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

December 3, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Dec-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 3 December 2002 Mardi 3 décembre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GESTION DES ÉLÉMENTS NUTRITIFS

LABOUR DISPUTES

2010 COMMONWEALTH GAMES BID

AVONMORE FALL HARVEST DAY FESTIVAL

DAVID GRANT

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF

DISABLED PERSONS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

MISSISSAUGA FIREFIGHTERS

VISITORS

ANNUAL REPORT,

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA VÉRIFICATION

DES COMPTES PUBLICS

VISITEUSE /

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD ON

LAW AND ORDER

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

CORPORATE TAX

VISITOR

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

CORPORATE TAX

FIREARMS CONTROL

HYDRO ONE

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

VISITORS

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

HIGHWAY 69

DÉRÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

POLICE SERVICES

WATER EXTRACTION

HIGHWAY 407

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Tuesday 3 December 2002 Mardi 3 décembre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GESTION DES ÉLÉMENTS NUTRITIFS

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Je m'adresse aujourd'hui aux ministres de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation, et de

l'Environnement.

Nous savons que présentement au Québec, il y a un règlement en date du 15 juin 2002 qui empêche tout agrandissement ou nouvelle porcherie

à s'établir pour une période de 18 à 24 mois dans 281 municipalités dû à la pollution des nappes phréatiques, en conclusion que la contamination des terres

par le phosphore contenu dans le lisier du porc pouvait mener à la contamination de l'eau potable et des puits, et pouvait donc menacer la santé de la population.

Il y aura aussi une étude complète pour étudier le développement durable de l'industrie porcine et de mettre en place des règlements

environnementaux afin de contrer les effets néfastes sur la santé et l'environnement.

En Ontario, la

Loi sur la gestion des éléments nutritifs vient tout juste de passer sa troisième lecture. Cependant, il n'y a aucune

considération ni réglementation en place afin de prévenir les problèmes encourus par les mégaporcheries.

Toute municipalité devrait avoir un règlement intérimaire qui ordonnerait une étude environnementale avant d'émettre un permis aux

nouvelles mégaporcheries. Après tout, nous savons tous jusqu'à quel point Walkerton a mis notre santé, notre environnement et notre sécurité en question.

Je demande donc aux ministres de prévenir au lieu de créer une deuxième catastrophe telle que Walkerton et de permettre aux municipalités le

refus d'émettre les permis de construction pour ces mégaporcheries.

LABOUR DISPUTES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): We've got workers here in the public galleries today from the Sudbury Star, where 75 of their membership of

the newspaper guild have been locked out now into their ninth week, and 41 workers from the Cobourg Daily Star and Port Hope Evening Guide, who have been on their picket lines now for eight

weeks.

Both of these groups of workers, be it in Sudbury or be it down in Cobourg or Port Hope, are being denied any meaningful bargaining at the negotiating table:

locked out, on strike, and seeking the most modest of gains in their contracts, modest wage increases -- you should know that the base wages at these workplaces are $8 and $8.50 an hour -- some

modest improvements in pensions, some modest improvements to benefits.

Why are they out on strike? Why have they been locked out for eight and nine weeks? I'll tell you why: because scabs have been taking their jobs in the

workplace; scabs have been crossing their picket lines. I tell you that the New Democratic Party anti-scab legislation in the early part of the 1990s created fewer labour disputes, and when there

were strikes or lockouts, they were far shorter. These workers' jobs are being stolen from them by scabs, companies like Corporate Security Services and Accu-Fax, the scum of the corporate world,

enforcing scabs and protecting them as they walk through these workers' picket lines to take these workers' jobs. These workers are here to support the New Democratic Party's Bill 214, anti-scab

legislation which will restore peace. These workers are here to tell readers of the Sudbury Star, the Cobourg Daily Star and the Port Hope Evening Guide not to buy those papers and advertisers not

to advertise until these labour disputes are settled.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin, we have some guests in the gallery. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to clap during any of

the proceedings. I'd appreciate the co-operation for the members. They may not have been aware of that. I thank them for their co-operation.

