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

June 17, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L028a - Wed 17 Jun 1998 / Mer 17 Jun 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY

SAULT STE MARIE

ENERGY COMPETITION

NATIONAL UNITY

FORESTRY AUDITS

EDUCATION

RENT REGULATION

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CANADIAN INFORMATION PROCESSING SOCIETY OF ONTARIO ACT, 1998

GIOVANNI CABOTO DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR DE GIOVANNI CABOTO

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

RENT REGULATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HOME CARE

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

MINE RESCUE COMPETITION

LABOUR LEGISLATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

ROAD SAFETY

PETITIONS

ABORTION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

HEALTH CARE

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

EDUCATION FUNDING

ABORTION

RENT REGULATION

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

CHARITABLE GAMING

ADOPTION

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENERGY COMPETITION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA CONCURRENCE DANS LE SECTEUR DE L'ÉNERGIE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I'm delighted to pay tribute today to our first nations and to encourage all Ontarians to join with them as Canadians celebrate National Aboriginal Day this Sunday, June 21. On this day, all Canadians will celebrate with our first nations and pay tribute to the contributions they have made and continue to make to our country.

As you are aware, my riding of Kenora is the home of many vibrant and diverse first nations communities. I'm very proud to have worked with and represent them here in the Legislature for the past 11 years.

Throughout the years, our first nations people have made outstanding contributions to our country, be it in the area of helping newcomers to Canada survive by passing on their ways of life and knowledge of agricultural techniques, medicines, hunting and fishing, or through their contributions to clothing such as parkas, mitts and fur coats, all of which help keep us warm throughout our cold Canadian winters. These many accomplishments, along with their contributions to Canada's economic development, have enriched the lives of every Canadian.

For generations first nations people in Canada, and indeed my own constituents, have celebrated their culture and heritage on or near June 21. This Sunday will provide the entire nation the opportunity to celebrate with them.

I'm pleased to join with my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and my colleagues in the Ontario Liberal caucus in recognizing the contribution of our first nations. I ask all in Ontario, and indeed Canada, to recognize the rich cultural diversity and the achievements of first nations this Sunday and again throughout the year.

Meegwetch.

SAULT STE MARIE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Sault Ste Marie today finds itself in some very difficult circumstances. Unemployment is at 20%, twice the provincial average, and I'm told the real estate market is the worst it has ever been. These are just two of the many indicators saying my community is in trouble and with no real end in sight.

These difficulties have been created by the very aggressive and massive cuts made by the provincial government to the many ministry offices located in Sault Ste Marie and to other provincial crown corporation offices, the most obvious being the dismantling of the Ontario Lottery Corp.

Now we are faced with the closing down of the Northern Treatment Centre. This will be a loss of 147 direct jobs and a three-to-one spinoff in the service sector which computes out all told to possibly 500 more work opportunities gone.

There are three things we, as a community, can do in the face of such daunting challenges: (1) stop the bleeding, (2) stabilize what we now have, and (3) grow what we have and develop or attract new opportunities.

This government can help with the first one and the most compelling one. They have to stop the cutting so that we can stop the bleeding. Will they do that? Will they commit in this House today to doing that with the people of Sault Ste Marie so that we can create a better economy and a better place for all who call Sault Ste Marie home, given the very terrible attack that they've made on our community in the last two years?

ENERGY COMPETITION

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This government is setting a new course in history with the introduction of the Energy Competition Act. Bill 35 is enabling legislation that allows for the dismantling of Ontario Hydro's 92-year monopoly in favour of a competitive structure to be regulated by the Independent Electricity Market Operator and the Ontario Energy Board.

Sir Adam Beck, MPP and industrialist, saw the need and provided the leadership to build the world's best electricity system here in Ontario. The objective was to produce and deliver power as cheaply as possible for as many people as possible and at the lowest possible cost. The power-at-cost system was the catalyst for rapid economic development and rural electrification.

With new technologies, competition and political excess in the mid to late 1980s, Hydro strayed towards a reputation for power at great cost. Bill 35 will enable the closing of the curtain on Sir Adam Beck's legacy and reopening it to a plan that will recapture Ontario's competitive advantage in the world's marketplace by once again making electricity the job creator for Ontario.

NATIONAL UNITY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Those of us who held meetings on the Calgary accord came away listening to one strong message, and that was, "Ensure that you keep Canada strong and united."

Out of this request came the establishment of the Canada Unity Day Federation which consists of major ethnocultural organizations in Metro and the greater Toronto area. They've put together a unity walk from Queen's Park down to City Hall on July 1, beginning at 2 o'clock on the west side of Queen's Park. All the MPPs are invited.

Do you know something? We were listening to those people talking to us. They are saying: "We do not wish to be surprised again, as we were in 1996 when we almost lost this country by about 40,000 votes. We want to be prepared and we wish to do something about it." Today, I'm delighted to say we can.

All of us are invited. In fact, all constituents are invited to join us on that day as we walk proud as Canadians, united in knowing that we have participated in a strong, united Canada. To that end, we can all say: "Vive le Canada."

FORESTRY AUDITS

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Under the terms of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, the Minister of Natural Resources is required to undertake and to table forestry management audits on an annual basis. But under this Conservative government the minister failed to undertake any audits in 1996 despite his responsibility to do so. The audits for 1997 were only tabled at the beginning of June 1998 despite the fact that draft copies were available in October 1997.

Perhaps the reason for the delay is that the minister is embarrassed by the audit's findings. For example, the audit done on the Mississagi crown management unit notes serious problems with data collection, training of staff and, most important, the ability of MNR staff to do their jobs in light of massive layoffs.

The audit team noted that "data collection and recording methods themselves had little quality control" and the team seriously questioned "MNR staff capabilities to engage in adaptive forest management under the present circumstances." The audit team said, "Employees expressed concern about their ability to achieve all of their duties due to time constraints and/or inadequate training."

With respect to government downsizing and its impact, the audit team noted, "Many staff question whether sufficient qualified and motivated staff will remain to effectively implement MNR's new role under sustainable forest management."

The minister must make clear what he plans to do to respond to the audit's recommendations. These are serious issues and people who are concerned about the public resource, especially forestry resources, must know what he plans to do.

EDUCATION

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): It's a pleasure to share with the Legislature today a couple of very positive experiences at two ends of the educational spectrum, elementary and post-secondary, in my riding.

The first project involves the students at Watt Public School. Students at this school are using mathematical and scientific lessons they learn in the classroom to design and build a number of community structures, including an octagonal gazebo, an arbour entranceway to the school's vegetable garden and a bridge over a local ravine.

The bridge project was especially challenging and the skills involved included the stress testing of load ratios by using models and weights. Under the direction of school staff and community volunteers, these elementary students are learning new skills that they can apply in summer jobs and in their future adult lives.

At the post-secondary level a local initiative is preparing students to work in the auto industry, which is badly in need of skilled graduates. The Centre for Automotive Parts Expertise provides high-tech training through a partnership between Georgian College of Simcoe county and the Industrial Research and Development Institute in Midland.

In May's budget speech, the finance minister announced a $3.8-million provincial investment in this partnership. Auto parts companies in my riding which will likely participate in this new program and provide positions for graduates include Meritor Automotive in Bracebridge and Algonquin Automotive with plants in Huntsville and Gravenhurst. This partnership is expected to increase enrolment in the advanced training program from 75 to 300.

I applaud these initiatives, which show how our educators are preparing today's students for the workplace of today and the future.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Today marks a sad day in Ontario. It marks the proclamation of the tenant rejection act, the act introduced by this government to get rid of protection for tenants in this province, particularly important in our large urban areas such as Toronto, Windsor, Ottawa and others where there are high needs for affordable rental housing. This government has decided, not only to declare war but not even to allow for meaningful hearings. Hundreds of amendments are put forward to the bill; most are rejected out of hand.

Is the government content simply to take away protection from tenants? Not at all. Let's review some of their other initiatives.

They've cancelled all funding for new non-profit housing. That represents half a billion dollars over four years.

They've downloaded social housing to municipalities without any guarantee. The only guarantee municipalities and ratepayers have is increased property taxes. That's what this government's about.

Who else have they hit? They hit welfare recipients, the very people in need of affordable rental accommodation, with a 22% cut. That's what this government's about.

What else have they done? They've ended all rent-geared-to-income support. This government doesn't care about tenants; it doesn't care about the people of our city; all it cares about are profits. That's not good enough. Let's get rid of them.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): We're going to see a housing crisis in Ontario the likes of which we've never seen before. Today is the day the so-called Tenant Protection Act comes into force. What doublespeak. This is a protection act for big developers and big landlords. On top of that, the Harris government has completely removed itself from providing non-profit housing and there is no new affordable housing being built by developers out there.

I just attended a funeral for the demise of rent control and tenant protection here in Ontario and I witnessed the speech by the member for Windsor-Walkerville who stood up in front of people today and said: "If you want a real alternative to the Tories, you've got to vote Liberal because we're the only real alternative out there. Mark my words, we will bring in rent control."

Well, I remember what they did in the last election when we brought in the toughest rent control in Ontario.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. The member for Riverdale.

Ms Churley: I have lost 20 seconds of my time because of this. That is outrageous. The Liberal Party voted against the toughest rent control bill in Ontario. Now they're out there spreading this kind of nonsense. It is outrageous. Furthermore, they just took 15 or 20 seconds of my time away and that is unacceptable.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms Churley: It was my time and I can say what I want -

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. We've heard comments before on each side. Nobody is perfect. I've made my ruling and that's it.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to give the member more time to complete her statement.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Make sure that you get to the point.

