearmongering from the opposition benches that fewer students will be going to universities and colleges, the message seems to have changed across the floor. They now see the

problem as not too few students but too many students. More young people going to colleges or universities is good news. It is proof that our policies to ensure access are working.

There are still some people across the floor who see political advantage in frightening students and parents by telling them that the doors to post-secondary

education are now closed. Minister, what can you tell the students in my riding about our government's actions to ensure that Ontario's colleges and universities are prepared for increased

enrolment?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): Thank you to my colleague

for the question. In response to the statements that are being made throughout this province, it is a fact that we have a plan and that there will be a space for every qualified, motivated or

willing student who wants a place in our Ontario colleges and universities.

The worst thing that could possibly happen during the next few months is happening in this Legislative Assembly, where in fact there are people who are

fearmongering and telling students there won't be spaces. I'm reading from the Council of Ontario Universities' response to the throne speech. "Toronto, May 9, 2002: Ontario universities were

encouraged by today's throne speech which noted that the government will build on previous commitments and provide further resources to post-secondary institutions to meet higher-than-expected

student demand." That may disappoint the opposition, but the colleges and universities are very pleased, and we will continue to work with them.

Mr Gill: These are indeed historic times, when investments are being made. Not since Premier Bill Davis created the college system more than

30 years ago have we seen a capital investment like SuperBuild, and it's been some time since Ontarians last saw a government commit to building a brand new public university.

Participation rates have increased under our government. More young people are going to universities and colleges than in the past. Beyond the double cohort,

Ontario's colleges and universities are looking at strong demand and growth over the next several years.

Despite what has already been done and accomplished, will you assure this House that you will continue to work to address increased enrolment in Ontario's

colleges and universities?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: We obviously do have a five-point plan that's in the making with the students, colleges, universities, parents and our

school systems. We have built $1.8 billion in new buildings: 25 for the colleges, 25 for the universities and nine which they're sharing. We have, in fact, increased operating funding. In the

throne speech, we reassured that there would be money for every qualified and willing student. We've promised them that place.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): It's funny, the university presidents don't share your view.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: As a matter of fact -- I will repeat for my colleague across the House, because he was shouting last time -- "Ontario

universities were encouraged by today's throne speech." Money "to meet higher-than-expected student demand."

The colleges did the same thing. They stated, "The throne speech commitment is welcome and reassuring."

If they're satisfied -- and they are working with us on behalf of all these students -- then we should be satisfied and letting students know that there will

be a place for them --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: -- because people who are saying that right now are discouraging the most vulnerable who are working on their marks and

looking for financial support.

We are prepared. I'm tremendously optimistic, along with the young people of this province and their parents.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question, of course, is for the Premier. He will know that today is National Medicare Day. He will

know that people across Canada are demanding that patients come before profits. In Ontario alone, the Ontario Health Coalition has received more than 77,000 signatures on petitions, and more are

pouring in. Even the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has said that universal, publicly funded, owned and operated health care is critical to the health of our economy. But when your government spoke at

the Romanow commission, you said that the Sunnybrook private cancer clinic and the Ottawa and Brampton private hospitals symbolized the new direction of your government.

Premier, if you are interested in protecting medicare, will you commit today to cancelling the private cancer clinic at Sunnybrook and cancelling your scheme

for private hospitals in Brampton and Ottawa?

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

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The honourable member ought to know that the Sunnybrook clinic is of course open and

available to all citizens of Ontario without payment required. It is publicly funded. It is for publicly insured, medically necessary cancer services. It allows us to serve Ontarians here in

Ontario rather than being required to fly to Buffalo or Cleveland or some other part of the continent to get the right kind of cancer care on a timely basis.

The honourable member should know that we are not speaking of hospitals privately funded by the person. These are hospitals that will have clinical operations

at Sunnybrook and has been very clear: it costs more to deliver than would the expansion of existing publicly funded, publicly administered cancer care clinics.

Equally, you should know that in Britain, privately financed hospitals have been found to cost 72% more, and because of the additional costs, clinical services

have been cut. What's happening here is you're choosing the most expensive private option, which in fact limits people's access to health care down the road. Then you turn around and say, "The only

solution is more private delivery."