The member for Niagara Falls.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Thank you --

Interruption.

The Speaker: Order. You've come a long way. We're going to have to throw you out if you do that. I would ask your co-operation. You've come

Interruption.

The Speaker: You leave me no alternative. I ask security to clear the entire gallery on that side, please; the entire gallery, please, because I

don't know who else is coming next. I warned him twice. Everyone out. It's too bad.

Interjection.

The Speaker: That's right. I can't tell the difference.

Interruption.

The Speaker: That's why we did the whole gallery, because that was a different person. I guess we won't need to worry any more.

The member for Niagara Falls -- sorry for the interruption.

2010 COMMONWEALTH GAMES BID

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It's OK, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to rise in the House today to reiterate our government's and my own support for

the city of Hamilton's bid for the 2010 Commonwealth Games.

Hamilton was the birthplace of the Commonwealth Games in 1930. The Hamilton bid committee launched their bid book in Hamilton in October 2002, with the support

of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, Frank Klees, and the Minister of Labour and MPP for Stoney Creek, Brad Clark.

Bringing the Commonwealth Games to Hamilton would be an honour for Ontario and Canada. It would demonstrate our capacity to host international sport and

multi-sport events. The Commonwealth Games would also involve the greater Toronto area and cities in the Golden Horseshoe such as St Catharines, which might host the rowing event.

Our government is continuing to work with and support the city of Hamilton in their Commonwealth Games bid and other tourism, sport and recreation initiatives.

In the past three years, we have committed more than $30 million to support tourism, sport, recreation, culture and other local projects that would help build a solid foundation for the continued

growth and prosperity of Hamilton. More than $8 million in community grants has flowed into the Hamilton area from the Ontario Trillium Foundation, and the province has invested more than $4.8

million in grants to local sport, recreation and culture organizations.

We have also invested $2.25 million in the World Cycling Championships being held in Hamilton next year. Through our SuperBuild initiative, we have invested more

than $96 million in sport and recreation facilities throughout Ontario, with the approval of 216 sport and recreation facility projects to date. The Ernie Eves government is committed to helping

communities attract sporting events that promote Ontario as a world-class tourism destination.

This government is on Hamilton's team, and we look forward to welcoming the world to Canada's greatest province, Ontario.

AVONMORE FALL HARVEST DAY FESTIVAL

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I take this opportunity to rise in the House to tell our members of a very successful

initiative undertaken by the residents of the small community of Avonmore, Ontario, in my riding.

On October 12, 2002, residents of Avonmore participated in the Fall Harvest Day festival. As part of the celebrations, organizers and residents pulled together

to beat the existing Guinness World Record for the largest display of scarecrows. Altogether, 3,102 scarecrows were displayed, beating the existing record of 2,071 held by the residents of Meaford,

Ontario.

This community-based event was made possible by the hard work of organizers like Nancy Legue and by the determination of countless volunteers and the students at

Roxmore Public School. In addition to establishing a new world record, the festival was able to raise more than $10,000, all of which was invested back into the community public school of

Roxmore.

I must also acknowledge that I attended high school in the beautiful community of Avonmore and, as such, I hold this community in very high regard. It is my

pleasure to congratulate all those who took part on how they contributed to the festival. I applaud their efforts.

DAVID GRANT

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): Today I rise before the House to pay tribute to a fine individual who has passed away in my riding of Nipissing.

Recently, more than 300 people, including members from 65 fire departments across four districts, attended the funeral of Deputy Fire Chief David Grant of the Bonfield Fire Department. The

attendance of people indicated what a respected man he was. The ceremony marked the township's first formal firefighter funeral since it became an official fire service in 1971.

David Grant is survived by his wife, Linda, and his two sons, Scott and Sean, both of whom are firefighters with the Bonfield Fire Department. Scott Grant,

David's oldest son, has said: "Anyone who knew my dad loved him. He was a very caring man who was always there for his community." David Grant's other son, Sean, agrees with his brother but adds

that it's going to be a challenge to get back to firefighting without his father alongside him.

