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

April 4, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Apr-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 4 April 2006 Mardi 4 avril 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KAYLA CORNALE

WASTE MANAGEMENT

BORDER SECURITY

LONG-TERM CARE

HOCKEYVILLE 2006

HYDRO ONE

CRIME PREVENTION

BORDER SECURITY

RABBI LAWRENCE ENGLANDER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY 406

TO PORT COLBORNE ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'AUTOROUTE 406

MENANT À PORT COLBORNE

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOREWAY DRIVE

GENERATING STATION

JEAN LOWERY

GOREWAY DRIVE

GENERATING STATION

JEAN LOWERY

GOREWAY DRIVE

GENERATING STATION

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

2006 ONTARIO BUDGET

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS.

EDUCATION FUNDING

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

SCHOOL BOARDS

COST OF ELECTRICAL POWER

RECYCLING PLANT

ENERGY RATES

COURT SECURITY

RESIGNATION OF AUDITOR GENERAL

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

PUBLIC EDUCATION

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

LONG-TERM CARE

SPECIAL CARE HOMES

LONG-TERM CARE

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

LONG-TERM CARE

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

MACULAR DEGENERATION

LONG-TERM CARE

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONGER CITY OF TORONTO

FOR A STRONGER ONTARIO ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 CRÉANT

UN TORONTO PLUS FORT

POUR UN ONTARIO PLUS FORT

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LA SAINE GESTION PUBLIQUE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KAYLA CORNALE

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I rise today to congratulate Kayla Marie Cornale, a 16-year-old student at Assumption high school in

Burlington. For the second year in a row, Kayla has won numerous awards for her research into autism and the program she has developed to teach autistic children. Working with her nine-year-old

cousin, Kayla quickly recognized a strong musical talent, common to autistic children, and devised a teaching system based on musical notes played from a piano. Through this, she has successfully

taught the entire alphabet, emotions such as happiness and fear, and basic nouns, verbs and adjectives.

Kayla's project, Sounds into Syllables, has won far too many awards to name in the last two years of its development; however, I would like to highlight that she

won the 2005 Intel Foundation achievement award, the American Intellectual Property Law Association award and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association award at the Intel International

Science and Engineering Fair in Phoenix, Arizona. Kayla will be returning to the science and engineering fair again this year as part of Team Canada to compete with her updated research.

It should also be mentioned that Kayla developed her own computer software to assist in the teaching process and received Bell Canada's computer and

communications award and Dofasco's information systems award as a result.

In a province where parents of autistic children feel that the McGuinty government has all but turned its back on their children, Kayla Cornale's love,

compassion and innovation are a beacon of hope and a breath of fresh air.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It gives me great pleasure to rise today to acknowledge Peel region's newest addition: its

integrated waste management plant, located in my own riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale. This new plant boasts a single-stream material recovery unit, equipped with the latest sorting

technology that can separate recyclable materials right at the plant, making recycling even easier for all Peel region residents.

Residents will no longer have to separate their recyclable items into a blue box or a grey box; the plant does all the work for them. I'm confident that this

latest in sorting technology will foster an environment of recycling and, even better yet, encourage those not already in recycling mode to do their part.

I would also like to take this opportunity to applaud the efforts of the new plant's many dedicated staff, who devote their time and lives to helping ensure our

environmental well-being in the years to come.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I rise to express concern about the dangerous political game played yesterday by the Minister of

Tourism and the member for Niagara Falls. In a set-up question designed to divert attention from the McGuinty Liberal government's bloating of the bureaucracy -- 7,200 new employees listed in the

government phone book and a 20% increase in those being paid more than $100,000 -- the minister attacked Prime Minister Harper for his honesty on the issue of the United States requiring passports

for entry and re-entry to their country.

The minister's ploy may have drawn in the media, but it is a short-term and short-sighted game the Liberal government is playing, with potentially long-term

effects. No one has done more to alienate Americans than representatives of the Liberal Party, and those personal and frequently mean-spirited attacks have been widely reported in the United

States. I've personally had American citizens ask me why Canadians hate Americans.

At the end of the day, it is the two federal governments that will resolve this situation, and I remain optimistic that it will be resolved. As someone with two

international border crossings in my riding, I implore the McGuinty Liberal government to stop playing political games with this critically important issue and work with the new federal government

toward a resolution that addresses the needs of both countries.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Last Friday, I was pleased to participate in a lobby organized by family and resident councils from five

long-term-care homes in Sudbury and area. I was given petitions signed by hundreds of residents, family members and friends who are very concerned that underfunding of Ontario's long-term-care

homes is having a negative impact on residents, many of whom are frail, vulnerable and require more care.

Their message was simple: Residents and family members want this government to fund 20 minutes more of hands-on care per resident per day. Despite their very

best efforts, staff at the homes aren't able to meet all the needs because there aren't enough of them to do what needs to be done. More staff means more care that residents need and deserve.

It's frustrating for residents and their families to have to sign petitions to urge the government to act on the situation. After all, in the last election, the

Liberals promised to "invest in better nursing care, providing an additional $6,000 in care for every resident." But as revealed by the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for

Seniors, the fact is that the government has only increased care funding per resident by $2,000 per year. In its third budget, with a $3-billion windfall, the McGuinty government should have done

much more.

Secondly, the Liberals also promised "to reinstate the standards of care, including a minimum 2.25 hours of nursing care daily." The Liberals have failed to

reinstate 2.25 hours of nursing care; in fact, they haven't implemented any minimum standard of care. There is no bottom line regarding how much care a resident is entitled to receive every

day.

The Liberals made big promises to long-term-care residents and their families. In this third budget, they should have delivered on them.

HOCKEYVILLE 2006

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I am pleased to be able to speak to the House today and throw my full support behind my hometown, Peterborough, in

its attempt to become Hockeyville Canada 2006. Hockeyville Canada is a nationwide initiative and competition produced by the CBC and Kraft Canada. The winning community will receive money for an

arena upgrade, as well as funds for new equipment and, most excitingly, will play host to an NHL preseason game.

Peterborough quickly received a petition with some 23,000 supportive signatures. Following in the Peterborough tradition, a grassroots committee organized by Dr.

Bob Neville has recently carried Peterborough into the next round with some 50 other communities.

Peterborough is steeped in a rich hockey tradition. Our hometown heroes, the Peterborough Petes, recently celebrated their 50th anniversary in 2005, and this

year have advanced to the eastern conference semifinals against the Sudbury Wolves. Since their inaugural season in 1956, the Petes have been to the Memorial Cup eight times and have a long list of

NHL representatives, including Bob Gainey, Steve Larmer, Cory Stillman, Mike Ricci, Larry Murphy, Doug Jarvis, and coaches Scotty Bowman and the late Roger Neilson.

Furthermore, Peterborough held its first old-timer tournament and was host to the 1996 Memorial Cup, and this year is hosting the 48th annual Liftlock Atom

Hockey Tournament for girls and boys, which attracts up to 500 volunteers.

Beyond any doubt, I believe the people of Peterborough deserve to be the host of Hockeyville 2006. Hockey is undeniably Canadian, and Peterborough is undeniably

Hockeyville. Let's help bring NHL hockey to the Memorial Centre, and let's bring Hockeyville to Peterborough.

HYDRO ONE

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I rise today to question how this government can justify the salary of CEO Tom Parkinson of Hydro One

Networks Inc.

Every week, my constituency offices receive calls from residents who are struggling to cope with existing hydro bills after the last round of rate increases. Now

those same constituents have been told to expect another increase. People in northern and rural Ontario pay some of the highest delivery charges in the province and receive the poorest of

service.

Essential forest management and infrastructure improvements to ensure reliable energy to customers appear to be at the expense of outrageous salaries and bonuses

to management and staff at Hydro One. This winter in particular Hydro One customers in the Parry Sound region were particularly hard hit, as were residents in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound. They were

without power on numerous occasions for many hours on end.

In the past, I have heard from dairy farmers, abattoirs, restaurants, homeowners and businesses about the impact of power outages and the loss of business, to

say nothing of the inconvenience. The community of Yearley has been tracking outages over the past several years in an effort to obtain better service. While the number of outages this year is

significantly lower, the number of hours without service was up significantly -- 160% to be exact. Compared to details Hydro One reported in March 2004, there has been no improvement in

service.

How does the government justify Mr. Parkinson's $702,000 in bonus and other perks? People in my riding would certainly like to know what performance targets and

service improvements they can look forward to as a result of Mr. Parkinson's leadership of Hydro One.

CRIME PREVENTION

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): The Hug of Thanks extended to the Attorney General, Michael Bryant, from Mary Pocius, president of the

downtown business improvement area, last Tuesday in Hamilton was a symbolic display of appreciation felt by the people of Hamilton for his courage and leadership demonstrated by the unprecedented

use of the Civil Remedies Act.

This act allowed the province to foreclose on the owners of a building that had a notorious reputation as a crack house. It had also been the scene of two

alleged cocaine-related murders. This building, called the Sandbar, known as the Corporation, as quoted by the Hamilton Spectator, was a place where anyone could buy crack from people working in

shifts in a sophisticated criminal network.

I want to thank Minister Bryant for closing down 193 King Street East. Hamilton has been working toward a new revitalized downtown where citizens feel safe

walking downtown and supporting our local businesses and community. Our heartfelt thanks also go to the men and women of the Hamilton Police Service, under the able direction of Chief Mullan, who

have been struggling with the various occupants of this nasty building. Also present last Tuesday, offering his support, was Councillor Bernie Morelli, chair of our police services and a stalwart

Hamiltonian.