Minister, if you really care about medicare, if you're really committed to medicare, cancel these backdoor privatization schemes.

Hon Mr Clement: When is the honourable member going to take off his ideological blinders and look to whatever works, whatever provides greater

delivered health care services. This is not new to the Ontario health care system. The issue is, can we find a better way to do it? Can we partner with the private sector to find better

do not want to be mired in the status quo that does not provide better health care services not only now but in the future. I encourage you, cast your ideological blinders aside and help us come up

with practical solutions.

MINISTRY SPENDING

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, yesterday you attempted to justify

why your office violated your own guidelines on expenses. I have numerous receipts here: October 30, 11:34 pm at Rivoli; November 14, 9:56 pm; November 14, 12:28 am; November 15, 9:59 pm; November

16 at Rivoli, 12:53 am; December 12, 1:27 am.

There are higher standards of conduct that we in public office should be held to. I'm asking you again today to justify to the people of Ontario why they're

paying these bar tabs. Do you not consider that these bar expenses are a misuse of public dollars by your office?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Before the member begins, yesterday I missed the question to the Minister of Labour. As you know, you have to ask

a question pertaining to the minister's present portfolio. I knew the question dealt with some people who are with his present ministry, but it is properly referred to the Minister of Labour, so

I'm going to ask the Minister of Labour. I apologize for missing that yesterday. I will now ask the Minister of Labour.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): With respect, Mr Speaker --

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): He doesn't even drink. I know it.

Hon Mr Clark: She does.

With respect, those employees are not working in my office. On this side of the House, we take accountability very seriously. The minister who was responsible

for those employees at the time dealt with those employees in a very strong way. They were admonished accordingly and we've moved on.

Ms Di Cocco: A question to the Chair of Management Board as a supplementary. In my view, you have guidelines, and this is about guidelines.

There should be some consequence for breaking these rules. They are your own rules. I was told that the reason for breaking these guidelines was "hard work." That's the reason for breaking the

guidelines.

Are you saying, then, that these inappropriate expenses are justifiable? There are many of the same dates and times that are also on the minister's corporate

card, the same statements.

I believe the people of Ontario expect us to raise the bar of accountability for those entrusted with public office, not to sit --

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

Hon Mr Clark: With complete respect to the member opposite, the minister has dealt with the matter with his employees. They were employees who

were under contract to his office. He dealt with it in an appropriate way. The matter has been put to rest and we're confident that the matter will not happen again.

SUPPORT FOR AGRICULTURE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I took great interest in the debate on Monday evening,

particularly Bill 81 on nutrient management. Mr Barrett and I did extensive consultation on this --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Sorry to interrupt the member. You can start over in a minute. It was a little loud. I couldn't even hear

you that well. You can start over. Your time will start over.

Mr Galt: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for getting them under control. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As I was

mentioning, I was very interested in the debate the other evening on Bill 81, the nutrient management bill, particularly when Mr Barrett and I did so much consultation on this very area.

As I was following it through, the member from Prince Edward-Hastings drifted away from the topic. I can understand him drifting away; he probably didn't have

too much to say about it. But he got into talking about the dry season for Ontario farmers and what they had experienced last year. I want to quote for you from Hansard. He said, "We called upon

the minister at that time to recognize that this was indeed a catastrophe ... for the farmers," and that the Minister of Agriculture provided no support.

I know this man very well. He's an honourable man. I thought I knew what had happened. But just to check it out with the new minister, is it true that we

didn't provide any support for Ontario farmers last year?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'd like to thank the member for his question.

Applause.

Hon Mrs Johns: You guys make me embarrassed.

I guess this is a question about determining fact and fiction. Let me say that I can assure the members of the House that our government is committed to

promoting long-term sustainability for the agricultural community in the province. We want our farmers to be around for the long term.

Last year, I have to say that Minister Coburn entered into a Canada-Ontario framework agreement that he signed in July 2000. Our government exceeded --

exceeded -- the $70-million commitment that was asked for to match the federal government. They exceeded that commitment by $20 million. This $20 million went to address the needs of the

agricultural community and the needs of our farmers. I can tell the members opposite that this is the case, you know this is the case and we should stick to the facts.