Ms Churley: My point is that the Liberal Party in the last election voted against the toughest rent control in Ontario. Today, in what I consider to be a non-partisan event overall because the tenants organized this event to talk about what we would do if elected - I mean non-partisan on this side of the House - and then we have a Liberal stand up and give this very partisan speech about how great they are and that they're the only alternative.

What I'm saying to the House and members of the public today is that this Liberal Party voted against the toughest rent -

Interjections.

Ms Churley: Well, so did the Tories, but at least they're not out there saying now that they would reverse that. We have this Liberal Party over here trying to speak out of both sides of their mouths and that's -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Please give her a chance. The member for Riverdale has 31 seconds left.

Ms Churley: Thank you, Speaker. I take this opportunity to talk about tenants and the effect that this bill is going to have on them. Because of decontrol, as soon as people move out of their apartment, that apartment no longer comes under rent control. There are no limits on how much a landlord can then charge and we know what that means. The sky's the limit now for landlords to make money off poor tenants in this province.

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): Last Saturday, the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. I'll make the ruling. Will you start the clock again, and give a chance to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, like anybody else, to make his statement.

Mr Leadston: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last Saturday, the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada celebrated the 10th anniversary of the Charity Barbecue Day, which is an initiative of Mr Mac Voisin, president of M&M Meat Shops, across Ontario and the rest of Canada.

In an effort to help find a cure for inflammatory bowel disease, which affects over 250,000 Canadians, all the M&M Meat Shops fired up their barbecues and sold hamburgers and hot dogs for a donation. If the target is met, M&M Meat Shops will have raised $3 million for research over that 10-year period.

I would also like to invite the members. Tomorrow, Thursday, June 18, on the front steps of the Legislature there will be a barbecue to help kick off the campaign for next year. On behalf of the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada and M&M Meat Shops, I want to thank all Ontarians who have been generous contributors to the Charity Barbecue Day, and I hope they will prove it again next year.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr17,

An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College.

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr17,

An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I beg leave to inform the House that today the Clerk received the fourth report of the standing committee on government agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 105(g)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CANADIAN INFORMATION PROCESSING SOCIETY OF ONTARIO ACT, 1998

Mr Saunderson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting Canadian Information Processing Society of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Agreed.

GIOVANNI CABOTO DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR DE GIOVANNI CABOTO

Mr Jim Brown moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 43,

An Act respecting Giovanni Caboto Day / Projet de loi 43,

Loi sur le jour de Giovanni Caboto.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): This bill proposes that June 24 be proclaimed Giovanni Caboto Day in honour of the Italian explorer who was first to arrive on Canada's shores on June 24, 1497.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 95(d), Ms Mushinksi and Mr Bert Johnson exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business, and that, notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item number 20.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Today I want to raise the case of a very special little girl named Chantalle who is up in the Speaker's gallery today. She is a very special child with very special needs. She is eight years of age and like any other child she works very hard at school, but she has some special challenges in life. She can't walk, she can't talk, she can't dress herself and she can't go to the washroom by herself.

There has been a program on the books of government in Ontario for over 10 years now which says that we will help special needs children like Chantalle with their summer camp experience by providing payment for an assistant to accompany her to camp. She has been to summer camp for the last three summers but this summer her parents were informed for the very first time that that funding was no longer available. I'm just trying to confirm whether that is in fact the case. Please tell me that this is an oversight and that Chantalle will be able to go to summer camp.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I am not aware of the details. I want to take the initial question, and I will probably refer it to the minister if you're after any specifics that are there.

I can assure you, to the best of my knowledge, we certainly have not reduced any funding or changed any program in this area. I can tell you also, if there is a specific child - the one you've mentioned or others - who has been eligible in the past and is not today, if you will see me with that child, we'll make sure they go to camp.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, Carol Goldman from the Zareinu Educational Centre is also here with Chantalle today. She tells me that her phone has been ringing off the hook with calls from desperate parents. In fact, her conclusion is that in the North York area we're talking about 400 children who this year will not receive the necessary funding for them to go on to summer camp, and that's in that area alone.

What I'm asking from you now, Premier, given that you seem to show some sensitivity to this issue, is your assurance that every special needs child in Ontario will have the necessary funding to enable them to go to camp this summer in the same way they have had that funding in years past.

Hon Mr Harris: I'll ask the minister.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): As the Premier mentioned, we assess the individual family's needs, and in this particular case or if there are other families that we need to take a look at, if there has been a decision that was not appropriate, we're very pleased to look at that. But I would like to say to the honourable member across the way that the special services at home funding, for example, that assists many of these families has in fact been increased by a substantial amount during the last three years.

Under the changes we have made, that has meant that for many families, the majority of families in the Toronto area, for example, 85% of them have seen the same amount of funding or more funding than what they had received.

Mr McGuinty: I'm talking about at least 400 special needs children in our province who went to summer camp before but are not going this summer as a result of your changes to your policies. I don't know what kind of a screwed-up sense of priorities you have over there, but it seems to me that the people of this province would support funding to enable special needs children to attend summer camp. These kids can't go out and play in the street in summer and they can't go and play in the backyard. They need help.

This province has always provided that kind of funding in the past. Don't tell me that we can't afford it. You send a pamphlet around telling us that revenues today are greater than they have ever been in the history of this province. Don't tell me we can't afford funding for summer camp for special needs kids. Stand up and tell me right now that every special needs child in Ontario will have the funding necessary to ensure that they can go to summer camp this year in the same way they have in years past.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate that the honourable member brings forward these issues. I give him the respect because he does it because he cares about this individual child. We did not say we weren't doing this because we couldn't afford it. We have increased the funding for special services at home.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. The question has been asked. Please listen to the response.

Interjections.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Does the minister mean she can't afford it but she will -

The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Algoma.

Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would also like to reiterate to the honourable member, as the Premier said, that I have made no decision to change the policy for the specialservices at home funding.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Who's in charge over there?

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We have in fact increased the overall budget for this. Of families here in Toronto, 85% have seen the same or a larger amount of money. If there are individual circumstances, families that through some circumstance are not receiving the support they should be getting, or this particular child is not receiving the support she should be getting, my office would be very pleased to look into it. I invite the honourable member to provide us with the details so we can do that rather than having these wonderful press release try-and-get-you situations. They're not helping the families.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The question has been answered.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. You're wasting your time. Order, the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Further questions?

Mr McGuinty: I will say in passing to the previous minister that I will never, ever apologize for bringing forward important questions relating to children in this province.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As of today, you are going to effectively destroy rent control in Ontario. You have

an act in place that you call the Tenant Protection Act. It might as well have been more appropriately named the tenant rejection act.

It's going to be possible now, when a tenant vacates an apartment, for the landlord to raise the rent sky high without limits. This, on top of the other policies that you have with respect to housing in Ontario, is going to create effectively a housing crisis.

My question to you is very simple. You've had all kinds of time now to think about this. You have at the outset rejected the pleas and the intelligence offered by tenants. Now I want you to take this opportunity, Minister, to stand up in this Legislature, tell us that you've seen the light, that you will not proceed with this bill and that we won't foist it upon the tenants of this province.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The first thing I would say to the Leader of the Opposition is that he may not apologize for his previous performance but he probably should.

With respect to the Tenant Protection Act, the new act that's been proclaimed today continues to provide protection to tenants. It keeps the same formula for rent control that was in the previous legislation introduced by the NDP government.

The members of the Liberal Party are the last ones who should be talking about rent control. The system they put in place in the 1980s was complex and so skewed that we still have 10 cases before the courts that are still trying to be resolved. That's how complicated your system was. It didn't work at all.

What have we done? We've kept rent controls in place for anybody who stays in their apartment. When a tenant moves out, the landlord can negotiate a new rent with a new tenant and then rent control comes back on. What does that do? That gives the landlord an opportunity to go in, renovate the apartment -

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Next question, thank you.

Mr McGuinty: What you are effectively doing is making prisoners of tenants in this province. Think of those people who move on a regular basis - students, seniors, low-income earners. Now they can't move for fear that if they do so, not only will the apartment they're leaving have a sky-high rent, so will the one they're moving into. You're making it tougher.

Look at what you've already done to students. You've hiked up their tuition, you're hiking up their debt; now you're hiking up the rent.

What about seniors? You hiked up their drug costs; you're making health care less and less accessible; now you're hiking up their rent.

You're making it more difficult now for people to leave older apartments which require repair, because they're afraid that if they move they'll be facing higher rents. Once again, take the opportunity here, Minister. Show some leadership. Tell us that you're not proceeding with this bill.

Hon Mr Leach: Again I'm surprised that the Liberal Party would take this approach. As the member for Riverdale pointed out just a few minutes earlier, your party voted against rent control. They voted against the NDP bill. So don't get on a high horse and say that you're in favour of rent control, because you voted against it.

They're also obviously against free enterprise. They know that 80% of apartment owners own units of six units or less. They're usually small business people who live in one apartment and try and eke out a living from renting the rest.

This bill gives protections to them that have never been there before. If they're against protection of small business people, they can come out and say that as well.

Mr McGuinty: Finally the minister has been unmasked. The man who has special responsibility, the man with special responsibility for protecting the rights and interests of tenents in Ontario, tells us that his greatest concern is free enterprise. It's not tenants; it never has been tenants.