Police say that in 2002, 100% of bank robberies, 95% of variety store robberies and 65% of break and enters in Hamilton were tied to crack cocaine. It was also

stated that despite the searches, despite the seizures and despite the numerous deaths, this ugly operation kept going until early March, when Attorney General Bryant came in and shut it down. A

big vote of thanks --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you.

BORDER SECURITY

Ms. Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): As the member for Sarnia-Lambton, a riding which borders the United States, I was surprised to learn

that our new Prime Minister, Mr. Harper, has decided to surrender on the issue of implementing mandatory new identification cards for travellers.

On both sides of the Canada-US border, politicians, business people and travellers have recognized how counterproductive this move will be, and we will continue

to actively oppose this decision. Millions, if not billions of dollars worth of trade will be lost by both sides if this plan becomes a reality.

We have reaped many economic benefits having good and easy access between Canada and the United States, so I was disappointed that after so many years of

positive integration and and trust between our nations, Mr. Harper and Mr. Bush have decided to throw good sense out the window and take a step backwards. This step is not in the best interests of

Ontario.

I urge Mr. Tory and the opposition to press their Conservative counterparts in Ottawa on this issue on behalf of the best interests of Ontarians.

RABBI LAWRENCE ENGLANDER

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): It's an honour to rise today to recognize a great Ontarian who has worked tirelessly to strengthen the

social fabric of the city of Mississauga. Rabbi Lawrence Englander, or Larry, to his friends, of the Solel Congregation in Mississauga joins us today in the west gallery.

Rabbi Englander's long list of achievements will inspire all in this House. A spiritual leader of the Solel Congregation, Rabbi Englander and his congregation

have sponsored refugee families, including one at present from Burundi; have established an interfaith food bank; and have launched a breakfast club for children. He also joined forces with other

concerned partners to form a street patrol that delivers warm blankets and food to less fortunate families in Mississauga.

Rabbi Englander initiated meetings with two other congregations to help provide housing for families in need. Today, thanks to Rabbi Englander, 500 low-income

families have a place known as Pathway to call home.

In 2005, the Governor General of Canada conferred upon Rabbi Englander the Order of Canada.

I invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing Rabbi Lawrence Englander and all his contributions to Canada, Ontario and the city of Mississauga, which is so

proud of him.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY 406

TO PORT COLBORNE ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'AUTOROUTE 406

MENANT À PORT COLBORNE

Mr. Hudak moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 87,

An Act to extend Highway 406 to Port Colborne / Projet de loi 87, Loi prolongeant l'autoroute 406 jusqu'à Port Colborne.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I want to thank Port Colborne Mayor Ron Bodner, Niagara region Chair Peter Partington and Councillor Bob Saracino,

and David Barrick, president of Port Colborne-Wainfleet Chamber of Commerce, for their support and advice on this bill.

The government has recently indicated that their intention was to extend Highway 406, through Highway 58, into Port Colborne. This runs against the preferences

of the city of Welland, Port Colborne and other area municipalities. This bill would correct that by designating Highway 140 as part of Highway 406, not Highway 58.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader) I move that, pursuant to standing order

9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 4, 2006, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Bradley has moved government notice of motion 89. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tory, John

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Dunlop, Garfield

Horwath, Andrea

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Murdoch, Bill

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 73; the nays are 10.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOREWAY DRIVE

GENERATING STATION

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to share with you and our colleagues in the House today that Ontario is

one step closer to a cleaner, more secure energy future.

I, along with my colleagues from Brampton-Gore-Malton-Springdale and Brampton Centre, had the honour of taking

part in the launch of construction of Sithe

Global Power's Goreway Drive generating station in Brampton.

At this time, I would like to welcome, in our gallery today, Dave Foley, from Blackstone, and Duane Cramer, vice-president of Sithe Global Power. Welcome to

the House, gentlemen.

When it is completed, the Goreway Drive facility will be capable of producing 875 megawatts of electricity, enough power for 330,000 homes. The privately

funded plant will cost about $1 billion and be constructed in two phases. The first phase will provide 500 megawatts of electricity by the summer of 2007, and the remaining 375 megawatts will be

ready by the summer of 2008. It will easily be one of the largest combined-cycle natural gas generating stations in Canada.

The Sithe plant is being built to meet our directive to the Ontario Power Authority, asking that they address the vital need for electricity in the western

part of the greater Toronto area. It is also an important part of our plan to close all the coal-fired generating stations in Ontario and replace them with cleaner sources of electricity. As

members know, the Lakeview coal-fired plant in south Mississauga closed in April 2005. It was among the largest polluters in the greater Toronto area.

Our government is building a new energy future that will keep the lights on and ensure that our children have cleaner air. This facility and others being built

in the Sarnia region and in other parts of the province will allow us to maintain a stable supply of clean power while closing down our dirty coal-fired generating stations.

Since taking office in 2003, over 2,800 megawatts have come online, and there are more than 11,000 megawatts that are being built. To put this in perspective,

there is no other Canadian province or US state that will build more new generation capacity than Ontario over the next five years.

As we renew Ontario's energy system, we are embarking on one of the largest, most comprehensive building initiatives since Sir Adam Beck was running Hydro.

These projects have included building wind farms across Ontario and bringing nuclear units back online. They have included the construction of new gas plants, like Sithe Goreway, and launching

comprehensive conservation and demand management initiatives that will invest up to $1.5 billion in energy conservation. They include a commitment to new renewable energy, with 18 new renewable

energy projects that will add more than 1,350 megawatts of clean energy to the system by 2008, and one of the most ambitious and forward-looking standard-offer contract programs in North

America.

Today's launch of construction of the Sithe Goreway generating station is indeed good news for our province, and it is one more indication that we are moving

forward toward a bright energy future for our province.

JEAN LOWERY

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I rise with deep regret today to mark the passing of a nursing pioneer. Her

name was Jean Lowery, and she spent 40 years devoting her skills and energy to the care and well-being of patients and also of nurses.

As my colleagues know, the profession of nursing has not always received the recognition and respect that it deserves. Ms. Lowery set to work on that. She

graduated from the University of Toronto School of Nursing in 1957. She took up a profession whose practitioners, people dedicating their lives to caring for others, were themselves not cared for

very much at all. Nurses were underpaid, they were undervalued, they were overworked and they didn't come close to receiving the respect that they should have. Jean Lowery didn't like that; she

thought it was wrong. She thought nurses deserved better, and she began a decades-long battle to see to it that they received better.

In 1973, she was one of a number of nurses who met in Toronto to form the Ontario Nurses' Association. She was installed at that meeting as ONA's first

president. She served the association in many capacities until her retirement in 1991, at which time she was awarded an honorary membership. Jean Lowery came to embody the ONA vision, which is,

"Respected. Strong. United. Committed to members who care for people."

Speaker, because of people like Jean Lowery, whose commitment never wavered, nurses can proudly claim to be respected, to be strong and to be united. They are,

as they have always been, the heart and soul of health care. Today, they are recognized as such, which is something that they have not always been. Thousands of nurses have benefited from the

efforts made and the example set by Jean Lowery. As a result of that, hundreds and thousands of patients have as well.

Nursing is a profession that, especially early on, decidedly, desperately needed a champion. In this province, Jean Lowery was that champion. Our hearts go out

to her family and her many friends and admirers, and we stand in mourning with the thousands of nurses in Ontario whose professional lives have been improved by the tireless efforts and the

extraordinary commitment of Jean Lowery, a great Ontarian.

GOREWAY DRIVE

GENERATING STATION

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I'm pleased to respond to the minister's statement today. They made this announcement in

October 2005, and we're finally getting to the point where we're actually putting a shovel into dirt. It's typical of how this government has operated. First they botched what was going on in

Mississauga and Brampton. They signed contracts and made deals with Eastern Power. The place went bankrupt. One was cancelled. But every day, the clock keeps ticking on the critical supply shortage

here in Ontario. So they basically had to start over with the Sithe project.

Look, we're pleased that we're going to have some additional power in Ontario. The question is whether or not it is going to satisfy the needs that we have,

because the bigger question remains, and that is the question of supply in this province. They keep talking, but they're not quite so pompous about it. They keep talking about the shutdown of the

fossil fuel plants, but even they alluded, in their budget, to backtracking on that a little bit, because everybody knows they cannot fulfill those promises. They should stop dreaming and put a

knife through that promise, because it is dead, and the people of province have to know that.

You know what else they have to know? They have to know, and they have a right to know, what this plan of the Liberal government is going to cost them with

regard to electricity in this province, not only in the near future but in the long term. The minister tried to lay that groundwork a little bit yesterday with a lowball question from one of her

colleagues with regard to other jurisdictions. We need to know. Some estimates are saying that this government's electricity plan will cost tens of billions of dollars over the next 25 years with

regard to generation costs in this province, because of a silly, irresponsible promise that they knew was bad in 2003.

My position to the minister is, they have to come clean. They are talking about clean energy. It is time that they came clean with respect to energy in this

province. It's great to hear an announcement, but it's just an announcement. Now they're saying that in the summer of 2007 this place will be generating electricity. If it is like every other

Liberal announcement and promise, I think the people would view that skeptically. So we will wait and see whether or not this will actually be working by that time. But in the meantime, Minister,

and to the Premier, it is time to level with the people.

What are the fixed-price contracts for these plants? What is the cost? How much are you going to be paying those people when they are sitting idle, and how

much will you be paying for power when it's producing? The people have a right to know. You talk about transparency. That's a load of you know what -- something that could be burned as biomass

maybe. It's time that they came clean with the province of Ontario, which needs to know what the real cost of power is under your plan.