Mr Galt: That's exactly how I remember it. I would suggest that maybe the member from Prince Edward-Hastings, rather than this idle rhetoric,

might want to talk to his federal Liberal cousins in Ottawa because of the international problem we were having with the devastating US farm bill back in 1995, and what they are now going to do

with this new farm bill that's going through. When will those Liberals down in Ottawa level that international playing field for our grain and oilseed producers?

I should also point out, from a little later in the evening, another quote from the member from Prince Edward-Hastings: "Ontario does the matching with Ottawa

exactly what they're required to do -- the minimum, no more." Minister, it still seems that once again the member opposite is being misinformed. Didn't you just tell me that we gave an extra $20

million to the Ontario farmers, over and above what was required for matching funds?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say that I want to get the facts straight in the House here and I want to keep the facts on agriculture straight because

this is the second-largest industry in the province of Ontario. We did provide $20 million more --

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Johns: We provided $20 million to tobacco, but we also provided $20 million more in farm subsidies. With that, we've put our share of

it -- we're supposed to give 40% and the federal government is supposed to give 60%. We never saw the $30 million from the federal government. The $20 million from the provincial government was not

matched that year. The members opposite know it. They should keep the facts straight --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Elgin-Middlesex and the member for Prince Edward-Hastings, please come to order. Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mrs Johns: That's OK. In addition to that, we have a current mix of safety net programs. We delivered more than $750 million to tens of

thousands of Ontario farmers, providing a measure of income stability in the face of poor weather, depressed prices and unfair subsidies.

I call again for the federal government to come through to give us trade --

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

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Premier, for the last six months your government has been hiding from the people of Niagara, Brant,

Haldimand-Norfolk, Six Nations -- in other words, a large group of people -- a report which is condemning of this government in terms of ambulance dispatches. The report says that 67% of the staff

at the dispatch office have less than three years' experience because of a rapid rate of staff turnover; that the dispatch centre has the highest workload, averaging 6,400 calls per worker per

year; that the dispatchers at the Hamilton centre are paid far less than those in other centres; that the dispatch equipment is antiquated. In other words, we have a terrible situation with

ambulance dispatch in the area surrounding Hamilton, including the Niagara Peninsula, alleged to have caused deaths in the Niagara region, alleged to have caused the worsening of health

conditions.

How can your government justify hiding from the people of Ontario a report affecting the life and death of people, which it has had in its hands for a full six

months?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'd like to refer this question to the Minister of Health.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I can report to this House that we did make a judgment call in the midst of OPSEU

negotiations, because we were dealing with issues of training and employment, that it was not appropriate to release the report. Having said that, we acted on the report, which is what the

honourable member should be mostly concerned about.

All the positions have been filled. A communications training officer and a technical officer have been added to the dispatch centre. There is more effective

training and a quality assurance program that is in progress. I can tell you that all personal equipment of the dispatchers has been reviewed, replaced or upgraded where required, and we are

engaged in rigorous testing of replacement systems as well.

I can tell the honourable member and assure this House that we have been acting on the report, and now that the report is public, we can certainly defend our

actions in the meantime.

Mr Bradley: I think it speaks volumes of this government when a report which affects the health of people in our part of the province, which

is a matter of life or death, is withheld because you are in some negotiations to do with labour in this province. Surely the lives of the people in Hamilton, Niagara, Brant and surrounding areas

are far more important than some negotiations you're involved in. If that is not true, then there's something wrong with your priorities.

Here is what one of the workers had to say about this situation. The person said that ambulances on emergency calls are being sent to wrong addresses and

getting lost, or an ambulance call is not classified as such, or an ambulance is sent from one depot while another sits unused at another garage.

One dispatcher said, "When I answer the phone, I don't know if I'm getting a call from the Hamilton Mountain, Thorold, Wellandport or Bismarck, or even

Norwich, up by Brantford." This dispatcher contacted the Standard after the Standard released this report Saturday. "I have no idea where some of these places are, but I have to send an

ambulance."

You knew what the problems were even before that report was out, because they were brought to your attention. How can you possibly justify the inaction on the

part of your government when the life, safety and good health of people are at risk?

Hon Mr Clement: I deny the allegation. Quite the opposite of inaction has occurred. We have acted expeditiously; we have acted quickly and

firmly to increase training availability, to increase the staff. In fact, the OPSEU agreement that this government endorsed, as well as OPSEU itself, has meant a substantial pay increase for the

dispatchers.