Look at what you've done to date. You've created a crisis in affordable housing. You've scrapped funding for new non-profit housing, you've scrapped the rent-geared-to-income support program and you've downloaded social housing on to our municipalities. Today you've decided you're scrapping rent controls, and the people most hurt are the usual on your hit list. We're talking about low-income earners, seniors and students, some of your favourite targets.

Minister, once more with feeling, stand up and tell me that you've seen the error of your ways, you've seen the light, you understand you've made a terrible mistake and for that reason you're going to scrap this bill because you understand that your responsibility first and foremost lies with Ontario's tenants.

Hon Mr Leach: As I said right at the very beginning, the main purpose behind this bill was to provide protection to tenants and that's why we retained the rent control formula that was in the previous legislation, so tenants are protected. The formula that puts a cap on rents -

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Ottawa West, I don't want to tell you again.

Hon Mr Leach: - for every existing tenant remains in place.

Interjection: There's no cap on rents.

Hon Mr Leach: I don't see why you would want a cap, a control on an empty building or on an empty unit. That gives the landlord and the new tenant an opportunity to negotiate a rent that both parties feel is fair. If the tenant doesn't feel the rent is appropriate, the tenant looks for another location. I don't know many landlords that make a lot of return on having empty units or empty buildings.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Premier. Today a coalition of environmental groups released yet another report condemning your government's deadly environmental record. This is the report. It's called Our Future, Our Health: The Consequences of Inaction. They wrote to you and said:

"In view of this overwhelming evidence, you can no longer ignore the importance of a safe and healthy environment. Therefore, we call upon you to take concrete action to demonstrate that the protection of the province's environment and the health of its residents is a priority for your government."

This report incorporates 17 other independent reports that criticize your record on the environment. The document goes through, step by step, everything you've done to weaken environmental protection in Ontario. Premier, how many kids have to gasp for air with asthma attacks before your government takes environmental protection seriously? Can you tell us that?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of the Environment can.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I'm pleased that our government has done more in the past three years than the previous two governments did in the 10 years they occupied this office.

Recently, the Minister of Energy -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. A question has been asked, please. Member for Hamilton East, you're not in your seat. Minister?

Hon Mr Sterling: We expect to get evaluated on what we in fact have done. What we have done is we revamped our air quality standards which had been left untouched for 20 years by previous governments. We have lowered the gasoline volatility regulation in order to restrict the amount of gasoline vapours that go into the air during the summer. We are implementing a vehicle emissions testing program which is the most comprehensive in all of North America. I ask the leader opposite, what did his government do when they were in power?

Mr Hampton: I would like to take the minister's response seriously, but this is what all those independent organizations are saying. They're saying your record is progressive compared to the poorest Third World nations. That's what they're saying.

You are backsliding. You have weakened regulations. You have cut the budget of the Ministry of the Environment by half; 750 scientists and technical experts are gone. You've slashed enforcement. You've done all of those things and you can't even get your so-called clean air program off the ground next year, and when you do get it off the ground it's going to take 17 years to implement.

What are you doing to help protect the environment of Ontario and the health of Ontario people other than giving your corporate friends free rein to do whatever they want?

Hon Mr Sterling: Lake Ontario is getting cleaner. Fish habitat is returning to its normal reproduction levels in Lake Ontario. The St Clair River has been cleaned up; 75% of the solids loading into that particular river have been eliminated. The town of Collingwood has been delisted as one of the hot spots on the Great Lakes. Many of the other Great Lakes RAPs have been improving in terms of their particular situation. We've done a great deal in our period of time here.

The Acting Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Riverdale.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Minister, you're grasping for answers over there. You ask what our government had done when we were in government. The two measures you mentioned were measures our government took. In fact, you have now weakened the clean water regulations brought in by the NDP. You've weakened those very regulations. That river has been getting cleaner because of the regulations we brought in.

This is yet another call for action. You have to take this seriously. Enough is enough. Your environmental record stinks. Everybody knows that. That's why we initiated our Dialogue for Change process. We have detailed specific environmental measures to undo the damage that you and your corporate pals have done to the environment. We proposed measures that can be taken to create jobs while protecting our environment. Our air and our water are not a dumping ground for the province's polluters. When are you going to get that? There's no time to waste. Get on with it. You can do something about it.

You were given specific recommendations today. Will you pay attention and start doing things to actually protect the environment in Ontario?

Hon Mr Sterling: You know, coming from a party that, when they were in government, weakened MISA regulations, declared refillable -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Minister take your seat.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Ottawa West, I don't want to need to tell you again. A question has been asked. Please listen to the response.

Minister

Hon Mr Sterling: From a government that, in 1990 or 1991, did away with refillable glass containers in this province by declaring that companies would no longer have to live up to the regulation that was on the books; a government that considered a vehicle emissions testing program, but decided not to take that step two, three or five years ago, as indicated in the ministry - we have taken action. We are very much different from the party opposite. We are less interested in having dialogue and talking forever. We're taking action.

HOME CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): The minister is indeed taking steps to weaken environmental protection.

My next question, though, is for the Premier. Premier, you have your Minister of Health crossing the province making announcement after announcement about health care, trying to persuade people that your government actually has a health care agenda.

I was in London yesterday where people are upset about your health-care agenda, because in London we find, in every community, in every part of the city, someone has their story to tell about what's going wrong with health care. People can't get into hospitals, they can't get into surgery. They can't get home care.

Premier, you announced that you're going to put another $500 million, I believe, into home care. Can you tell me then why the home care services in London are going to face a $4-million cut, even while the demand for services is going up by over 20% this year?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm not aware of the specifics of the envelope for home care in London. I would expect that, like all across the province, it will be going up. In fact, I can stand here in this place with a great deal of certainty and say it's going up. If there is an individual specific program that maybe is being transferred to another agency or if some agencies are getting doubled and tripled and others less, I can't give you the individual specifics.

In spite of the fact that the Liberals in Ottawa are slashing our health care funding, I can assure you that we are increasing health care funding, and we are increasing health care funding particularly in the area of home care.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member for Ottawa West, this is the last time.

Supplementary?

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's time for a little reality check, Premier. You missed your chance to transfer it to your minister for CCACs. Last year your government cut $56 million from London's hospitals and London's hospitals and the people of London objected. You had to give a little bit back - not all of it, but some of it. On top of that, there has been a 20% increase in home care needs last year and another 18% to 20% this year.

Mr Jackson rode into town and gave a little extra cash - not on the base - to tide them over, which brought their budget to $38 million last year. They estimate that they need $41 million to meet the need next year, and they've just had word that they're going to get the same budget they had before that cash infusion last year, $34 million. They can't provide the services. People are being released from hospital because of your hospital cuts, and now you're not giving extra money; in fact, they're getting cut back from what they had last year.

Premier, what are you going to do about this? When are you going to stop this false announcement of funds that aren't real, that aren't flowed, like the $360 million that was announced last year, not one cent of which has been paid out?

Hon Mr Harris: I'm going to refer the question to the first minister for seniors this province has ever had.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): First of all I want to respond to the member opposite. She should be more aware of the actual circumstances in her own community. Her own CCAC has received increased funding, and you were invited to the event when we announced the additional money. There was a deficit in that board. We paid for that deficit and we are flowing cash at the higher level. Any suggestion that the London CCAC is receiving less money is actually false.

The truth is that in the London area restructuring dollars of over $133 million have gone in; the CCAC has received a 27% increase. New facility beds have been released in your community to relieve pressures. My colleague the Minister of Health has announced the expansion of community-based supports and reclassification of hospitals.

The Acting Speaker: Supplementary?

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): The minister should know that both of my colleagues met with the chair of the London CCAC yesterday and her version of the story is quite different from yours.

Let me give you a second example, this time in Sudbury. You cut, under your government, $8.6 million to the local hospitals, so people are being discharged earlier than ever before. Last year the increased needs in nursing visits was up by 25%. There has been a 67% increase in complex care nursing and a 14% increase in homemaking services.

Your Minister of Health, on CBC on June 10, said that the northern CCACs, as elsewhere, would be receiving additional money to the base. But the chair of the CCAC and the executive director have been told three times now by the local long-term-care office that they will not be receiving additional funds - not this year, not next year, not until the year 2000. So who are we supposed to believe: your Minister of Health, or her staff, who have told the local CCACs three times, "No additional funding to meet the long-term-care needs"?

Hon Mr Jackson: I want to assure the member opposite that I have been in discussions with the Sudbury CCAC. In fact, I had a meeting Monday morning this week with the executive director of the CCAC, Mr Knight. At no point did he stylize any of the things you're suggesting about a funding cut. I can assure the member opposite, as I have assured her in the past, that northern citizens in this province are receiving higher levels of care and support financially from the province of Ontario - the first point.

The second point is, this government has expanded the community care access funding envelope in this province despite the fact that we do not get one red penny from the federal government, because home care is not included in the -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it has to do with the actions by a member of your government, the member for Scarborough East, Mr Steve Gilchrist, and about what you plan to do as a result of that.

On June 3 a secondary school principal in the Scarborough area sent a communication to his school community outlining the changes that will take place in his school in the fall. Mr Gilchrist responded in an unacceptable, threatening and intimidating public letter. In my view, the letter is frightening and it essentially -

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): Frightening? Oh, what are you smoking?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member for York Mills, order, please.