JEAN LOWERY

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to respond today to the statement of the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care on

the passing of Jean Lowery, RN. Jean Lowery was the founding president of the ONA, the union that today represents 51,000 RNs and allied health professionals across Ontario. She spent 40 years of

her life devoting her skills and energy to the care and well-being of patients and also of nurses. The ONA vision today is rooted from her: "Respected. Strong. United. Committed to members who care

for people." To quote the ONA president, Linda Haslam-Stroud, Mrs. Lowery was a pioneer and champion of better working conditions for nurses: "She didn't like the lack of respect afforded nurses in

the 1950s and '60s and dedicated her professional life to effect change."

I myself am an RN who graduated in the 1980s and came into a system that had seen a lot of revision. I have nurses in my family, and they've told stories of

when they first started nursing in the 1950s and 1960s. Mrs. Lowery was critical in increasing the respectability of the profession that we have today. Nurses were underpaid, undervalued,

overworked and didn't receive respect. There are still some issues today in the nursing profession, but she united nurses and we are still moving forward on the changes.

As most of you know, if there are any nurses in your families, they have taken care of you at one point or another. They are certainly the front-line advocates

for patients, and we need to support them.

On behalf of John Tory and the Progressive Conservative caucus, we send condolences to Mrs. Lowery's family. A true friend to nursing she was.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): New Democrats join with many others today in acknowledging the contribution that was made by Jean Lowery to

the nursing profession here in Ontario. Her whole life was devoted to nursing: her skills, her talents, her expertise. She graduated as a psychiatric nurse in 1951 and then went on to receive her

public health certificate from the University of Toronto in 1957, so her skills were varied and her contribution and commitment were great.

Secondly, it was her experience on the front line and the conversations she had with other nurses who were very unhappy with their work, their hours of work,

their low pay and their lack of prestige that compelled her to take up the challenge to improve the lives of Ontario nurses. As a consequence, she was a founding member of ONA. When that group came

together in 1973 to begin collective bargaining on behalf of nurses, she was installed at that meeting as ONA's first president. She also made many other contributions to ONA later in her life. She

served on ONA's staff until her retirement in 1991. She was the director of human resources and the director of association services. She was an employment relations officer who worked directly

with front-line nurses in labour relations matters.

I want to quote two of her colleagues, who said the following. Lesley Bell: "When attempts to work with management to set standards failed, she and others

decided that collective bargaining was the answer. Thousands of RNs have benefited from her efforts" since that time. And this by Linda Haslam-Stroud: "Jean Lowery worked tirelessly to make things

better for RNs. She didn't like the lack of respect afforded nurses in the 1950s and '60s and dedicated her professional life to effect change." That she certainly did.

On behalf of all New Democrats, we acknowledge and thank Jean Lowery for the amazing contribution she made, but we also extend our very sincere sympathy and

condolences to her lifetime partner, Fred, her daughter, Marylin, and her son, Paul. She will be missed.

GOREWAY DRIVE

GENERATING STATION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to respond to the Minister of Energy, and I want to respond to the things that weren't in

today's announcement. That's what is most interesting about this.

You see, if you roll back the clock, Dalton McGuinty promised the people of Ontario public power. In fact, he said during the election campaign that the

electricity market is dead. Now, people across Ontario might be led to believe by that statement that what was announced today is public power. If they did believe that, they would be sadly

mistaken. This is private, profit-driven power, and as such it's going to be very expensive power.

In fact, that's one of the other salient things that isn't in this announcement. Nowhere is the McGuinty government prepared to talk about, even whisper about,

what this is going to cost the people of Ontario on their hydro bills. Is it going to be 10-cent-a-kilowatt-hour electricity? Is it going to be 11-cent-a-kilowatt-hour electricity? The McGuinty

government won't say. But I think we can discern a couple of things by looking at the history of this transaction, because when this was first announced with much fanfare by the McGuinty government

back on May 30, 2005, a year ago, the McGuinty government then talked about how these were going to be two plants in Mississauga, one for 280 megawatts on Hurontario Street, and 280 megawatts on

Loreland Avenue. At the time, they ventured to say that they thought the electricity would cost 7.8 cents per kilowatt hour.

Well, that would have been expensive, but you see, that deal that was announced with much fanfare by the McGuinty government fell apart. After much boasting

that this was an open process and that there was a fairness commissioner, that deal fell apart. So what was announced today is in fact a hurry-up-quick fixer-upper. It doesn't have in it a

reference to price, but I'm willing to bet for the consumers of Ontario that when this appears on the hydro bill, people will be looking at 10 cents or 11 cents a kilowatt hour for their

electricity. That's what's going on here. People need to know what this deal is really all about.

VISITORS

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker:

I'm very pleased, and I know all members of the House will join me, to introduce the president of Chrysler Canada, who has joined us in the members' gallery. We ask him to stand. Steve Landry is

here today. Welcome to the House. I'm also very happy to introduce Lori Shalhoub, also with Chrysler Canada, and Doug Jure -- able representatives for Chrysler Canada. We're very pleased that the

headquarters, of course, is in Windsor, Ontario.

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like all members of the House to join me in welcoming

the Tuesday women's luncheon club to our chamber today. Welcome, and we're glad to have you here.

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'm pleased to recognize in the gallery two individuals who

lived in Ottawa, used to live in my colleague Madeleine Meilleur's riding, and are now in Stratford: Eric and Gillian Adams. Welcome.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'm happy my constituents are here, Eric and Gillian. I'm also very

happy that my oldest brother, Bill, is joining us here today.

Mr. Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is my privilege to introduce two people who are making a huge

contribution to the remediation of landfills by allowing us to take plastic out of landfills and putting in paper bags so that we don't create leachate and so that we can take the dry and wet

organic waste and turn it into compost: the inventor of the technology, Mr. George Colgan, and the financier of the technology, Mr. Lou Meehan. Will you please stand and be acknowledged.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like the House to pay appropriate regard

to a constituent of mine who's here today: Mr. John Tory.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to say hello to my mother, who's watching by television. Hi,

Mom.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I knew there was a reason for these points of order not being points of order. Thank you very much to

everyone.

DEFERRED VOTES

2006 ONTARIO BUDGET

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): We now have a deferred vote on Mr. Tory's amendment to the budget motion.

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

The division bells rang from 1418 to 1423.

The Speaker: All those in favour of Mr. Tory's amendment to the motion, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Bisson, Gilles

Dunlop, Garfield

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tory, John

Yakabuski, John

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 25; the nays are 66.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

We now come to the motion of Mr. Duncan, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government. Is it the pleasure of the House that the

motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1427 to 1432.

The Speaker: Those in favour of the motion by Mr. Duncan will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bisson, Gilles

Dunlop, Garfield

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tory, John

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 67; the nays are 25.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

It is therefore resolved that the House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Could you please explain to us here and to the public what the

criteria and the evaluation measures were that resulted in a bonus payment to the chief executive officer of Hydro One of roughly $500,000 for this year? Could you explain the criteria?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm going to refer this question to the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Energy): I thank the member for his question. As I indicated yesterday in the House, I think that it's

fair. I've written to the various agencies to ask for a meeting.

As you know, executive salaries are set by the boards of all the agencies. I've asked for a meeting to sit down with them for their explanation, and I'm

looking forward to doing that very shortly.

Mr. Tory: I say to the Premier that the government is the single shareholder and the owner of Hydro One, and having a meeting or writing a

letter is not really necessary. All you need to do is hit the speed-dial button and ask the simple question, "What were the criteria on which this bonus was based?" It wouldn't take more than 10

minutes.

This is about simple accountability for the taxpayers of Ontario. All we want to know, and all the taxpayers are entitled to know, is the basis upon which the

bonus was calculated and paid. It's written down. There's a written record of it right now -- there should be.

When you award someone a bonus of this magnitude, it should be easily explained. I'm asking you, when this is in effect public money, will the Premier instruct

the minister to come to this House tomorrow with the explanation as to the basis upon which that bonus was paid on behalf of the hydro ratepayers of Ontario? It shouldn't take longer than that.

Will you do it?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I thank the member for the question. I'm sure that the member recognizes that in fact it was his party who actually set

up the structure under which the boards do operate. They are independent, and it is their executive which determines their rates of compensation and the rates of bonuses.

What I have asked for is a meeting for an explanation, and that's fair. I've asked that from all of the agencies. I'm more than happy; I'm really quite

prepared. As the member of the opposition has indicated, and I'll quote him, "You do have to pay the kind of money they would get somewhere else or you won't keep them," when referring to

executives' salaries meeting the demands of the marketplace.

I agree with what he's saying. What I am also saying is that I'm quite prepared to sit down with the chair and the board, who have the responsibility for that

determination, to understand how in fact they did make that determination in the first place.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tory: The quote of mine that you read is very interesting and it actually confirms what I was not asking you about, which is how much he

was paid. What I was asking you about were the criteria pursuant to which he was paid. It's a very simple question. In fact, the payment in question was made months ago, pursuant to criteria that

were probably established a year ago.

All I'm asking you is very simply -- you don't need to have a meeting; you don't need to send a letter. You just need to ask them to send over to you by fax or

by e-mail today the criteria pursuant to which the bonus was paid. It's a very simple request.

The taxpayers are the owners of this corporation. The hydro ratepayers are the people who are paying the money to the company that is paying its executives

whatever they get paid. I am simply asking you to make public to those people -- I think they're entitled to know now -- on what basis the bonus was calculated and on what basis it was paid. I'm

asking you to simply stand up and say, "Tomorrow we will be here with that information." Will you be here with that information tomorrow, stop dragging your feet and do it?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I would just like to make a correction: It's actually the ratepayer, not the taxpayer, in terms of the dollars around

electricity.

I repeat to the member that I have written to the different agencies. The boards have the responsibility of determining executive salaries and compensation. I

think it's reasonable to ask for an explanation. I have asked to sit down with them for that explanation for all the agencies. I would, however, remind the member opposite that it's interesting to

note that when they were at Hydro, I think it was Mr. Gourley who was paid $4.6 million. Mr. Harris himself received almost $19,000. Mr. Rhodes received $1 billion. Mr. Long received --

Interjections.