I would tell the honourable member that we have acted. We have taken as a priority the health and safety of the citizens in the Hamilton CACC catchment area.

That has been our priority, and we have acted as expeditiously and, I think, as effectively as humanly possible.

FIREFIGHTERS MEMORIAL

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Public Safety and Security. In the throne speech, this government committed

to working with fire service stakeholders to establish a memorial to honour Ontario firefighters who fall in the line of duty. I anticipate tremendous public interest in this memorial, as we've all

come to appreciate more the risks firefighters take, especially in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. Minister, could you update the House on your plans

for this memorial?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): I want to thank the honourable member for the question. It is certainly an

important and timely one.

The Eves government recognizes, supports and values the hard work of Ontario's firefighters. The men and women who work for our fire services risk their lives

to protect the public, and when we're confronted with a tragedy -- a house fire, a car accident, a disaster or a medical emergency -- it is often a firefighter who responds first.

The honourable member will know that municipalities across Ontario have erected their own memorials to honour fallen firefighters. However, there is interest

in establishing a provincial memorial to recognize the contribution of all of Ontario's firefighters, the contribution they make to public safety. It's an idea that has been endorsed by the fire

community, including the professional firefighters' association, the fire chiefs' association and volunteer firefighters. Hopefully, the memorial will provide a permanent reminder for generations

to come of the sacrifices made by Ontario's firefighters.

Mrs Munro: Could you tell the House how the partnership with stakeholders will work and when the memorial could become a reality?

Hon Mr Runciman: I've had some preliminary conversations with the professional firefighters' association, as has the fire marshal; I had a

brief chat with the chiefs' association. There's a real interest in seeing this happen.

The firefighters' association is looking at a poster campaign to raise funds for this. We're looking at the formation of a working group with all of the

stakeholders to hopefully make this wonderful tribute to fallen firefighters a reality by the spring of next year.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Premier, please. Premier, your government consolidated ambulance dispatch services

creating this mega dispatch centre in Hamilton. The consequences were disastrous. There were deaths in regional Niagara that prompted regional Niagara to call for a review of the Hamilton dispatch

centre. That, in and of itself, was a lengthy process. You commissioned a review. The results of that review were available in a final report in October of last year.

Lives have been at risk since the creation of this mega centre. Lives remained at risk while your government sat on, concealed, swept under the carpet, covered

up a report that was, quite frankly, damning in terms of the ineffectiveness, the dangerous ineffectiveness, of that mega dispatch centre in Hamilton.

I put to you that the report has not been responded to fully and I submit to you that your government is displaying behaviour beyond negligence in not

responding fully to that report. Why would you conceal that report? Why would you not respond promptly in co-operation and in a public way and in participation with the municipalities, like

Niagara, affected?

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

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I have to contest the honourable member's allegations, and certainly I want to

assure this House that upon the acceptance of the report by this government we acted. We acted quickly. We did not wait in terms of the initiation of our action. Our action included staffing up;

our action included better training; our action included better equipment; our action included better pay.

We have responded to the report and it did not take six months. The honourable member is incorrect when he says that. We started acting immediately for the

health and safety of the citizens.

I already gave the answer to that question. The honourable member knows full well why the release was not forthcoming. We did not take that to mean that we

should not act. We took it to mean that we should act immediately upon receipt of the report and I want to assure the honourable member that's exactly what we did.

Mr Kormos: I say to you, Minister, the fact that people died in Niagara is no mere allegation. It is a reality and a fact. The fact that your

incompetent structuring of a mega dispatch centre not only put people at risk but continued to put people at risk and indeed to this day continues to put people at risk remains a fact.

Minister, one of the problems, as you well know, is that this dispatch centre dispatches through a number of municipalities spreading from the city of Hamilton

through to Norfolk county, Haldimand, Brant county and Niagara region. In Niagara region alone, with a number of municipalities, there are numerous street names which are either identical or

similar which start to create some of the problems for any dispatcher out of a centralized service.