Mr Phillips: It is a frightening and threatening letter designed to silence an individual who has dared to express an opinion that Mr Gilchrist may not agree with. My question is this: Have you now reviewed that correspondence and is it your intention to ask Mr Gilchrist to apologize?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I have not seen the correspondence. Perhaps you have. I have been made generally aware that the correspondence had absolutely nothing to do with any government money or government policy or government scholarship but a personal family matter. I'd be happy to review the correspondence and see if there is any indication of anything to do with government programs or government money. To the best of my knowledge, there is not.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate your being prepared to review the correspondence and I will right now ask if the page will send this over to the Premier. My hope would be that you can review it very quickly and that we would have an opportunity for you to make a judgement on whether you find this type of communication acceptable as a standard for a member of your government.

I just want to quote a few things that Mr Gilchrist said to this principal: "This cannot be allowed to go on." You are frightening "students and parents with lies." I would say, Premier, that when you review it, I don't think there are any lies in the correspondence. He went on to say, "I cannot sit idly by while you go out of your way to undermine all of the improvements to the education system." He also says, "If I do carry this out - and much will depend on your actions between now and commencement later this year...." In other words, he threatened him, he said it is his plan to carry this out, but he may not if the principal agrees to toe the line.

I say it is frightening because it essentially is bully tactics of the worst order, attempting to silence an individual who is attempting to spell out to his community the impact on his school this fall.

I say to you again, Premier, will you this afternoon undertake to review this correspondence and apply your judgement on whether you are going to ask for an apology from Mr Gilchrist?

Hon Mr Harris: Yes, of course. I'd be glad to. I'm sorry, I just went to the end where it said, "I am prepared to work with you, the staff, the students, the parent council, and the West Hill Collegiate Institute community, to ensure that everyone benefits from the education and funding reforms." That

part certainly doesn't sound threatening, but I'd be glad to take a look at the letter and respond to him.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier. Over three weeks have passed since we began raising questions about your government's casino coverup, and for three weeks you weren't in this Legislature. You tried to pass it off to your minister for Management Board and he tried to pass it off to the legal counsel for the casino corporation. He tried to give the impression that he was doing something about the mess, but in fact that all fell apart last week, so the stench keeps getting worse.

You have to take some action here. You have some responsibility on behalf of the people of Ontario. You need to open up this whole casino affair. You need to give the public a chance to see what is in fact happening, why friends of the Conservative Party seem to be getting all of the opportunities for lucrative casinos in Ontario.

Premier, will you do the right thing? Will you direct your minister to scrap the whole tainted casino affair and start again with a process that is open to the public -

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The question has been asked.

Mr Hampton: - so that everyone can see what is happening?

The Acting Speaker: The question has been asked. Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister can respond if there's anything new or specific, but since it's the same old mud that you sling with not a shred of evidence to back it up, there's really nothing new I could say.

Mr Hampton: Premier, the reality is, a lot has been happening. Your minister tried over a week ago to sanitize this by getting the law firm that acts for the Ontario Casino Corp to investigate and report on the casino corporation. Anyone can see through that. If you write to Al Capone's lawyer and ask him to give you a report on Al Capone, of course it's going to be a good report. The report wasn't worth what it was printed on.

The Acting Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: The new president of the casino corporation recognizes that. He knows that someone neutral has to be brought in to look at it. He's bringing in Stanley Beck.

I am saying to you, Premier, instead of trying to sanitize it once, twice, three times, why don't you open the process up to the public so people can really see what is happening in your casino scheme?

Hon Mr Harris: Since it's virtually the same process your government had in place, since the allegations that you've made in here are not allegations you're prepared to make outside and, concerning the issue of any potential conflict, that had nothing to do with our government or with any friends of our government - it had to do with a Michael French, who is an American consultant I think first brought in when you were there - and since there has not been one word printed or brought forward or any allegation inside or out that anything was done other than totally aboveboard, totally proper, totally the way you had done it, the same way, I think the evidence rather speaks for itself.

MINE RESCUE COMPETITION

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Recently, on June 6, I understand that you were in our great part of the province, northern Ontario, Timmins, and you attended the provincial mine rescue competition and also the awards.

Minister, can you tell us a little bit about that event? I think it's something that everybody in this province would like to hear about.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I thank the honourable member for Brampton North for the question.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): He doesn't know gold from gravel.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member from Nipigon. Minister.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The event, which is an important event in northern Ontario and in our mining industry in Ontario, was the 48th annual provincial mine rescue competition. These brave miners volunteer their time and effort to mine rescue training because they know that their work saves lives.

For example, last year, a fire reported to the Ministry of Labour lasted three full days. Full emergency response to that fire involved six teams rotating 24 hours a day. They isolated the fire, allowing normal mining operations to continue, and there wasn't one lost-time injury as a result of that fire. That's what these brave draegermen do. They're not only the best in Canada; they're the best in the world at mine rescue.

Mr Spina: Minister, I'm happy that it was a successful event. Having been to the 500-metre level of the Holloway Mine near Matheson, I feel a whole lot reassured when I see the safety teams that were working around with us.

Minister, this is really a keen competition. Who won?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I will be pleased to answer the honourable member's question. The competition was incredibly close this year. Less than 50 points separated the first and final teams.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. A question has been asked. You have to listen to the response. That's his right.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Shut him up. This is crap. People are talking about Bill 31, not this crap.

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Welland-Thorold.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I must say I'm surprised that the member for Welland-Thorold and other members don't show respect for these hardworking, brave mine rescue teams in the north.

There were competitors from seven districts, each of which had won their own district championship: from the southern Ontario district, the Canadian Salt Co Ltd, Ojibway Mine in Windsor; from the Onaping district, Falconbridge Ltd, Onaping/Craig Mine; from Thunder Bay-Algoma district, Battle Mountain Gold, Golden Giant Mine; from the Timmins district, the Kinross Gold Corp, Timmins operations; from the Red Lake district, Placer Dome, the Campbell Mine; from the Kirkland Lake district, Barrick Gold, the Holt-McDermott Mine; and from the Sudbury district, Inco, Creighton Mine.

There were two winners. There was a tie. The winners were Falconbridge, Onaping/Craig Mine, and the Barrick Gold Corp, Holt-McDermott Mine. These men and all their competitors deserve our respect. They are heroes in mining in Ontario.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Premier. There was a news conference today held in the Legislature. Pat Dillon, the business manager of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, called Bill 31, the labour bill, "legislation by ambush." He went on to say that as a result of the lack of consultation with the industry, Bill 31 is an ill-conceived piece of legislation that will have far-reaching negative impacts on the whole industry.

John Cartwright, who is the business manager of the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, at the same news conference stated that a member of your staff, but formerly in his previous incarnation Guy Giorno, when representing the TD Bank, offered $900,000 to the Carpenters union at the TD Bank to back off. The union refused, and of course TD Bank had to honour their particular agreement. I'd like to know, Premier, what has been the role of Guy Giorno in the drafting of Bill 31?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I never heard of a Guy Giorno; I do know a name pronounced Guy Giorno, though. I think the Minister of Labour can answer.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Bill 31 has been the product of extensive consultation, including consultations with the building trades council. Those consultations have gone on for over a year with respect to several important issues, in particular the issue of project agreements.

After the bill was introduced in this House on June 4, 1998, the following day the director of government relations for the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario said that the trade unions had had talks with the government about the project agreements. Indeed, that is absolutely so. He said, "In principle, we've agreed with helping to attract investment to Ontario through project agreements."

Those project agreements are incredibly important, as I'm sure members of the opposition understand, particularly in the petrochemical sector in Sarnia and Lambton. Some unions want to send jobs south; we want to keep these good jobs, these good union jobs, in Ontario.

Mr Patten: I want to recognize many members from the Carpenters union, Local 27 who are here today and other representatives of the trade unions. Thanks for coming.

Minister, you didn't answer the question. I asked you what role this man played. You obviously don't want to answer that question. The other thing is that in the consultations you had, you did not once introduce some of the factors you've put in this legislation. Now you don't want to have hearings. Why is that? If this is such a great bill and you're proud of it and you think it's the greatest, then why don't you put it out to public hearings and give them an opportunity to respond? It's not just the trade unions, it's the contractors as well who have some concerns about this, because they know the fragility of the construction industry.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The question has been asked.

Mr Patten: You have to be very sensitive. You're just trying to ram this through. Will you have public hearings?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The honourable member is correct that contractors do have genuine concerns, both contractors who employ union personnel and contractors who employ non-union people.

In fact, the Ontario General Contractors Association wrote to say: "This association represents both unionized and open-shop companies in approximately a 50-50 ratio. Our board of directors voted 100% that we should take action on this issue. We urge you to voice your opinion in caucus that the province act to ensure that publicly funded construction projects are open to all taxpayers, not just those with union agreements."

This is an effort to restore balance.

The Acting Speaker: New question; the member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is also to the Premier. It's not a question that you can easily slough off to your minister. This is your top policy adviser; this is an individual, Mr Giorno, who works out of your office. He's answerable to you. The fact is that he indeed was the lawyer for the TD Bank when, through all those recent years, they have tried to weasel out of their responsibilities to a legal collective agreement in front of the labour board and in front of the courts.

Now, Premier, you expect us to believe that it's just a coincidence that under your Bill 31 the TD Bank can now just rip up those collective agreements and not have to worry about anything because you've protected them under Bill 31.

Why won't you accept that this is not allowable, not acceptable practice in terms of people in your office achieving their clients' and friends' goals through the legislative process just because they can't win it in the courts?

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: I want to advise the people in the gallery that you're prevented from any demonstration. If you don't want to abide by these rules, I'll have to ask you to leave. I know you will respect the orders of the House.

Hon Mr Harris: I too welcome the members of the Carpenters union, who have many more jobs today than they did for the last 10 years as the result of this government's policies.