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: Oh, you think it's great about that $1 billion -- $1 million, sorry.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock.

New question.

Mr. Tory: My question is for the Premier. The minister is like Dr. No over there, with a million/billion dollars, but it's not funny. You

actually helped me because you introduced the subject I want to introduce here, which is saying one thing and doing another.

My question to the Premier is this: When you were in opposition, you had a lot to say about a lot of subjects, and a lot of those things you said then seemed

to mean very little when you got over to the government benches. When you were in opposition, you were demanding answers about people at Hydro One and their salaries, and you were bouncing off the

walls. You once told the Premier of the day, "Your job was to protect hydro ratepayers. You had an option. Why did you roll over for the board? Why did you not stand up for ratepayers?"

All I'm asking today is this: Could you just explain to us the basis upon which this gentlemen received a bonus of $500,000? You know it. It's written down.

It's been part of the record for some time and the bonus has been paid. Why do we need to have meetings and correspondence and all kinds of things like that? Just tell us the information so the

taxpayers and the ratepayers will know. Will you do it?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I'll see if I can help the leader of the official opposition further in this regard.

I'm surprised they're not aware of some of the contractual matters related to Mr. Parkinson's contract since they were the first government to award a contract

to Mr. Parkinson. We have essentially renewed that very same contract. So if Mr. Tory is looking for the source of the financial relationship we have between Hydro One and the CEO, he need look no

further than his own party.

Mr. Tory: Premier, I don't know whether to agree or disagree, because you haven't provided us with the basis upon which the bonus was

calculated. All we're asking for --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I need to be able to hear the Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: All we're asking for, very simply, is that regardless of who authored the contract, you tell us the criteria set by the board of

directors pursuant to which this man was paid a half-million-dollar bonus. It's a very simple question. I think it is something that, when you were in opposition, you would have most certainly felt

was something the public was entitled to know. In fact, you said back then, "Can you tell me once again, Premier, why it is that when push comes to shove, you're on the side of the board of

directors and you didn't stand up for ratepayers?" If you want to stand up for the ratepayers and actually, for a change, do what you said in opposition when you're in government, then simply stand

in your place and tell us the basis upon which this man received a $500,000 bonus. It's a very simple question. Will you do it?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, that was a provision that was inserted, presumably deliberately, by Mr. Tory's government in the past. I can say

with some pride that we are not paying the CEO of Hydro One over $2.4 million, which had been paid by the Conservative government to one Eleanor Clitheroe. I can also say with some degree of pride

that we are shining the sunlight on these matters, which were hidden from view by the previous government.

Let me say this again so that Mr. Tory completely understands this: The contract in place is the one that he put in place. Secondly, it is 30% less than the

one they awarded to Eleanor Clitheroe. Thirdly, we have brought sun shine on these matters so that for the first time the people of Ontario have access to this information.

Mr. Tory: If the Premier is so determined to let the sunshine in, then I don't know why you don't answer my question, which I'm now asking for

the sixth time. You said it's a contract that I put in place. Well, I hardly put it in place. But having said that, you are engaging --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock.

The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: You have a chance to redeem yourself here, because whether it's autistic children, balanced budgets, not raising taxes, hydro rate

caps or hydro compensation issues, your pattern has been to say one thing in opposition and do another in government. You have a chance right now to tell us: Do you have any standards in respect of

public sector bonuses? Are you prepared to share with us the criteria pursuant to which -- and I don't mean in a month or after meetings or correspondence. Will you share with us tomorrow -- it's a

reasonable request -- the basis upon which this gentleman was paid the half-million-dollar bonus, so the hydro ratepayers whom you pledged to protect will be able to see what happened? Will you do

it?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The minister made it clear both yesterday and again today -- and I think she's done this on at least three separate

occasions now -- that she's going to look into the matter. I think we should give her time to acquire that information.

Again, I think it is not entirely irrelevant that the contract in place now between Hydro One and its CEO was essentially the contract that was put in place by

the previous government. Mr. Tory says he's distancing himself from the previous government in this regard. We wonder in how many other places he's going to be distancing himself from the record of

those he's sitting among here today.

As well, I would say that we take pride in the fact that we are shining sunlight for the first time on these kinds of issues, so that the people of Ontario can

gain a good understanding for the very first time of these very kinds of issues. That was the kind of thing that the previous government was not particularly partial to. We think it's right and we

think it's legitimate. We think it's high time it was done, and that's why we did it.

The Speaker: New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): A question for the Premier: When exactly did the McGuinty government decide to order the review of

Hydro executive salaries that was announced yesterday? When are the review meetings taking place? Who will be there? When can hydro ratepayers expect to see the outrageous Hydro executive pay

packages reduced?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: In fact, I said that compensation is the responsibility of the board and that I thought it was reasonable to have a

meeting with them, to have an understanding of how they had come to their determination. I said that yesterday; I said it this morning. I'm quite prepared to meet with all of the agencies for those

explanations. I think that's fair and reasonable. I've indicated that I will do that, and I expect to have those meetings take place very shortly.

Mr. Hampton: It's puzzling, because the McGuinty government waited until yesterday to launch this review, but the McGuinty government has

known for over a year about the outrageous Hydro executive pay packages. Here's an

article from the Toronto Sun, March 2, 2005, where it says, "Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said he

supports the 35% raise given to the CEO of ... Hydro One." My question to the Premier is, since you've known about these executive pay increases, why did you sit on your hands for more than a year,

while hydro ratepayers of the province were fleeced under your government?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: First of all, I'd like to correct the record. Mr. Rhodes only made just over $1 million dollars.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): That's all?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: That's all.

As I had indicated, the executive salaries are the responsibility of the respective boards. I've written to each of the boards to ask for an explanation of how

they came to those determinations. That's a reasonable and fair question to ask. I've written the letters and I'm going to sit down with them very shortly to ask how they made the determination. I

have every intention of doing that.

Mr. Hampton: It remains that the former Minister of Energy knew that this was happening a year ago. In fact, this is how outrageous the Hydro

executive pay packages are under the McGuinty government: Hydro Québec is a very large utility. It has assets of $57 billion. Their chief executive officer is paid in the $500,000 range. Hydro

One has assets of only $11 billion, but under the McGuinty government, Mr. Parkinson gets paid $1.56 million. In fact, it's even more outrageous than that. The three other large utilities in Canada

-- Hydro Québec, Manitoba Hydro and BC Hydro -- pay their three executive officers, combined, less than the McGuinty government pays Tom Parkinson.

My question for the Premier is: Under the McGuinty government, why are working families paying such outrageous salaries to Tom Parkinson and other Hydro

executives?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I'll repeat this again, maybe slowly: I have asked for a meeting with the chair and the executives, who have the

responsibility for all of these boards, for an explanation of how they made the determinations. I will sit down with them. I will find out how. Maybe we could ask the member the same question as to

how he determined Mr. Strong's compensation or Ms. Clitheroe's compensation. I'm prepared to sit down and ask for that explanation from the people who in fact have the responsibility for that

determination. I've said that I will do it. I will do it, and I will do it with all of the agencies.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Hampton: To the Premier: It seems to me that there has to be some accountability on the part of your government. The real problem, the

bigger problem, is that your government, the McGuinty government, has set up a convoluted, wasteful, bureaucratic electricity system. It's a hydro hydra, a four-headed electricity monster, that's

driving up electricity rates, devouring people's wallets and resulting in tens of thousands of lost industrial jobs. You pay a Hydro One executive $1.56 million. You say you pay the OPG

top-salaried official $866,000. You pay the Independent Electricity System Operator chief executive $728,000. You pay your former fundraiser, Jan Carr, at the Ontario Power Authority, $637,000.

Under the McGuinty government, Premier, why are working families being gouged? Why are working families paying these bloated executive salaries at the hydro

electricity monsters that you've created?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I thank the member for the question, but I might like to ask the member -- in fact, the Ontario Energy Board, the

regulator, has the responsibility for the scrutiny of the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Power Authority, both boards that have been mentioned. I was curious as to whether

or not during that public scrutiny, the member actually had gone to any of those meetings to articulate the position he's now articulating in the House. It's an open and transparent process. He has

that opportunity.

I will repeat that I'm quite prepared to sit down with those executives, who have the final determination, as to how they reached those determinations, and get

an explanation. I think that's very reasonable to do. I've indicated I'm going to do it. I'm quite prepared to do it, and I will do it very shortly.

Mr. Hampton: My question is really to the Premier, because it's about: Does the McGuinty government have even an elementary understanding of

accountability? Under the McGuinty government, being a hydro electricity executive is like winning the all-time lottery. The 10 top-paid provincial Hydro executives in Canada are all in Ontario,

under the McGuinty government: two from Hydro One, one from the Independent Electricity System Operator, one from the Ontario Power Authority and six from Ontario Power Generation.

Premier, I thought it was your job to protect hydro ratepayers, to protect those working families who are in fact paying the bill. When did the priority of the

McGuinty government become paying Hydro executives the top 10 salaries in Canada and allowing ratepayers to be gouged?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: As a matter of fact, over the last number of years, a good 10 years, generation in this province fell by 6%,

whereas our

need grew by 8%. So the fact of the matter is that we have put new generation onside. We require the people and the expertise with which to do it. You do pay for quality; it is synonymous, often,

with the price that you pay for someone's expertise. So I don't have any difficulty in people determining the value of a skill set.

I have indicated that I am quite prepared to sit down with the folks who make these determinations and listen to their rationale as to how they make those

determinations. But we have put more generation in this province than they had in many years. In fact, it had been neglected for so many years. You do need to attract good people --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: No, Minister. You've driven up the electricity bill for all kinds of people and you've killed tens of thousands of good

industrial jobs.