The regional municipality of Niagara, you know full well, has been pleading with you for an opportunity to present their case for the need for a

Niagara-dedicated dispatch service to avoid any more deaths. When will you sit down with Debbie Zimmerman and other regional Niagara leaders to consider their argument, their proposal for a

Niagara-dedicated dispatch centre which will ensure effective ambulance dispatching?

Hon Mr Clement: The fact of the matter is I already have had that conversation. It was a fruitful conversation to get that point of view. We

are open to other points of view. We are open to change. The change should be in the right direction. As I said to the honourable member, once we received the particulars of the report we acted

immediately, we acted forthrightly for the health and safety of the residents who were aaffected and we will continue to do so.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. It has to do with Hydro One and Hydro One's management activities

over the last little while. You'll be aware that they have participated in advertising urging the sale of Hydro One. They released some financial statements yesterday indicating -- and I think

pushing -- the government in the direction of selling it.

The challenge we have is that if we look at the compensation package for, let's say, the president of the company, the fear is that she has a vested interest

in selling the company. I think the way we understand the contract and the prospectus is that if the company is sold she's entitled to an annual pension of almost $1 million a year and she would

receive a cash payment of $6 million to $7 million in payment for the sale of it, in addition to some pensions around the deputy minister area.

My question is this, Premier: you're responsible, on behalf of the taxpayers who own 100% of this, for ensuring that Hydro One's management operates the

company leaving Ontario with the option to not proceed with the IPO. Have you talked to the president of Hydro about this and can you assure the people of Ontario that she will not let what I think

is a huge vested interest in selling this get in the way of the management of this company in a way that will allow us to maintain the public ownership of this?

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

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): Let me say this: obviously there are issues that you deal

with on a fairly daily basis with Hydro One, OPG and others that may have need for conversation. The decision with respect to the disposition of Hydro One will be made by the very people who sit in

front of you today. These are the people who have been duly elected to represent the constituents in the province of Ontario. These are the people who, in caucus and cabinet, will make the

decisions based on the best interests for the future of Hydro One, for secure energy and for good prices for the ratepayers and consumers. The fact of the matter is we may ask for information and

they may provide advice, but ultimately the buck stops with this caucus and this cabinet. So basing the decision on how we proceed with that will be made by the very people you're looking at

today.

Mr Phillips: That wasn't the question, with all due respect. The question is this: we have Hydro One management with a vested interest in

selling Hydro One and therefore operating the company in that way. This is Ontario's biggest asset. We look at the president's contract and that person has an enormous vested interest: $1 million a

year, it appears, in pensions, if they're able to do this, a $6-million to $7-million payout and we see them spending hard-earned ratepayers' money advertising, saying to Ontario, "You go push the

government to sell Ontario Hydro."

The question isn't about who's going to make the decision to sell Hydro One, it's a different question. Who, on behalf of the government, has spoken to Ontario

Hydro One management, told them what is on the table and what we hope will be the case -- it won't be sold -- and instructed them to operate in that fashion?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, the member is saying, "Who has talked to Hydro One to tell them it won't be sold and to operate in that

fashion?" We've told you all along that the decision hasn't been made. The point you're making is, are there financial benefits to them should Hydro One go through an IPO? Well, your answer is yes.

You've seen the talk.

That, my friend opposite, will have absolutely no impact on the decision we make for the benefit of the ratepayers and taxpayers in this province. I appreciate

the fact that they are structured in such a way that if an IPO proceeds, they will be benefited by that, but that will not enter into our decision-making. We will make the decision based

exclusively on the price of power, that the debt doesn't continue to spiral, and those applications that the Premier had spoken about earlier.

Your concern is that there are benefits to those who work at Hydro One, should it go through an IPO, and whether we have any intention of speaking to them.

That will not even enter the equation as to what decision we take. The decision we take will benefit the taxpayers and the ratepayers, and that's all this caucus truly worries about.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday in a lively exchange with the Minister of Energy I

said, and I quote from page 70 of the May 14, 2002, Hansard, "I say to you, Minister, there are tens of thousands of Ontario citizens, many of them senior citizens, who are weeks away from finding

out that they were not only misled by their government and their government's company but they were ripped off in a serious way."