I might also point out to the Legislature that the law firm you're referring to, while Mr Giorno was there - during the NDP's term of office they used that law firm an average of 230,000 per year. Perhaps it was because Mr Giorno's expertise was there; I am not sure.

But let me assure you and the Carpenters union and the members who are here and all Ontarians that our goal with this legislation is to not stop the massive job creation and rebuilding of Toronto that's taking place under our government, because as long as there is one worker, union or otherwise, who wants to work and is unemployed in this province, we're going to do everything we can to have more jobs and more work and more money for those members who are the heart and soul of the construction industry here in Toronto and all across this province. Every piece of legislation, including Bill 31 -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Mr Christopherson: Premier, what a load of garbage. The fact of the matter is that Bill 31 is an anti-union bill that's meant to go after workers and go after their unions. It doesn't matter what part of this we look at, whether it's what's called the Wal-Mart provision where you're not allowing automatic certification, whether it's project agreements or whether it comes after non-construction employers, as in the case I just raised.

The Acting Speaker: Question.

Mr Christopherson: These people aren't here today -

The Acting Speaker: Order. A question period is not for making a speech. It's for asking a question. Please ask your question, otherwise I won't recognize you.

Mr Christopherson: Premier, as I was saying, these people are not here to thank you for anything. They're here in protest over the fact that you're intending to ram this anti-union bill through this Legislature without any hearings.

Premier, are you either going to accept the responsibility for the chaos that's going to happen in the construction industry or are you going to hold public hearings, one or the other?

Hon Mr Harris: There is a process for accountability that will come about next year or the year after and I want to assure you that I am prepared to accept full responsibility for the record of this government, for the massive increase in job creation of this government, for the massive increase in investment, for the increased numbers of the Carpenters union who are working in Toronto and working across this province today, for the increased number of union members, particularly in the construction industry, who are working. I am proud and happy to stack our five-year record against your five-year record of jobs and growth and investment any day, any time.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for privatization, who is also the government lead on auto insurance.

In the past, I have been contacted by some of my Eglinton constituents who have been denied auto insurance coverage by their insurance companies and have been assigned to the high-risk auto insurance market, which is also known as the Facility Association, or FA. They complained that they weren't given any warning of the fact that they were at risk of dramatic increases in their premiums because of their driving history.

I seem to recall hearing recently that this aspect of the auto insurance system was going to be changed or has changed. Minister, can you tell me whether changes have indeed been made to the high-risk auto insurance market so that I may report back to my constituents?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): We certainly promised that we would reform the Facility Association and we have kept that promise. The previous four-point system that operated under Facility Association didn't reflect the public's expectation that it would be the bad drivers who would be paying the higher premiums. In fact, many people who were not classified as bad drivers were forced into that system because of its ill-conceived design under the previous administration.

The current system was of course designed under our instruction, in cooperation with not only industry players but consumer association representatives, brokers, people who actually have to pay and market this program through Ontario.

Mr Saunderson: I am pleased to hear the changes to the high-risk auto insurance marketplace have been made and that a new system is being put in place. I wonder if the minister would outline in greater detail the features of the new system, and could he also explain whether anything has been done to improve communication between insurance companies and drivers at risk of being placed in the high-risk market.

Hon Mr Sampson: The fundamental design of the current system, the new system, is that it has three different tiers. One tier would deal with, for instance, drivers who had an impaired driving conviction who, one would expect, would pay more than somebody who had some minor traffic conviction. That's part of the design of the new system.

Premiums, of course, will now properly reflect the various risk categories we see in auto insurance so that some drivers will pay more and some drivers will clearly pay less. But the good news is that we have set in place a communication system where companies will have to advise consumers, auto insurance premium buyers, of these various classifications and how they can get into that system and how they can get out.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Premier. Recently, a company called United Aggregates Ltd had broken the law and was found by a justice of the peace to have broken the law in regard to quarrying along the Niagara Escarpment. Justice of the Peace Wendy Casey ruled that the charges against the company would be dropped because your former Minister of Environment and Energy, Brenda Elliott, in her capacity as minister advised the company to break the law and continue operating on the Niagara Escarpment without a permit. The judgement said that the minister advised the company to continue mining, and they continued.

Does this type of case not hit at the heart of the integrity of your government? Does it not speak of acceptable conduct for ministers in their capacity to advise companies that they should break the law?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you. The question has been asked.

Mr Agostino: Do you find that acceptable, and what action would you take on it?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Here's the note from Guy Giorno. Guy Giorno says -

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The note says that the Minister of Natural Resources knows more about this than I do, so I'll refer it to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member opposite for the question. I know that this matter -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Go ahead.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know this matter has been put forward to the authorities in question. I understand that the aggregate company now is in compliance with the law and will continue to be in compliance with the law, and that has been filed with our ministry, and is in compliance with the Niagara Escarpment Commission. That's my understanding of the facts of the matter to date.

Mr Agostino: Members of the commission and former members have expressed horror at the ruling. Clearly the decision here said that this company could get away with breaking the law because they were advised by the minister that they can go ahead and ignore the law of the province because she was the minister of the day and she was responsible for this.

It's not a question of whether they are following the law today. It's a question that at the time they were charged, the Minister of Environment said to the company, "Break the law; it's okay." That is not acceptable behaviour of a cabinet minister. That abandons commitment to the Niagara Escarpment; that abandons any sense of the law being followed in this province.

Do you believe it was appropriate for that minister to give that judgement and that decision to the company? If not, will you today recommend an appeal in this case?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to assure the member opposite that United Aggregates has all the appropriate permits that are necessary under the Aggregate Resources Act for its quarry activities on the Niagara Escarpment. In fact, it's in compliance and has satisfied all the requirements of the Niagara Escarpment Commission for those quarrying operations. Those are the facts. That's the condition as it exists today.

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Premier. I would like to follow up on the issue of Mr Gilchrist and his brutish, bullying and threatening letter to Principal Tarver at West Hill Collegiate. I recognize that you've received a copy of his letter and you're going to review it to determine whether you think that behaviour meets appropriate standards for a parliamentary assistant of your government.

I would like you at the same time to review the transcript of the CBC Evening News at 6 o'clock last night and the political panel, during which Mr Gilchrist attacked -

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Isn't it a custom to refer to the member by his riding? I would appreciate that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Please refer to his riding.

Ms Lankin: The member for Scarborough East last night during the show attacked the character and the credibility of the principal of this school, and he was not there to be able to defend himself. In fact, he went so far as to call this gentleman a liar, on television that goes right across southwestern Ontario, when the individual wasn't there.

I think that is unacceptable behaviour on the part of a parliamentary assistant of the government of Ontario. Will you review those transcripts and determine whether that meets your standards or not, Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I take requests from members seriously at all times, and I would be happy to do that. I would remind the member that now she is admonishing a member for saying something out in public, where it is challengeable in court, as opposed to the usual practice of her members, which is to say it here under parliamentary privilege when they're afraid to go outside and say it in public, when it is challengeable, when there are remedies, when they can be sued.

Ms Lankin: I'll ignore the macho bravado of the Premier in his response and suggest to him that there's a very serious -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has the floor. Order, the member for Kingston and The Islands.

Ms Lankin: Premier, the member for Scarborough East has threatened that school with the withdrawal of the Gilchrist sponsorship, which he claims to be a $200 sponsorship per year that is given. I have to tell you that the school has checked the records and in fact the last time that Canadian Tire, not the Gilchrists, donated any money was 1994, before the member was even elected. So perhaps you'll find his conduct wasn't threatening simply because it was an empty threat.

I've got to tell you I've just finished speaking to one of the secretaries in the administrative office of the school. They have been flooded with phone calls from the community in support of the principal, in support of the staff there, and appalled at the actions of the member for Scarborough East.

The member for Scarborough East also alleges the support of the parents council. I can tell you they met last night informally and they are supportive of their principal.

You must look into this and appropriate steps must be taken. We need to know if you accept that as a standard of behaviour for a parliamentary assistant of your government.

The Acting Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you, and through you, Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable member too.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. In the first week of June the citizens of the city of Woodstock participated in the 1998 Road Safety Challenge for the first time. I personally had the opportunity to have my driving skills retested and I want to tell you that I did find that over the years I had acquired some bad habits in my driving practices. I want to ask the minister if he would tell the House some of the important factors of this important safety measure he's undertaking.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): Obviously, I want to thank the honourable member for Oxford for being so up front. I think in our quieter moments we all realize that all of us would do well to retest our skills.

I would like to inform the House that the Road Safety Challenge took place between May 31 and June 7. It was a week-long educational campaign focused on reducing collisions and heightening awareness in our local communities.

I can tell you that this government takes road safety very seriously. In fact, we have passed three road safety bills over the last three years. In spite of that, 600 reportable motor vehicle collisions occur every single day in Ontario. Obviously more has to be done.

I'd like to share with this House the results of the 1998 Road Safety Challenge. In first place, with zero collisions, is Petawawa; in second place, with 0.922 collisions per 10,000 residents, is Kanata; and in third place, with 1.805 collisions per 10,000 residents, is Halton Hills. My congratulations to them all.

PETITIONS

ABORTION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

This has been signed by 526 residents of eastern Ontario.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Further petitions regarding workplace health and safety continue to pour in.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

I continue to support these petitioners by adding my name.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 15 people which I present on behalf of the member for London North.