But I want go back to the Premier, because this is about accountability. One self-described hydro expert said that government reviews won't do. Talking about

Eleanor Clitheroe's bloated salary, this is what this self-described expert said: "This is not a matter that needs to be sent out to review. This is a matter that requires you to say, `Mea culpa.

This will never, ever happen again. It is wrong, it is entirely inappropriate and I will do everything in my power to make sure this never, ever happens again.'" Who said that? Dalton McGuinty,

just three years ago.

My question to the Premier is this: Are you going to follow your own words? Are you going to reduce these salaries? Are you going to work on behalf of the

ratepayers and the working families, or were those words that you said just meaningless words, like so many other words that you say?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I would like to remind the member of the third party that in fact it was Mr. Bob Rae, the former Premier and NDP member,

who is the chair of the compensation committee that approved Mr. Parkinson's salary and has the responsibility to do so.

Let me quote what he said: "The design of the program facilitates the attraction, motivation and retention of executives, critical for Hydro One's current and

long-term success." I am quite prepared to sit down and have an explanation of their rationale for their decision. But it is the decision of the board of directors and the chair of that board in

determining compensation packages. I'm quite happy to have a fair explanation of that. I have asked for that meeting in writing, and it will take place very shortly.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Education. I'd like to follow along on the theme of accountability. As the

minister, you're responsible to ensure that the public interest is served in the administration of education. Can you tell the House, then, why you insist through Bill 78 to hand over control of

the governing council of the Ontario College of Teachers to the very same unions whose mandate it is to defend its members against public charges? Why have you done that?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I think, for those who are watching, it certainly is a reminder in this House of why we needed a

change in government. We needed a change from a government that would take every opportunity to attack and presume the worst of other people. If you want to be elected to government, you have to be

able to work with the people who are in government. What it means is that the students out there have benefited because there is an atmosphere of co-operation.

The college of teachers has one purpose: to look after the public interest. Under the previous government that the member opposite was a part of, there was a

fight going on in the college of teachers. The reforms we're bringing in will make it a neutral body that looks after the public interest. In fact, it will prohibit anyone who serves full-time,

either for the Ministry of Education or for a teacher federation, from serving on the college of teachers,

whereas there were eight, 10 and 15 members under this member opposite's government.

In fact, we are returning the college of teachers to its original purpose: a professional body that looks after the public interest in teaching, and like other

improvements, students will be better off because of --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Klees: The minister needs to be reminded that it was the Royal Commission on Learning that recommended that this college be independent of

those unions. I want to point out to the minister -- I'm going to ask a page to take this letter over to the minister. Page, please.

I want the minister to see this letter, which comes to him from a member of his cabinet. In that letter it says the following: "No professional college can act

in the public interest when its governing council is controlled by one union whose own mandate it is to defend its members against public charges. This issue must be addressed, as a council

controlled by the Ontario Teachers' Federation will further increase the widespread perception that the college is controlled by the teachers' unions and does not adequately protect or represent

the public interest."

That is a letter to you, sir, sent by one of your cabinet colleagues, Donna Cansfield. Why did you not take her advice? I have spoken with many stakeholders in

education who disagree with you. You have sold out the college of teachers, whose responsibility it is to look after the public interest. Why did you do that?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: We need to go no further to understand the credibility of the member opposite, when he's citing a letter from December 2004

talking about the college that the member opposite had a hand in designing.

What our new legislation -- which I hope, when its explanation is clear, will get the member opposite's support, as it deserves -- will in fact do is prohibit

any members of the college of teachers being sitting members representing federations or school boards or the Ministry of Education, for the first time. In fact, the college constituted by the

member opposite actually had 12 members on it who were full-time representatives of teachers' unions. That's what you put together. We think the public interest means that it should be classroom

teachers who are being regulated by the college, who are the profession that sits in judgment of what should be done in the public interest.

We believe in teachers. We believe in public education. Just like the other reforms that we've brought, this will work in the interests of students. And just

like the other reforms, it will be vastly superior to the approach of the previous government, where we had eight and, I guess, 10 lost years.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): A question to the Minister of Education: Your government claims to have fixed the problems in

Ontario's education funding formula. Can you explain why the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board has resorted to asking for donations for music, art, outdoor education and literacy and numeracy

projects?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I'm very pleased to report to the member opposite that we have improved education funding in the

province of Ontario such that the per capita funding has increased almost 20% under this government. What it means is that this year we have 600 specialist teachers bringing arts education back

into the schools across the province. We have initiatives, not just by our ministry but by the Ministry of Culture and by my colleague the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Culture,

bringing in new programs, helping to make sure that the arts have come back.

We have provided resources on a range of programs that are enriching education. We say that every student should have access to the arts and education. We have

daily physical activity and have expanded phys ed back in our schools for the first time in years. It didn't happen under the previous government or the one before that.

So what I would say is that we believe that the essential education, a high level --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Marchese: I think, Minister, that instead of focusing on the top job in Ottawa, you should focus on the students in Ottawa, and I don't

think you're doing that. To quote an Ottawa trustee, "It is not our intent to replace provincial funding; however, we just cannot wait any longer while our children go without." School boards are

robbing regularly from one program to pay for another, ESL is one example, French as a second language, special ed. They are robbing from one area to pay for another. School boards are forced to

fundraise to pay for education essentials, and it's not just happening in Ottawa. London, Kingston and Halton are doing the same.

Minister, three years ago you promised a standing committee on education funding. Are you going to keep that commitment to students and parents, or was it just

another empty promise you made on the climb to the top?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: I'm glad to see that the member again has a question in this respect, but I would say to him very seriously that the parents

and students of Ottawa-Carleton are very well served by an extremely enhanced education system. More than half of them are in smaller sized classes, capped at 20. They are getting individual

attention that they never had before. We have been able to provide enhanced literacy and numeracy, as I said. In two years, there's a 15% increase in the attainment of reading, writing and

mathematics by students right across the province, and the ones with the biggest challenges are the ones with the biggest increases in improvement. For the first time in 25 years, we have a

reduction in the dropout rate. Our student success program is offering enhanced, customized education to individual students across the province.

Most trustees don't share your pessimism or the pessimism of somebody you selectively quoted. The chair of the Ottawa board says that what they are raising

money for is enhancements. Distinct from the member opposite, who sees government doing everything, we want to work in partnership. A basic, excellent education --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. As you know, Minister, the

federal government will be delivering its first throne speech later this afternoon, and my farmers expect good news from the federal government. Why? Because during the recent federal election,

Stephen Harper promised an extra $500 million each year for agriculture. In addition, 16 Conservative MPs signed the commitment-to-agriculture card during the recent election, including the new

federal finance minister, Jim Flaherty. This commitment included an immediate investment in farmers after the election and sufficient funding for the following two years, until the next

agricultural policy framework can be designed and implemented in 2008.

Minister, on behalf of my farmers, how important is it that today's federal throne speech represent the beginning of an effective partnership with Ontario for

a long-term, viable and economically sustainable agricultural framework?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): The member from Perth-Middlesex has identified a very, very important

issue for the people of Canada, for the farmers of Canada, and certainly for the farmers of Ontario.

We are going to be looking very intently at what is contained in the throne speech, because our government has made a commitment to the farmers of Ontario. We

have made it very clear that we agree with them when they say they need a multi-year partnership with the federal government. We believe that too.

We would encourage members of the opposition -- I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you hit the speed-dial button. Hit the speed-dial button for Mr.

Flaherty and for the Prime Minister of Canada and say that farmers in Ontario are in desperate circumstances and they need a strategy now. That's what we're looking for in the federal throne

speech. We would appreciate your help and your support for farmers in Ontario by --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Wilkinson: Minister, I couldn't agree more. As my farmers know, the provincial treasury is no match for the US Treasury and the US farm

bill all by itself. We need our partner in Ottawa, because only they have the money for a stable, long-term plan that meets the needs of Ontario farmers working in conjunction with our

government.

On Friday, March 31, I met with my local farmers at our annual MP-MPP briefing, organized by the Perth federation of agriculture. During the meeting, my

farmers conveyed yet again their appreciation for the $125 million our government announced in financial assistance prior to the spring planting. They said, "We thank the minister for an initial

investment to this problem." However, our government and my farm leaders recognize that ad hoc financial assistance is not the answer to the challenges facing our producers.

Minister, should today's federal throne speech not deliver on the Conservative government's election promises, my farmers need to know that our government will

continue to work with the federal government and our provincial and territorial counterparts on a new agricultural --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I'm always happy to get a question from the honourable member, who works so very hard on behalf of the farmers in his

riding -- he truly does -- and we appreciate that.

I think it's interesting that he points to the investment that our government made -- $125 million -- the announcement that was made before the budget. The

Leader of the Opposition called us spendaholics for doing that, but I believe that it was a very good investment for the agricultural community and one that was absolutely necessary.

With respect to working toward the new agriculture policy framework, I can commit to the federal minister and to my colleague ministers from across Canada that

I think we have learned very well where this framework has worked well: investments in research and innovation. We recognize that we need to do a better job at business risk management and income

support. Our government is absolutely committed. We will not tire in our efforts to support agriculture and farmers in Ontario. That is a commitment --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I have a question for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Last Thursday, this House learned

that your budget had actually cut or reduced the financial aid for the Ontario summer jobs program; that included a cut to the Junior Ranger program. But what concerned me at the time when I

responded was that most of the programs that were contained in these posters that you sent to us expired that same weekend. The Ontario-Quebec student job exchange was cut off February 28; the

summer company program is cut off this weekend. As the minister responsible, have you investigated why these materials that are so important for students in Ontario were sent out so late, when most

university and college students will be leaving their campuses within the next week or so?