The minister has drawn this to my attention. It is his view that that is out of order, and I would just simply ask you to reflect upon it and give me some

direction.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I have had a chance to look at it and, yes, had I caught it at the time, I would have asked you to withdraw the

words "misled by their government." I did not. There was some confusion. I think the minister heard it. The table I think heard it. I did not. As usual, they were right and I was wrong. But, yes,

it is out of order.

Mr Conway: Let me withdraw it absolutely and say, particularly to the table, I find the advice and the decision very difficult to accept.

Accept it I will, but I say again to the table, I am increasingly troubled by what I see as Thomistic distinctions and impossibilities. But I do withdraw it.

The Speaker: I thank the member. It's a very difficult task. As you know, the words that are out of order -- and it's been an acceptable

practice. Some Speakers have different words that they find not acceptable. There is no dictionary. In fact, the former Speaker told me that if you find in an everyday occurrence that a word is --

if you've met somebody in the street and said that word to them and they found it offensive, then it probably would be offensive in here. But there is no definition. Saying that a government

misled, in my estimation, would be out of order.

I thank the member and, as you know, I appreciate him for doing that.

PETITIONS

HYDRO ONE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): "To the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the Conservative government plans to sell off Hydro One and Ontario's electricity transmission grid -- the central nervous system of Ontario's

economy;

"Whereas the government never campaigned on selling off this vital $5-billion public asset and never consulted the people of Ontario on this plan;

"Whereas Ontario families want affordable, reliable electricity -- they know that the sale of the grid that carries electricity to their homes is a disaster

for consumers;

"Whereas selling the grid will not benefit consumers -- the only Ontarians who will benefit are Bay Street brokers and Hydro One executives;

"Whereas selling Hydro One and the grid is like selling every 400 series highway in the province to private interests -- selling the grid means the public

sector will no longer be responsible for its security and protection;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature as follows:

"To demand the Conservative government halt the sale of Hydro One until the government has a clear mandate from the owners of Hydro One -- the people of

Ontario."

I will affix my signature to this.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a petition I would like to present today and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the annual rent increase guideline for multi-unit residential dwellings in Ontario increases every year more than the rate of inflation and more than

the cost-of-living increase for most tenants;

"Whereas no new affordable rental housing is being built by the private sector, despite the promise that the implementation of vacancy decontrol in June 1998

would encourage new construction;

"Whereas one in four tenants pays over 50% of their income on rent, over 100,000 people are on the waiting list for social housing, and homelessness has

increased as a result of unaffordable rents;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement an immediate province-wide freeze on rents which will stop all guideline

increases, above-guideline increases and increases to maximum rent for all sitting tenants in Ontario for a period of at least two years."

COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE CENTRE

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's been signed by thousands of

people. It says:

"Whereas Sarnia-Point Edward and area is experiencing a crisis in a shortage of health care professionals, specifically doctors; and

"Whereas community health care centres are a proven primary health care system that can attract professionals and deliver primary health care in a

cost-effective, efficient manner;

"Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario approve a community health care centre for Sarnia-Point Edward and area as soon as possible."

I will affix my signature.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): My petition contains thousands of signatures that we will be continuing to gather up.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ernie Eves is planning to ram through the sale of Hydro One without a mandate from the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas an Ontario Court judge has ruled that the sale of Hydro One is illegal; and

"Whereas Ernie Eves's Bay Street friends will benefit from the sale of Hydro One at the expense of Ontario's hard-working families;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to encourage" -- and demand -- "Ernie Eves to take Dalton McGuinty's advice to put" Ontario

"working families ahead of his Bay Street friends by immediately stopping the sale of Hydro One."

I sign my petition and give it to Daniel, our page.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a slightly different petition on the same topic. It reads as follows:

"Petition to the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas tenants in Toronto and Ottawa are paying their landlord an average of almost $2,000 more per year than they did when the Conservatives' so-called

Tenant Protection Act was enacted in the spring of 1998; and

"Whereas tenants in cities like Hamilton and Kitchener have also been hit by substantial increases; and

"Whereas 22% of Ontario tenants were paying more than 50% of their income in rent even before the new act was brought in, with 43% of tenants paying more than

30% of income in rent; and

"Whereas the Conservative policy, enshrined in the Tenant Protect Act, of allowing landlords to charge whatever rent they'd like when a unit becomes vacant has

been the main reason for the skyrocketing rents; and

"Whereas the Conservative legislation is also unfair to tenants in the way it allows landlords to treat capital and operating costs, for example, by failing to

decrease the rent when a landlord's costs decrease while allowing landlords to pass on increases; and