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): You might have noticed again that petitions are far too long. Many members are waiting to read their petitions, so when they last too long, not everyone has a chance to say them. Try to make them brief.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): My petition is short.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Holy Trinity Catholic high school in Kanata has 30 portables on site and no room for any more; and

"Whereas students' education and their health and safety are compromised by continued and excessive overcrowding; and

"Whereas the reduction of class size as mandated by the government will cause further stress of the school's facilities;

"Therefore,

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

"That the government provide immediate funding for a new Catholic high school in Stittsville to open in September 1999 to alleviate this crisis in accommodation at the Holy Trinity Catholic high school in Kanata."

I affix my signature to it.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): Mr Speaker, this is in the new format. I rise today to present a petition signed by some of the constituents of my riding of Eglinton. They're petitioning the government of Ontario to enact legislation to protect health care workers against discrimination because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you very much. That is the way it should be.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we are concerned about the quality of health care in Ontario;

"Whereas we do not believe health care should be for sale;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is taking steps to allow profit-driven companies to provide health care services in Ontario;

"Whereas we won't stand for profits over people;

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

"Do not privatize our health care services."

I join the citizens of 2455 Rivard in signing this petition.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 431 signatures from my riding. It's addressed to the Ontario Legislature, Premier Mike Harris, Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer and members of the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the Ministry of Medicine through its $1.7-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association; and

"Whereas Mike Harris's government is restricting access to alternative cost-saving treatments for patients of the province; and

"Whereas two recent reports commissioned by the Ministry of Health called for increased OHIP funding to improve patient access to chiropractic services on the grounds of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and

"Whereas over one million Ontario adults now use chiropractic services annually, increasingly those with higher incomes, because of the cost barrier caused by government underfunding; and

"Whereas Mike Harris's government has shown blatant disregard for the needs of the citizens of Ontario in restricting funding for chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize the contribution made by chiropractors to the good health of the people of Ontario, to recognize the taxpayer dollars saved by the use of low-cost preventive care such as that provided by chiropractors and to recognize that to restrict funding for chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service."

I have signed that petition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Some are too long.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition from some very concerned citizens in my constituency, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents, teachers want reinvestment in education rather than a reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down; and

"Whereas Ontario Liberal leader, Dalton McGuinty, has pledged to repeal Bill 160;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further,

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

I am in full agreement with this petition.

ABORTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which asks that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions. It is signed by a significant number of my constituents.

RENT REGULATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "Whereas the Mike Harris government has brought forth Bill 96, legislation which will effectively kill rent control in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris campaign literature during the York South by-election stated that rent control will continue; and

"Whereas tenant groups, students and seniors have pointed out that this legislation will hurt those who can least afford it, as it will cause higher rents across most markets in Ontario; and

"Whereas this Mike Harris proposal will make it easier for residents to be evicted from retirement care homes; and

"Whereas the Liberal caucus continues to believe that all tenants, and particularly the vulnerable in our society who live on fixed incomes, deserve the assurance of a maximum rent cap;

"We, the undersigned, demand that the Mike Harris government scrap its proposal to abandon and eliminate rent control and introduce legislation which will protect tenants in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature; I'm in full agreement.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and I realize it's a little long, but it has been signed by 150 residents from my riding, and they believe in this very strongly. It's a matter of principle to them.

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards;

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs;

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences;

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral;

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

I am pleased to sign my name.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My petition is identical to the one of the member for Kitchener, so I will only read the "whereas" clause. It's signed by eight residents in my riding. It says:

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

I hereby file this petition.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents. There are a number of people. It's to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Health and the members of the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the Ministry of Medicine through its $1.2-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association" -

This petition goes on generally in support of the government's actions in health care. I'm very pleased to sign my name to it.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition here from residents of Rossport concerned about capital road improvements.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Rossport contribute to the tax base of the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation has not included highway repairs for the Rossport loop, which carries visitors and residents into and out of Rossport, in their highway maintenance plan; and

"Whereas this road is in need of immediate repairs to ensure the safe passage of drivers;

"Therefore we, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to immediately bring capital improvements to the Rossport loop."

It's signed by hundreds of residents of Rossport, Terrace Bay, Schreiber and Marathon, and I'm pleased to add my name to this petition.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 21 signatures from the Hockley Valley Bible Chapel.

"We, the undersigned, oppose the establishment of casinos and video lottery terminals in the town of Orangeville and in the county of Dufferin. We also oppose all government attempts to increase revenue through the means of gambling."

I have signed this petition.

ADOPTION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a long petition. I will simply summarize the "therefore" clause.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to permit unrestricted access to full identifying birth information to adopted persons and adult children of adopted persons and unrestricted access to adopted persons' amended birth certificate to birth parents, birth grandparents, siblings and other birth relatives when the adopted persons reach 18."

In light of the times, it's simply to support reform to adoption information access.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): On behalf of my constituents of Durham East, I'm very pleased to read into the record documents in support of the government's actions with respect to health care. It's to Premier Harris, to Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Health, and to the members of the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the Ministry of Medicine through its $1.7-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association" and further commitments to health care in Ontario, it's very clear that this province is on the right track.

I'm very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENERGY COMPETITION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA CONCURRENCE DANS LE SECTEUR DE L'ÉNERGIE

Mr Wilson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 35,

An Act to create jobs and protect consumers by promoting low-cost energy through competition, to protect the environment, to provide for pensions and to make related amendments to certain Acts / Projet de loi 35, Loi visant à créer des emplois et à protéger les consommateurs en favorisant le bas prix de l'énergie au moyen de la concurrence, protégeant l'environnement, traitant de pensions et apportant des modifications connexes à certaines lois.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I'd like to say in the beginning, Mr Speaker, that I'll be sharing my time with the member for Huron and the member for Northumberland this afternoon.

It's an historic time in the province of Ontario as this government moves to open up our electricity industry to competition. We are in many ways leading North America and the world with the Energy Competition Act, the bill that's the subject of our discussion here today for second reading. But we're also following many other jurisdictions in the world - Australia, New Zealand, Britain, California, with President Clinton's pronouncement just over two months ago that all of the United States will be embracing competition in their electricity sector.

This has come about because of Sir Adam Beck's and the former Conservative Premier James Whitney's vision for Ontario Hydro. This vision has essentially been completed and it's time to open a new

chapter in the history of our electricity industry, and indeed of our industrial policy, in Ontario because so much of what we do, obviously, in terms of attracting jobs depends on our competitiveness, and subsequently the backbone of competitiveness is affordable and fair energy prices for our businesses and residential consumers.

We should remember that at the turn of the century electricity was still one of the modern miracles of science. I just want to paraphrase for a few minutes from Mr Ron Daniels, the dean of medicine and chair of our Market Design Committee, who spoke to the Toronto board of trade just this morning. He reminded us that at a time when most people obtained their heat by burning wood and their light by burning candles, electricity was a novel technology, a miracle fuel that you could not see, hear, touch or smell. Yet at the flick of a switch it was suddenly there ready to turn motors, light streets, power railcars and do a thousand other useful jobs.

Today, after nearly a century, we all take electricity pretty much for granted and we've come to depend on it a lot more than we realize, at least until a major ice storm - as we saw, Mr Speaker, in your part of the province earlier this year - or a fallen tree knocks out the system for a few hours and reminds us just how vulnerable we are when the lights go off.

In 1906, public power won the day when the Conservatives under James Whitney created the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario and named Adam Beck as its first chairman. In the beginning, the corporation bought electricity from the private sector and transmitted it to communities throughout southern Ontario. It wasn't long before demand was such that the utility began building and operating its own generating facilities.

Over the past 92 years Ontario Hydro became one of the world's largest electricity monopolies; indeed one of the largest electricity generators in all of North America and the world. It was designed to provide power in the most cost-effective way possible and to accomplish public policy objectives such as industrial development and rural electrification. I think all members would agree that for most of that 92 years, Ontario Hydro served the people of Ontario very well.

During much of that time, if we had simply left it up to market forces, perhaps rural Ontario would not have been electrified as quickly as it was. In the western industrialized world many parts of Ontario were the first to receive electricity in their rural areas, well ahead of other jurisdictions. For that we are grateful to Ontario Hydro and we're grateful to the vision of our forefathers, who set out a very good plan. There aren't too many plans that last about a century, and clearly the original plan for Ontario Hydro lasted almost that long.

As Ron Daniels reminded the board of trade this morning, that vision has been realized, and in the last 10 years the performance at Ontario Hydro has not been what a prudent shareholder would expect. The shareholder is the people of Ontario, as represented by the minister, and people are demanding greater choice and greater accountability. By Hydro's own admission, we've seen that mistakes have been made. We've seen a large debt piled up.

But I remind people that the people who were there during the dark days of Ontario Hydro decision-making are not the same people who are there today. This government has put in place a new senior management, a new board in particular which has put in place a senior management team.

That board is quite ably chaired by Mr Bill Farlinger who, yes, is a friend of the government, but he is also very much a friend of the people of Ontario in that he brings to the job a lifetime of corporate advice, corporate experience, to ensure that the proper decisions are taken in these very difficult times for Ontario Hydro and that the company is brought through with a clear vision of what its future is. I want to talk at the end about what that vision is, because it's a very exciting vision, for not only the shareholders but of course the employees and management at Ontario Hydro.

Also, Mr Ron Osborne, who joined Ontario Hydro just a few months ago, coming from Bell Canada and Maclean Hunter before that, brings a lifetime of tremendous experience too. New board members whom we've put in place I think in the last couple of years have admitted the mistakes of the corporation and have been setting out various plans, like the nuclear asset optimization plan, to ensure that we move forward to bring our nuclear assets back up to world excellence and put behind us the days of minimally acceptable performance by parts of that corporation. Those days are behind us.