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I thank the member for the opportunity to correct the inaccurate

information that he was presenting to the House when he made his statement. The fact of the matter is that the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities reports on a number of different

programs that comprise the summer job strategy. All of the programs had been advertised, a number of them announced, long before I stood up in the House to make the announcement. For example, the

Ontario-Quebec exchange program that the member spoke about, which is available only to university students, had over 200 applicants when I stood up in the House to speak about it -- over 200

applicants for the very program that would have 50 successful people who were going to be accommodated. That was just one of a number.

So the member is not correct. We didn't reduce the amount of funding. In fact, there is always a difference between the estimates and the actual. And all of

these programs were being advertised --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Jackson: I have copies of last year's press release and this year's press release -- they came from your office -- and the amount has been

reduced; the number of students served has been reduced. My concern is that after we left the House last Thursday, we went to our offices and we got this package from Promotional Products

Fulfillment and Distribution Ltd. By Friday, I got this package from Purolator filled with posters for the programs that have expired, at a cost of $191. When I called the promotional company, I

asked them, "Where are the French versions, and where could I get them?" They said, "Don't worry. By next Wednesday," which is tomorrow, "we will have sent all this material to colleges and

universities across Ontario."

Minister, I'm simply asking you, will you get to the bottom of who screwed up in your ministry and didn't get this material out in a timely fashion? University

students are not going to be able to get full access to these programs, which, frankly, according to your press releases, you have reduced the amount to. Will you undertake a review and find out

what happened, find out why this company you're paying $305,000 a year to was late in getting this material out across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: The member is right about one thing: I will certainly investigate the suggestions he makes with respect to the program

itself, because what he was saying last week is simply inaccurate. To repeat, the Ontario-Quebec program he made great hay of last week has been advertised for months. In fact, it was in the late

fall that it was advertised on campuses throughout Ontario. There were, when I stood up, I learned, more than 200 applicants for a program that has 45 successful participants. When he reads from

press releases year on year, as he would understand, there's a difference between the estimates and the actuals. What's interesting is that he might have forgotten that when he was in government,

the program was advertised one year in May; the summer jobs program was advertised once in June. The fact of the matter is that a lot of the programs have start dates at the beginning of April. The

fact of the matter is that they are being well advertised. My colleague actually announced his --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Premier. Tonight you will be attending yet another $2,000-a-table fundraiser, this

time in Vaughan, Ontario. You promised you would tighten the laws that allow corporate donors to buy access, but dinner after dinner comes and goes, and all we hear is more promises from you that

one day you will outlaw this practice. Can you tell us when, if ever, new laws will be in place to stop precisely what you are going to do tonight?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): The minister responsible for democratic renewal.

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I'd like to thank the

honourable member for the question. He will remember that just a few months ago we passed Bill 214. For the very first time, we will make transparent contributions of $100 or more to riding

associations: within 15 days to Elections Ontario and within another 15 to the websites of each of the parties. So you'll know very shortly who was there tonight and how much they spent -- all

transparent. Having said that, we also said that we would look at political finance reform, and in a supplementary I'll talk more about that.

Mr. Prue: Of course, the minister talked about riding associations, not about your party, because it is, of course, exempt. Over the last

three years, your democratic renewal ministry has spent more than $15 million, but you haven't managed to put a single word to legislation. Instead, you're holding yet another high-priced

fundraiser where corporate donors and well-heeled lobbyists will get to buy access to you, to the Premier, to your cabinet, to your caucus. Meanwhile, ordinary Ontarians, like the parents who lose

nearly $1,500 a year to your child welfare clawback, are left in the cold. Will new laws be in place before the next election, or is this just another broken promise you intend to keep?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: I'm very proud of our record on democratic renewal and very proud of the former minister for democratic renewal, the

Attorney General, who began this road with Bill 213 and then Bill 214. Not only will we be looking at political finance reform, and more on that will be shared in the near future, but we also just

announced last week the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. This is just part of the whole package of democratic renewal; also modernizing elections. And I just want to remind the member once

again that within 30 days, he will know exactly who was there tonight and how much they spent.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Education. During the past few months, I've had meetings and discussions

with the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board. These discussions concern the board's ability to balance its budget in the previous fiscal year and beyond. Management members from the

Dufferin-Peel board have met and spoken with me and with the other members of the Peel caucus to discuss their assertions of underfunding of the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board. The

board claimed they would have to submit revised estimates showing a deficit as high as $15 million. This concerned me, as our government has increased the funding to school boards by historic

amounts, including to this one, since we've been in office.

Minister, you appointed an investigator in this matter to see where the discrepancy lies. Could you please tell the House what the status of the report is?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I am happy to report to the House that we today have received a report from independent

investigators, actually two: a lead investigator and an associate investigator. Essentially, their findings are that the Dufferin-Peel board has a much smaller deficit than was originally reported,

that the budget can be balanced and students can be protected. In fact, they have outlined a number of ways in which that can be done to both balance the budget and address significant financial

management issues.

With the new information that's in the report, we're very hopeful that the Dufferin-Peel board, which the report commends for offering good quality education

services, will actually take it upon themselves and be able to do that, using the new information that comes in the investigators' report, balance the budget and correct some of the financial

practices that didn't allow them to have as close a control as they might wish to have over their finances.

Mr. Delaney: Knowing that the report will be made public this afternoon is news that our community will welcome. We in Peel region are

relieved to know that the investigators' report has been received and that at last we're going to have a third-party analysis of our situation in the Dufferin-Peel board.

Now that the report has been received and will be made public this afternoon, what are the next steps to follow up on this report, and finally, how will our

future education priorities benefit the students of the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: I think it's clear from the investigators' report that there are both the resources and programs taking place to offer an

excellent education to all the students in Dufferin-Peel. They will get the benefits of lower class sizes, they will have a rigorous student success program to lower the dropout rate and they will

have all of the other enhancements as well.

The original concern was a deficit that could be $15 million. The report says that the maximum it could be is $11 million and it could be as low as $5

million. It could, as well, be addressed with areas like overspending in administration. There's about $4 million extra being spent in that area, which we hope the board will be able to look at and

find ways to meet some of the investigators' expectations. But we do not intend to dictate to the board. We do believe that this is information the board did not have previously. We think it's

important that they be given a chance and this report be given a chance to be useful to them in resolving this issue.

After some long-standing back and forth, we have an independent report. It tells the parents, the staff and the board what some good options are to have the

highest-quality education and still ensure that every dollar that we put into education counts.

COST OF ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): For the Minister of Energy: Earlier today the Premier was telling us how proud he was that

your government has shone the light of day on certain issues with regard to crown corporations and bragged about your transparency. Let's hear some transparency and let's see it.

You announced today the power plants in Brampton. A couple of weeks ago you talked about paying up to 42 cents a kilowatt hour for renewable power. The people

of Ontario want to know the facts. What is going to be the true cost -- don't obscure the facts here -- of power at this new power plant?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Energy): I thank the member for the question. The Ontario Power Authority is completing the final

details, and when those details are available, I will make them available to the member.

A number of questions have been raised this afternoon, especially around the issue of Hydro One. I think it's really important that the member and the

opposition members should recognize that Hydro One was actually incorporated under Ontario's Business Corporations Act, which was done so they could sell Hydro One. In essence, when they did that,

they actually made Tom Parkinson not an employee of the government but an employee of that corporation, a very fine distinction so that they in fact as the shareholder could sell that plan.

Mr. Yakabuski: I'm not sure what that plan has to do with Hydro One. But look, the people want to know. You can't simply go out there and pay

whatever the seller wants because you people have put yourselves in a box with regard to supply in this province. You've got to stop running around in circles. You've got to face the facts. Your

plans aren't working. It is important that the people know. What is electricity going to cost them down the road in this province? When we're trying to compete with people across North America,

what is electricity going to cost under your plan? We want sunshine on the contracts at each one of these plants. Minister, will you commit to that now?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I thank the member for the question. He has a very interesting definition of "box." If you'd like hear about a box, how

about the need for 25,000 megawatts of new supply by 2025 because you neglected the supply? How about new transmission because you neglected the transmission? How about the need to redo Conawapa

because it was cancelled? How about the need to do conservation because you couldn't spell it, much less say it? How about all the things that we need to be able to do because your definition of a

box is that as the need grew by 6%, the capacity fell by 8%?

You want to talk about what we're doing? We're keeping the lights on. You were turning them off. We're making a difference.

Mr. Yakabuski: I can spell Conawapa.

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: It was "conservation" actually.

In fact, we have put Ontario back on the road to keeping the lights on for the people of Ontario.

RECYCLING PLANT

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Your ministry has allowed ABP Recycling in Hamilton to

operate for over a year without a certificate of approval. It wasn't, in fact, until the city of Hamilton called to indicate that they had been dumping illegal waste water into our sewer system

that your officials showed up to investigate. Now that same company, ABP, wants a new certificate of approval to relocate and expand their operations in Hamilton. My question is simple: Will you

commit to denying that certificate of approval?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): Thank you very much for the question. Each and every circumstance in the province where

certificates of approval are not met causes concern for me as the Minister of the Environment and causes concern for the ministry. The information with respect to ABP is one that I will solicit

immediately from my ministry, and I will certainly get back to this Legislature when I have more information with respect to ABP.

Ms. Horwath: Minister, the problem is that you've failed to protect Hamilton residents from ABP's illegal operations for over a year already

and there's an application right now on your desk to let them continue to pollute in Hamilton. Allowing ABP's expansion means more smog and more carcinogens into Hamilton's airshed, and there are

already studies indicating that our airshed is to the limit in terms of toxins. Will you do what is right today and stop ABP from emitting more smog and more carcinogens into Hamilton's air and

deny that certificate approval for ABP?