"Whereas on July 24, 2001, the council of the city of Toronto voted 30-8 to call for a rent rollback;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario be asked to implement a rent rollback as proposed by the council of the city of Toronto and NDP MPPs

Rosario Marchese and Michael Prue. This would roll back rents to their 1998 level with an allowance for inflation; and

"Be it further resolved that the Tenant Protection Act be replaced with a system of real rent control similar to the Rent Control Act of 1992, which, among

other things, regulated rents on vacant apartments and decreased rents when a landlord's cost decreased."

I would sign my name to it as well.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

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

"Whereas the residents of Centre Hastings are facing an immediate and critical situation in accessing physician services; and

"Whereas a retiring family physician has been unsuccessful in procuring a replacement physician, potentially leaving 5,000 patients without a doctor; and

transportation; and

"Whereas Centre Hastings has been designated as an underserviced area in need of five physicians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act immediately to establish a community health centre in Centre Hastings."

I affix my signature to this petition.

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I bring forward a petition to the Legislature on behalf of long-term-care facilities across this province

that find themselves short-changed when it comes to providing the kind of service that their tenants need in their facilities. They're saying that the over 60,000 Ontarians living in long-term-care

facilities are older, frailer and sicker and require more care than ever before: 95% of them require assistance to get dressed, 94% require some assistance to eat, 63% suffer from dementia, 39% are

aggressive, 56% have circulatory disease, and 49% have a musculoskeletal disability.

They're saying that government funding has not kept pace with this increasing resident need. Current funding levels allow for only four minutes to assist with

getting up, washed, dressed and to the dining room, 10 minutes for assistance with eating, 15 minutes of programming per day, and one bath per week.

I'm here today with this petition on their behalf, encouraging the government to increase the funding to those facilities so that those residents, those

constituents, those citizens of our province get the care they need. I sign my name to it as well.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the Conservative government plans to sell off Hydro One and Ontario's electricity transmission grid -- the central nervous system of Ontario's

economy;

"Whereas the government never campaigned on selling off this vital $5-billion public asset and never consulted the people of Ontario on this plan;

"Whereas Ontario families want affordable, reliable electricity -- they know that the sale of the grid that carries electricity to their homes is a disaster

for consumers;

"Whereas selling the grid will not benefit consumers -- the only Ontarians who will benefit are Bay Street brokers and Hydro One executives;

"Whereas selling Hydro One and the grid is like selling every 400 series highway in the province to private interests -- selling the grid means the public

sector will no longer be responsible for its security and protection;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature as follows:

"To demand the Conservative government halt the sale of Hydro One until the government has a clear mandate from the owners of Hydro One -- the people of

Ontario."

It's signed by a number of residents from Ridgetown and Morpeth, and I too have signed this petition.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition and it's entitled as follows: "Stop the Sale of Hydro One."

"To the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the Conservative government plans to sell off Hydro One and Ontario's electricity transmission grid -- the central nervous system of Ontario's

economy;

"Whereas the government never campaigned on selling off this vital $5-billion public asset and never consulted the people of Ontario on this plan;

"Whereas Ontario families want affordable, reliable electricity -- they know that the sale of the grid that carries electricity to their homes is a disaster

for consumers;

"Whereas selling the grid will not benefit consumers -- the only Ontarians who will benefit are Bay Street brokers and Hydro One executives;

"Whereas selling Hydro One and the grid is like selling every 400 series highway in the province to private interests -- selling the grid means the public

sector will no longer be responsible for its security and protection;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature as follows:

"To demand" Ernie Eves and "the Conservative government to halt the sale of Hydro One until the government has a clear mandate from the owners of Hydro One --

the people of Ontario."

I want to thank Eleanor Kaarsberg, a constituent in Don Valley East, for her help in getting this petition signed. I have affixed my signature to it.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ernie Eves is planning to ram through the sale of Hydro One without a mandate from the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas an Ontario court judge has ruled that the sale of Hydro One is illegal; and

"Whereas Ernie Eves' Bay Street friends will