Hydro is extremely important; there's no doubt of that. Our hydro rates have gone up since 1986 about 52% to 56%, on average about 54%. In the last five years alone hydro rates have gone up 30%. When we attracted the industrial jobs in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s in this province, Ontario had the lowest electricity rates in Canada. We now have the third-highest, just behind Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. That is a shame.

The bill before us today, the Energy Competition Act, sets out a framework for us to introduce competition and to give the best guarantee we can to the ratepayers of the lowest possible prices.

We've seen in the jurisdictions I mentioned earlier - Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, California, other states, and Britain - that prices have gone down with the introduction of competition anywhere between 8% and 40%.

We've seen over the last decade, with the introduction of competition in the natural gas sector in Ontario, that not only did it bring greater consumer choice but prices have gone down at least 30% and for some large customers 40%, and that's net of inflation. We should have seen prices go up a bit each year, even though inflation's been fairly low, but indeed we've seen prices go the other way.

The benefits, as Mr Daniels points out in his remarks - I'll just say that I think he's done a good job of putting together the following statement: "The day of the monopoly is over, for the evidence is that electricity restructuring offers several specific gains, including fairer prices that are determined on a competitive basis in a market that's open to many different buyers and sellers."

It's a dramatic change for the province, because we're moving from providing electricity at cost, where the cost determines prices - and that means Hydro could make whatever decisions it wanted and had a free-for-all, nothing binding on it in terms of prices. It could have a review of its rates before the Ontario Energy Board, but in recent years more often than not Hydro ignored the outcome of those hearings and went ahead and set its own rates anyway, unlike gas, where the energy board does set the rates consumers pay.

We saw that costs were determined and rates went up according to the costs. We now move to a system where price will determine cost, which we know is how all our other commodities are bought and sold in this province. People are probably very unfamiliar with cost determining price, because in our daily lives when we go to the store or otherwise, most of the products we buy or services we purchase have as their fundamental formula that costs will be determined by the price the market will bear.

That will be a big plus as we remove the government's debt guarantee and Hydro has to act on a more businesslike basis and be more prudent in its judgements. It's already doing that under the new leadership of the last couple of years, under Mr Farlinger's leadership.

Mr Daniels also points out that there will be greater choice and greater clout for electricity consumers and the potential for system-wide improvements in safety, reliability and environmental protection.

Think of this dramatic change for the province too: We're going from a system where the company chose its customers to a system where customers choose their electrical supply company, something we take for granted in other goods and services. We choose the products, we choose what companies we want to have provide services to us, but for 92 years the people of Ontario have never had that choice. Even though the private sector and environmental groups and indeed the unions have been asking for a breakup of this monopoly for many years, no other government had the gumption to do it.

As Ron Daniels reminded the board of trade, there have been 16 reports, royal commissions, select committees and legislative hearings that have all focused over the last three decades on Ontario Hydro; no fewer than 16 of these. The last one, upon whose advice we acted, was chaired by the Honourable Donald Macdonald in 1996 and it was the Advisory Committee on Competition in Ontario's Electricity System. It formed the basis of the government's white paper that I introduced on November 6 last year, and it forms the basis of the new competitive model that we have before the House today.

We will also see with the introduction of competition a more efficient distribution of electricity, a more businesslike approach to system planning and investment, a better overall balance between supply and demand and, finally, as Dean Daniels points out, improvements to the overall financial health of the system, since the risks and costs of the system will be spread out among new players, including private companies and their shareholders, rather than just ratepayers and taxpayers.

One of the reasons we know we'll have lower costs, particularly in Toronto, is that there are tremendous savings to be made immediately on the distribution side. I'm going to outline just briefly in the time I have where the savings could come from with the introduction of competition.

In the generation sector, and about 70% of the wholesale price of electricity today is the generation side, we know from the unions themselves and the new management at Hydro that there are tremendous efficiencies to be found there, but those efficiencies will only come if Hydro is forced to sharpen its pencil by having to compete with others for generation.

We know on the distribution side, which is the local wires, that there are tremendous savings to be had there. In Toronto, the new Toronto Hydro Commission is admitting that they may be able to pass off savings in the near future in the 20% range on the distribution portion of the bill. If you look at our distribution sectors, which are themselves local monopolies run by our municipal electrical utilities - we give credit to Hazel McCallion in Mississauga again. You have distribution costs there of 8%.

In Toronto, in the old Toronto Hydro and now the amalgamated six MEUs that have come together to create the new Toronto Hydro, distribution costs are in the 25% range - totally unacceptable. Some of that is not management's fault, some of that is congestion problems in the city, but by their own admission last week, we should see rates fall in Toronto to at least come in line with those rates enjoyed by areas in the GTA. So there are savings there. If this bill hadn't been introduced, I don't think we would have seen the impetus for those companies.

Those monopolies now will all be commercialized just like Ontario Hydro, and they'll have to act like businesses and pass those savings on to their customers.

Finally, in the area of stranded debt, as members know, the Ministry of Finance, following on the work by Dr Bryne Purchase, the former chief economist of the province, will be issuing an options paper at the end of this month or the first part of July further enlightening all of us on how we're going to deal with the issue of stranded debt. We're receiving lots of advice out there.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): How large is the stranded debt?

Hon Mr Wilson: "How large is the stranded debt?" is a very good question. There are three different expert accounting teams that are in Ontario Hydro now, along with the Ministry of Finance, all trying to figure out where those cobwebs are and all trying to find every penny of debt. It's an examination of conscience for some, I would say, and it's an examination of the books for others, as they go through Ontario Hydro, line by line, department by department. We will have a full airing, as we have had.

I think one of the reasons we have had all-party consensus on the approach to this legislation is that I and my colleagues have all been very open and honest about this entire process, and we certainly will have a full airing with respect to the stranded debt.

But I don't like the word "new." I hear members opposite on talk shows, and others, talking about new charges. There's nothing new in this. I said to a panel of political experts on Studio 2 the other day, as they went on about new charges and new debt, "There's nothing new." The ratepayers in this province have always been on the hook for the decommissioning costs. They've always been on the hook for any debt that Hydro incurs, because every penny of it has been guaranteed, and that guarantee will be removed over the next couple of years. Hydro will have to act like a business and make decisions like a business.

If they don't, we'll make sure there's a board in there that does, although we have great confidence in this particular board and the direction they've been steering Hydro in as it prepares for open competition.

There's nothing new. There's not a thing in this bill that would cause new financial pressures. It's all designed - all of the payments in lieu, the payments in lieu of corporate taxes that Hydro's been exempt from over the years. Its successor companies will pay money, not into the consolidated revenue fund, but money and charges that are in the system now will go towards paying down, will go into the financial holding company called the Ontario Hydro Financial Corp, or Holdco, and all that money will go towards paying down the stranded debt. That is a tremendous positive whatever way you slice it.

We will ensure and the Ontario Energy Board will ensure that the savings from lower debt interest costs and lower debt servicing costs will be passed on to consumers. We can see that prices over time should fall as a result of getting the burden off people's electricity bill, because 30% of their bill today at their house and their business is simply debt servicing charges.

It has always been serviced. As I said, Hydro's never missed a bond payment. There's $32 billion worth of bonds out there. They've never missed a payment and they've never missed a payment in any of their operations. So for someone to say that there are new charges or for the Municipal Electric Association to say rates are going to go up X per cent, they simply aren't making the case to back up those statements, and when asked to present that case they simply haven't been able to do so over the past several months.

For the most part, though, I'd like to thank the local utilities. They're going through a significant change, just like Ontario Hydro; the monopoly parts of their business will be separated as Hydro's will. I want to thank the environmental groups and then I'll thank the unions in a minute. Many of the environmental groups in the province, Energy Probe and others, have been extremely supportive of this legislation.

To think that those great inventors over the years who came up with ways to generate electricity through biomass or through solar power or wind power - it was illegal for them to sell that to willing customers, because Ontario Hydro and the local distribution companies, the local municipal electric utilities, had a monopoly on the wires. Yet we all paid for those wires, and there's a lot of consumers out there that want green power.

They want power, and they're probably willing to pay a cent or two per kilowatt-hour for power that comes from sources other than the fossil fuel sources, which we know create a great many emissions into our air that aren't good for us. Even though Hydro has met all its statutory and voluntary emissions standards, which are the toughest in the world - and they deserve full credit for that - it still would be nice to see a healthy green power, an environmentally friendly industry, be encouraged in this province. This legislation allows that to happen, because people that generate green power will be able to get their power now to their willing customers.

Second, I want to thank the unions as I wind up. We've had tremendous response from John Murphy and the Power Workers' Union. He has taken a very responsible approach. I think that the Power Workers' Union realizes, as much as anyone, that the days of a big monopoly functioning relatively inefficiently are over. They know prices are high. They know that all our jobs in Ontario depend on what we do through this legislation in getting prices down, that future jobs in the province depend very much on this legislation. The Power Workers' Union themselves, not the government, have been taking out newspaper ads and running media spots about private-public partnerships.

We have at least one party in this House that always dismissed partnerships with the private sector. It's the big evil. We saw it again in question period today. Yet we have a very responsible union out there which represents people in well-paying jobs, Ontario Hydro jobs, which says that, "No we can't keep going back to the taxpayers through the debt guarantee for more and more money to pump into this monopoly," that we should get business-like, and that the way to get business-like is to have the discipline of the market through a competitive structure.