Hon. Ms. Broten: Full vigour will be brought to the examination of the certificate of approval. It is not appropriate for me to prejudge a

certificate of approval with no documents in front of me, but I can certainly tell the member opposite that I have grave concern with respect to the airshed in Hamilton, and this government is

doing a great deal to protect that airshed.

Seventy per cent of Hamilton's air pollution comes across the border with respect to transboundary air pollution. It was our Premier who, for the very first

time, raised this issue across both nations last year. We will continue to undertake that work. I am working closely with the Hamilton community with respect to their airshed. We want to ensure a

future for Hamiltonians with clean air, clean water and clean land. That's something that our government is undertaking each and every day in the Ministry of the Environment.

ENERGY RATES

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Yesterday in the House, you spoke about energy price

increases of 32% in Massachusetts. Massachusetts isn't alone. I understand that rates have gone up in Alberta by 23%. It appears that energy prices are going up everywhere.

Energy is critically important in our daily lives, from the time we wake up till the time we go to bed. If we have an electric blanket, we even need it when

we're in bed. It's very disturbing to think what our energy bills would look like with a 32% increase.

Minister, I know the Ontario Energy Board sets energy prices here in Ontario, but what can we do to ensure that the people in my riding of London North Centre

and the people across Ontario won't see the kinds of energy price increases that the people in Alberta and Massachusetts are seeing?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Energy): I'd like to thank the member for her question and her constant involvement, especially around

people with low incomes and social housing needs.

There's no question, with 32% in Massachusetts and 23% in Alberta, that energy prices are rising, but I do not anticipate that any of those kinds of increases

will be here. The Ontario Energy Board does have the authority -- we are experiencing higher usage. We had an exceptionally hot summer. We know that gas prices have increased. As a matter of fact,

we even know fuel prices have increased, including coal. So we know there are challenges ahead of us, but I am quite comfortable that we are not going to actually deal with increases of 32%, as you

see in Massachusetts, or the 23% you see in Alberta, or the extraordinary increases right across the United States.

Ms. Matthews: My constituents are anxious about next month's price increase and what that will mean for their monthly budgets. When you live

on a fixed income, there really isn't any extra money available to plan for an increase, and even when you're not on a fixed income, a price increase reduces the amount of money you have to spend

on other things, often necessities. Regardless of what price the OEB comes out with, what can Ontarians do to lessen the impact of the increase in the OEB-regulated price?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I thank the member for the question. We've done a number of initiatives, especially around low income. In particular,

we've been working with LIEN, which is a low-income group, to help develop social programming, for example, within social housing. We've worked with the social housing corporation itself. We've

piloted a program in 20 communities with over 5,000 units. We've now expanded that program to about $9.25 million. In addition to that, we have listed a directive with the Ontario Power Authority

requiring that they find 100 megawatts of supply in the appliances alone.

We have put a very concentrated effort toward low-income and social housing because we recognize that as prices increase, those who can least afford it are

often more significantly hit. So how do we help them to mitigate those challenges? We are working very diligently with the sector in order to do that, because we recognize that this is indeed a

challenge for all Ontarians, but in particular for those in low-income and social housing.

COURT SECURITY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Yesterday at the

Windsor courthouse, a man being sentenced for assault pulled out a knife, ran to the front of the courtroom and slashed his arms and threatened to slash his throat right in front of the judge. He

could easily have been carrying a handgun.

As the minister responsible for public safety in this province, what are you doing to assure the citizens of Ontario that this type of action never happens

again in an Ontario courtroom?

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I thank the member for the question. I honestly can't guarantee

that it will never happen in a courtroom again, but we do provide court security, and that is something that we have been doing for some time. We provide transportation from a correctional facility

to the courts. We provide officers in the courts to provide that security.

This is an unfortunate situation. I can't really comment on the specifics, because this is something the police will be dealing with and it is really an

operational issue for them. But I just want to assure citizens of Ontario that court security is provided, and this is something that is there to help prevent things like this happening.

Mr. Dunlop: Minister, as a result of yesterday's incident, only one of the 10 courtrooms in the Windsor courthouse is open today to the

public, and that's because the court staff are too afraid to work in that environment.

A ministry spokesman said in today's Windsor Star that the experts in court security are the police, yet you and your government are not listening to the many

concerns of the police about court security. We've heard this over and over again; in fact, your PA has done some kind of examination of court security.

We believe that you have totally dropped the ball on the review of court security in this province, but can I ask you this: What will you do as minister to

ensure that the employees of the Windsor courthouse, and all other courtrooms in the province of Ontario, can return to work tomorrow in a safe environment?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I just want to correct the member's statement about my then parliamentary assistant looking into court security. There has

never been a question about the actual security in the courtrooms. Where the question has been -- and it's been raised for some time and is a result of downloading by your government when you were

in power -- is in paying for court security. This is a major issue with AMO and a major issue with municipalities: worrying about the cost of providing that court security and how it can work,

because what is happening is that a courtroom will be in a jurisdiction, and many other communities are using it and they're not paying their share. So that investigation had nothing to do with the

actual security; it had to do with how you fund it.

I want to assure you and the rest of the citizens of Ontario that there is court security in all the courthouses in Ontario. That is something we're very

concerned about.

RESIGNATION OF AUDITOR GENERAL

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I beg leave to inform the House that I have today received a letter of resignation, effective June 9,

2006, from Jim McCarter, the Auditor General of Ontario. On behalf of all members, I would like to acknowledge and thank Mr. McCarter for his dedicated and professional service to Ontario and to

wish him well in future endeavours.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents, who are residents of

long-term-care homes, need, with the respect and dignity that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with recent funding increases and a dedicated staff who do more than their best, there is still not enough time available to provide the care

residents need. For example, 10 minutes, and sometimes less, is simply not enough time to assist a resident to get up, dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast; and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining;

"We, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly

of Ontario to increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over

the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

This has been signed by a significant number of my constituents, most of whom are interested in the Royal Terrace nursing home in Palmerston, and of course it

has my support as well.

PUBLIC EDUCATION

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a very important petition today to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario

"Whereas the people of Ontario demand a quality public education system that will give our children the tools to compete with the world; and

"Whereas Premier McGuinty and the Liberal caucus are fighting for our future by implementing a positive plan to improve our public schools, including smaller

class sizes;

"Whereas the Conservative Party and John Tory want to take millions from the public education to literally pay people to withdraw their children from the

public system and send them to elite private schools;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Premier McGuinty in his commitment to giving our children a ladder to success

through excellent public education and not spend taxpayer dollars to benefit the few who can afford private school tuitions."

I'll affix my name to that petition.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health for Ontario via OHIP permits discriminating reimbursement policies for at least one specific heart medication. The medication

referred to is Sotalol, a medication required to establish regular heartbeat. The 80-milligram version cannot be claimed for reimbursement, while the 160-milligram version can;

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

"To establish equitable rules for the reimbursement by OHIP of the above-mentioned medication and to instruct OHIP not to differentiate claimability for

reimbursement on the basis of differently sized doses for one and the same medication."

I affix my signature, as I agree with it.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition given to me by the family council at the Elizabeth Centre. I want to thank Shirley

Chenard, the president of the residents' council, and also the family and friends circle of the Elizabeth Centre for taking the time to have this petition circulated in the home. It reads as

follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents who are residents of

long-term-care homes need, with the respect and dignity that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with recent funding increases and a dedicated staff who do more than their best, there is still not enough time available to provide the care

residents need. For example, 10 minutes, and sometimes less, is simply not enough time to assist a resident to get up, dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast; and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining;

"We, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly

of Ontario to increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over

the next two years."

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): This petition is from my constituents at Chateau Gardens in Parkhill.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents who are residents of

long-term-care homes need, with the respect and dignity that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with recent funding increases and a dedicated staff who do more than their best, there is still not enough time available to provide the care

residents need. For example, 10 minutes, and sometimes less, is simply not enough time to assist a resident to get up, dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast; and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining;

"We, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly

of Ontario to increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over

the next two years...."

SPECIAL CARE HOMES

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas hundreds of vulnerable adults live in homes for special care that provide them a warm and secure, stable and friendly environment which allows them to

lead fulfilling lives; and

"Whereas the alternative for many of these individuals is a life of homelessness on the street; and

"Whereas special care homes have had only a single 3% increase since 1999, which in no way matches the rising costs they face; and

"Whereas the Liberal government promised Ontario in the election they would `significantly increase supportive housing options for those suffering from mental

illness';

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call on the government to bring in an immediate increase in funding to homes for special care."

As I am in agreement, I have affixed my signature and given it to page Roman.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition signed by hundreds of residents and family members of seniors who live at Extendicare York

in Sudbury. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents who are residents of

long-term-care homes need, with the respect and dignity that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with recent funding increases and a dedicated staff who do more than their best, there is still not enough time available to provide the care

residents need. For example, 10 minutes, and sometimes less, is simply not enough time to assist a resident to get up, dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast; and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining;

"We, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly

of Ontario to increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over

the next two years...."

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

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I'm pleased to present this petition for the member from Mississauga West.

"Petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly:

"Support Community Mediation

"Whereas many types of civil disputes may be resolved through community mediation delivered by trained mediators, who are volunteers who work with the parties

in the dispute; and

"Whereas Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services established the Peel Community Mediation Service in 1999 with support from the government of Ontario

through the Trillium Foundation, the Rotary Club of Mississauga West and the United Way of Peel, and has proven the viability and success of community mediation; and

"Whereas the city of Mississauga and the town of Caledon have endorsed the Peel Community Mediation Service, and law enforcement bodies refer many cases to the

Peel Community Mediation Service as an alternative to a court dispute; and

"Whereas court facilities and court time are both scarce and expensive, the cost of community mediation is very small and the extra expense incurred for lack

of community mediation in Peel region would be much greater than the small annual cost of funding community mediation;

"Be it therefore resolved that the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of the Attorney General, support and fund the ongoing service delivery of the

Peel Community Mediation Service through Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services."

I'm going to pass this page on through Andrew.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I have several hundred signatures from the family members of the residents' council, and residents

themselves, of the Burloak long-term-care facility in Burlington. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents who are residents of

long-term-care homes need, with the respect and dignity that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with recent funding increases and a dedicated staff who do more than their best, there is still not enough time available to provide the care

residents need. For example, 10 minutes, and sometimes less, is simply not enough time to assist a resident to get up, dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast; and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining" further;

"We, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly

... to increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over the next

two years (2006 and 2007)."

I'm pleased to give this to Elyse with my signature of support on it also.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition on long-term care that was given to me by the residents' council at Pioneer Manor in

Sudbury. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents who are residents of

long-term-care homes need, with the respect and dignity that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with recent funding increases and a dedicated staff who do more than their best, there is still not enough time available to provide the care

residents need. For example, 10 minutes, and sometimes less, is simply not enough time to assist a resident to get up, dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast; and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining;

"We, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly

of Ontario to increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over

the next two years...."

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

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it has been shown that crossing control arms on school buses reduce or virtually eliminate instances of students being struck by their own bus;

and

"Whereas 91% of all front-bumper fatalities involve buses not equipped with crossing control arms; and

"Whereas the safety of the children of Ontario is our number one priority;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to require that all existing school buses be required to be immediately retrofitted with

crossing control arms."

I am pleased to sign and support this petition.

MACULAR DEGENERATION

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'd like read this petition on macular degeneration, drafted by Dr. Tim Hillson, an ophthalmologist up in

Orillia.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of blindness in the elderly and is present in some form in 25% to 33% of seniors over the

age of 75. AMD has two forms: the more common `dry' type and the `wet' type. Although the wet type occurs in only 15% of AMD patients, these patients account for 90% of the legal blindness that

occurs with AMD. The wet type is further subdivided into classic and occult subtypes, based on the appearance of the AMD on special testing. Photodynamic therapy, a treatment where abnormal blood

vessels are closed with a laser-activated chemical, has been shown to slow the progression of vision loss in both subtypes of wet AMD;

"Whereas OHIP has not extended coverage for photodynamic therapy to the occult subtype of wet AMD, despite there being substantial clinical evidence

demonstrating the effectiveness of this treatment in patients with either form of wet AMD. Untreated, these patients can expect a progression in their visual loss, with central blindness as the end

result;

"Whereas affected patients are in a position where a proven treatment is available to help preserve their vision, but this treatment can only be accessed at

their own personal expense. Treatment costs are between $12,500 and $18,000 over an 18-month period. Many patients resign themselves to a continued worsening of their vision, as for them the

treatment is financially unattainable. The resultant blindness in these patients manifests itself as costs to society in other forms, such as an increased need for home care, missed time from work

for family members providing care, and an increased rate of injuries such as hip fractures that can be directly attributable to their poor vision.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to fund the treatment of the occult subtype of macular degeneration with photodynamic

therapy for all patients awaiting this service."

I'm pleased to sign this and present it to Cameron to present to the table.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have a petition on behalf of the resident councils and family councils at Royal Oak Gardens, Banwell Gardens,

Brouillette Manor, Château Park, Extendicare Tecumseh, Extendicare Southwood Lakes, Heron Terrace, Regency Park and Windsor Place, and it reads

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents who are residents of

long-term-care homes need, with the respect and dignity that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with recent funding increases and a dedicated staff who do more than their best, there is still not enough time available to provide the care

residents need. For example, 10 minutes, and sometimes less, is simply not enough time to assist a resident to get up, dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast; and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining;

"We, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly

of Ontario to increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over

the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

I have signed this petition, and I will give it to Shelby to take to the Clerk's table.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before you get to the

orders of the day, I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding extending the afternoon session.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Is there unanimous consent for the government House leader to put forward such a motion? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that the House sit beyond 6 p.m. for the purpose of completing consideration of the second reading stage of Bill 190,

An Act to promote good government by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting one new Act, following which the Speaker shall adjourn the House until 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, April 5, 2006,

and that, notwithstanding the previous motion, the House shall not meet at 6:45 this evening.

The Acting Speaker: The government House leader has moved that the House sit beyond 6 p.m. for the purpose of completing consideration of the

second reading stage of Bill 190,

An Act to promote good government by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting one new Act, following which the Speaker shall adjourn the House until 1:30

p.m., Wednesday, April 5, 2006, and that notwithstanding the previous motion, the House shall not meet at 6:45 this evening.

Does the House agree? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONGER CITY OF TORONTO

FOR A STRONGER ONTARIO ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 CRÉANT

UN TORONTO PLUS FORT

POUR UN ONTARIO PLUS FORT

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 27, 2006, on the motion for second reading of Bill 53,

An Act to revise the City of Toronto Acts, 1997 (Nos. 1 and

2), to amend certain public Acts in relation to municipal powers and to repeal certain private Acts relating to the City of Toronto / Projet de loi 53, Loi révisant les lois de 1997 Nos 1

et 2 sur la cité de Toronto, modifiant certaines lois d'intérêt public en ce qui concerne les pouvoirs municipaux et abrogeant certaines lois d'intérêt privé se

rapportant à la cité de Toronto.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I'm pleased to recognize the member for York West.

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West): I'm delighted to join the debate, continue the debate and lead the debate today. Off the bat, I would like to

say that I will be sharing the 20 minutes allocated to our side with the member from Scarborough Southwest.

The initial debate this afternoon deals with Bill 53. It's a bill that finally, slowly, is finding its way through second reading here. I hope we can get to it

sooner rather than later; it's only some 300 pages.

It's a very comprehensive bill. I can't in all honesty say that I will be doing a very thorough job in 10 minutes -- splitting the 20 minutes -- in describing,

more or less, the most important points of this particular proposed law. It deals with a revised act for the city of Toronto, which is the old 1997 act, and it has a number of amendments as

well.

We have to recognize first of all how this bill got to this stage after first reading. Now we are doing second reading. I have to say that much of the work

that has been done so far is thanks to the co-operation between the city and the province, and of course the initiative and willingness of the Premier, the government and the Minister of Municipal

Affairs to really get to work on this particular piece of legislation. Because of their continued support for doing something for the city of Toronto, it was decided to move it forward. As I said,

even though it does move a bit slowly, at least we are moving. It has taken some time -- it has taken years, I would say -- yet I'm very pleased to see that the McGuinty Liberal government has

finally decided to give Toronto the power it needs to run its affairs, and in an appropriate manner as well.

While it has taken a long time, now we are dealing with second reading. At the end, I would like to say -- and I say it now, as well -- that I hope we can get

through second reading speedily, give it approval and get on with the final debate on the bill.

I think we all recognize in this House the importance that it has, not only for the province of Ontario but for the city of Toronto as well. It is something

that we all wanted, that the city has wanted. It has gone through very extensive consultations. I have to say that I believe it has been a year or maybe a couple of years now since we had

consultations between the various interested groups and agencies from the city of Toronto and members from our side here, from the government. I know I attended an evening at Etobicoke Collegiate,

where the consultations took place. I have to say that this particular bill, Bill 53, has wide support, not only from the members of the House and the various agencies but politicians as well.

The minister and the Premier have recognized how important it is to have Toronto work, and work well. I don't want to be either ironic or sarcastic, but some

time ago, some years ago, Toronto was recognized as the city that works. In many ways, I'd like to say that Toronto still works, but it could work better. And I think this will go a long way in

allowing the city, the mayor and the members of city council to really conduct affairs in a responsible way, accountable to the citizens of Toronto. Why is that? Why have we recognized the

importance of allowing Toronto to have these new powers? I don't have to say that if Toronto works well, I think the province of Ontario works well as well. And so it should. This is recognized by

everybody who has been working to get the bill to this particular point.

So yes, having lauded the work and the support from the Premier and the minister and all the others involved, I would say just a couple of things, because I

have less than four minutes left. What does this bill do? Some of the most important things, especially in parts IV, V and VII, deal with transparency at the municipal level, at the city level;

accountability; changing a number of provisions; and revisions as well. One of those things is adding additional duties, responsibilities and powers to the city.

Part IV, for example, deals with governance and the framework, the structures. The city will have -- saving time, if you will -- the power to deal with changes

in boundaries and wards and council composition and structures as well; the power to create boards and commissions, and how they will do that. But one very important aspect is accountability and

transparency, how they run city business. They will have to provide for the establishment of a mechanism and an office relating to the accountability of the city; establishing a code of conduct for

members of council and members of some boards as well.

Bill 53 calls for the appointment of an integrity commissioner. We have one, the feds have one, and I believe it's time the city gets serious, appointing an

integrity commissioner, and as an ombudsman as well, who has the power to conduct investigations with respect to city affairs and so forth.

Another very major aspect included in the bill is that the act requires the city to appoint an Auditor General. We have seen in the last few years the very

important necessity to have an Auditor General who will have access to records and information.

Quickly, one of the other parts of the bill,

part VII, deals with financing and administration. This, again, includes the administration of the city and

boards; and the budget process, which is a very important part of running the city and running it in a very efficient way. It does require an annual return, containing financial information, to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and also requires the city to prepare and publish annual statements.

While we have recognized the importance of giving the city these new powers and new authorities, we also are say