They fully embraced where we're going and we thank them for that. I thank them for that involvement. In fact, that union is such a pleasure to work with. We've seen recently that the whole nuclear asset optimization plan obviously won't work without the employees' cooperation and embracing of that plan and we've seen flexibility between the union and management being able to move workers from Bruce to Pickering and Darlington, so we can bring those plants back up to world excellence and then begin to work on bringing back Bruce, depending on market conditions, after the year 2000.

I'll wind up just by talking about the new vision for Ontario Hydro, because there's a lot of doom and gloom out there when you talk about this industry. I pointed out earlier that it served us very well for 92 years and that it indeed has a very bright future. Clearly Ontario Hydro has admitted, because it holds such a large part of the generating market - almost 95% of the generation in the province is done by that monopoly right now - it will have to give up market share in order to address the issue of market power. In other words, it will have to give up part of the market so that new generators can come in on a level playing field and compete with it.

What is Hydro doing? It's aggressively looking to the northeast United States. With restructuring introducing competition in the US market, you'll see probably over the next 10 years amalgamations of many of the generating companies. In fact, you almost see it daily when you read in the financial press in North America of the deals that are being worked out between different companies. It's expected that about 10 years from now, over the next decade, there will be 15 or 16 major generators in the US and in North America. Ontario Hydro wants to be one of those major players.

As a shareholder in Ontario Hydro, we don't talk about privatization because, first of all, that company needs a number of years, and the successor companies will need a number of years, to get their value back up, to enhance their value. Ontario Hydro is a badly devalued and demoralized entity right now. We do not want a fire sale so we are not talking about privatization. We are talking about introducing competition and commercializing, making sure that the new successor companies have to, by law, act in a prudent manner and in a business-like manner.

But one of the reasons we're not talking about privatization is my dream for Ontario Hydro is that, once again, it will begin to return a healthy profit back to the shareholder - and the shareholder is the people of Ontario - and that money in the future could be used to either lower electricity rates again or, once the debt is paid off, clearly that's money that could go into general revenues that can support health care and education and other priorities that the government of the day might have. That's one vision of where the money should go once Ontario Hydro is again a major player in the North American market.

However, people should not underestimate Ontario Hydro's ability to be a major player in North America. They clearly have a plan that they're putting in place and they're sharing with their employees that, as they give up market share in Ontario, they will capture new markets, beginning in the northeastern United States. It's very possible beginning almost immediately, because Hydro's price vis-à-vis the northeast United States is a very competitive price for electricity.

We're not competitive vis-à-vis Quebec right now where there's about a 30% advantage because they have the natural advantage of hydroelectric power and we have mostly nuclear power. On a good day 50% to 70% of the power is provided by nuclear power. It's great power and it's environmentally quite clean with respect to emissions, but it's expensive to get on line and to maintain. But once it gets going, nuclear power provides us with a clean, efficient and safe form of electricity.

When the plants are running well, and they will be again, Ontario Hydro will be very competitive in the US market, so that's where they're headed. They're going to need all their employees, and I bet in the future they're going to need more employees. In fact, they're starting to hire back former employees right now to bring them back up to world excellence in the nuclear division.

I don't think we're going to see the big layoffs the NDP were talking about on a talk show recently. Clearly they're going to have to sharpen their pencils, clearly they're going to have to become more efficient, but at the end of the day North America is their market and they will always have a mandate to serve the people of Ontario first. But if successful in the North American market, not only will it help to eliminate past debts and mistakes, it will return, we hope, very healthy profits back to the people of Ontario who after a few years of not seeing a return from Ontario Hydro probably deserve to see their investment improve and get a dollar return back on that.

I will yield the floor now to my colleagues. I want to thank members of this House, though, from all sides for supporting the bill on first reading. We ask for your support on second reading today and tomorrow and we look forward to committee hearings for a couple of weeks in August. I thank all members for their cooperation and for sharing in our new vision for a competitive energy market in this province.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): It is with great pleasure that I join the debate today. This is a very important and probably very necessary day to happen in the province of Ontario.

I would first like to say that along the line many people thought that this day wouldn't happen in the province. They thought it would take too long to put this act together, that there would be too many things that would come into play and that we wouldn't be able to move forward.

Today I would first like to say congratulations to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. He's done a terrific job to move this process forward. One of the things I've been amazed at as I've watched him go through this process is the number of stakeholders he's dealt with over the period. He has been able to get commitment from these stakeholders, he's been able to get these stakeholders involved in the process and he's been able to glean support from the stakeholders. That's a very important process that has happened with this bill.

When we talk about stakeholders, I think it's important for the people at home to recognize that there are a number of stakeholders involved. There are people who use hydro every day. You and I as residential consumers use hydro every day when we turn on the switch in our homes. There are commercial enterprises and industries that also use power on a very large basis in Ontario. We had many of those large users of power at the table.

There are also people who produce electricity in the province who were at the table. Not only does Ontario Hydro produce that electricity that is there when you turn on the, but there are also small generators that produce power in the province, and they were at the table. We hope that in the future there will be many more generators who will work to produce electricity in very many different ways, and they were at the table as we came up with this bill.

There was also, as the minister suggested, the environmentalists, who are concerned about where this province is going in the future and how we can leave for our children a province that is environmentally strong, that's healthy and that allows them opportunities to get jobs and live a healthy existence in the future.

Then there were also the unions. The unions came to the table because they recognized that change had to happen in the electricity sector for the labour force to grow and maintain jobs and prosper, and so they were there.

We also had municipal electric utilities at the table. They're part of the change. They have to look at how they're going to change for the people at home, to bring the power from Ontario Hydro to our doorsteps and to our light switches. They're there and they're a very important part of this industry. They are going to change to work with us to make the electricity market a very exciting market.

Along with the municipal electrical utilities are the municipalities themselves. Many of those own the transmission lines, the lines we see going down our roads and in our cities. They have some concerns about how that transmission line will be funded and the revenue they'll get from that, so they were at the table.

We've had an incredible process of bringing people together. All of these stakeholders have put aside partisan interests, they've put aside things that are important to them and said, "How can we best work together to be able to find a solution to take our electricity sector into the 21st century?" They have done a terrific job, and for that I really want to say thank you today

From those different groups I just talked about what came together was a group of individuals who formed two very important committees within our process. The first committee, which the minister talked about earlier today, was headed by Dr Ron Daniels. That's called the Market Design Committee. Their goal is to come up with ways to design this market so that it works efficiently in the future and moves us forward. They are thinking about things that you and I would never think about on a day-to-day basis. They're coming up with creative ways to work around problems that exist and they're coming to a semblance of consensus which allows us to move forward.

The second group, which I've been very impressed by, is the Minister's Electricity Transition Committee. They have tried to find ways to facilitate the process. They're going to be very important as we're in this transition period between the monopoly, as we see it in electricity today, and the competitive market in 2000. They're going to be there to help us through that period as we come up with issues we haven't thought about.

One of the things that I think made me sit back and really think the other day was that we had an electricity transition committee meeting, which I chaired. The vice-chair was reporting to us from the Market Design Committee. What he said to us was that as he made decisions every day about the future of electricity and how the market should work in the province of Ontario, he gave them a litmus test. The litmus test he gave every decision that the Market Design Committee made was: What would my mother-in-law in Guelph think about this decision? How would this affect her? Would she understand it? What does it do to bring power to her house?

I think it's very important as we go through many technical aspects of this that many of us who just flick on the switch don't understand. It's important for everyone to be thinking about the consumer at home and how that affects them and what services they receive as a result of the decisions. I was warmed by that. As we move through the process we're going to be very concerned about how this affects the consumers and what we can do to protect the consumers and what we can do to bring the consumers benefit. That's the direction.

One of the things that also has given some people in Ontario some confidence that we're going to be very concerned about consumer protection is the appointment of the previous member for Nickel Belt. He sat on the select committee on Ontario Hydro with me and a number of my colleagues. He is very concerned about the future of electricity in the province and understands many of the problems and dilemmas we're dealing with with respect to electricity. One of his major roles, of course, as the chair of the Ontario Energy Board will be to ensure that consumers are protected and that they receive the best value they can.

Just to go back a little bit, I would like to remind the viewers at home and the people in the gallery today that this has been a long, long process. We've seen, as the minister mentioned, Hydro evolve over 92 years. We've also seen a number of select committees that have come through this House to say how we can make the process better.

I always like to tell my friends and neighbours that many years ago the Premier of the province was in my position as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy. He looked at the process that was going on at that time in electricity and so he has a very strong knowledge about this process. As a result of that knowledge from being in the Ministry of Energy for about a year, he put into the Common Sense Revolution some documentation about how Ontario Hydro needed to change and move forward. The Common Sense Revolution first told us that we were going to make some changes to Ontario Hydro.

The minister then came out in November with the white paper and then the legislation came out in the last week or two.

This is enabling legislation to let the market evolve. We're now looking for input and consultation with the people and the stakeholders and the consumers so that we understand exactly where we're moving in the future.

One of the things I want to speak very clearly about today is the bill itself. The bill is broken into four sections, and the first

schedule or

section is the Electricity Act. In that

section we talk a lot about how the market should look in the future.

The second

section is the Ontario Energy Board Act. In this

section we review how that board will work in the future, will bring customer protection, will have some powers that will make sure that everyone in the province is being treated fairly and that we're moving towards a system that is fair and equitable.

Then there are two other sections, one being the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act, and the fourth sec