I've spoken with many people who knew Mr Grant, and the underlying theme that was heard from everyone was what a truly unique and caring individual he was. He

was very well received by his community and by his coworkers. I would like to say to Linda, Scott and Sean that our thoughts are with you during these difficult days. May you find comfort in your

family and friends.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF

DISABLED PERSONS

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): It is my pleasure to rise on this, the International Day of Disabled Persons. It is appropriate that

this day is set aside, although it would be nice if we didn't have to, because every day should be the day for these individuals.

I have yet to meet a person with a disability who is disabled. I have been inspired, motivated and enriched by my contact with them. But this is a day for those

of us who do not yet have a disability to stand up and speak for our fellow citizens. We need to make changes in this province. We need to listen to individuals with disabilities to meet their

needs so we can level the playing field. We need to allow them to work without clawing back all of the money they make. We need to immediately stop building new barriers. Certainly, the goal is to

remove existing barriers, but at this present time in Ontario we continue to erect new barriers to those with disabilities.

We need to ensure that those who are unable to work can have a life that is not at or below poverty level. These are our fellow citizens. Everyone in this

chamber will ultimately be judged on how they treat Ontarians with disabilities. We need to do more and we can do more. I urge everyone in this House to act immediately, to remove barriers and

ensure a life of dignity. These individuals want to have the same access to services and the same opportunity as everyone else. Those doors have yet to be fully opened.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It is my pleasure to announce that today is the International Day of Disabled Persons. This day, designated

by the United Nations in 1992, is a day to promote increased awareness and understanding of disabled issues.

By observing this day, we take the time to recognize the contributions and achievements of people with disabilities. Barriers must be removed to tap into the

full potential offered by those with disabilities. In Ontario, there are more than 1.9 million people with disabilities. Our government is committed to breaking down the barriers faced by these

As you know, at this time last year our government passed the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. This legislation is key to our vision of creating a barrier-free

Disabilities Act is designed to increase independence for people with disabilities so they have more opportunities to participate fully in our society to the benefit of us all. The ODA is Canada's

first and most comprehensive legislation for people with disabilities. It builds on our government's multi-billion dollar commitment to programs and services.

disabilities in your communities.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): There are seven days left in this session before the House adjourns, and presumably before the next

provincial election. We are faced with a government that is on the ropes in every sense of the word; a government that has to time-allocate legislation that all three parties in this House support;

a government that is tabling 50 FOIs on expenses all at once today. Why? Because they want, I presume, to get all the bad news out at once, all in one day, knowing full well that the auditor's

report is today.

And what a report that is. This volume speaks volumes about a government that can't manage its affairs, about a government that puts the interests of its friends

ahead of the interests of the people of Ontario, a government that will sacrifice principle for re-election every chance it gets, and this session more than any has demonstrated that; a government

with a lack of vision, singularly devoted to one thing, and that is just trying to clean up its own messes.

Yet today, we learn of dozens of other messes that have been created by the policies of one Ernie Eves. Whether as Premier or Minister of Finance, he has

presided over the slow deterioration of this province, the mismanagement of the affairs of the government of Ontario. The people of Ontario will cast a very harsh judgment on that record, hopefully

early next spring. It's never too late to change. There's a lot of toothpaste to get back in the tube, but this report condemns the government yet again.

MISSISSAUGA FIREFIGHTERS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm delighted to learn that a trio of female firefighters from Mississauga won the International

Firefighter Combat Challenge held in Florida in November 2002. Angie Holman, Tanya Mayers and Tammie Wilson not only finished first, they also set a world record of one minute and 50 seconds in the

challenge, which is a gruelling relay race that simulates an actual fire rescue situation.

Only the fastest, fittest and brightest of firefighters can compete at this level. Mississauga's amazing squad achieved their victory even with injuries. One

member had a broken finger and another suffered from tennis elbow during the competition. Among the arduous tasks these female firefighters accomplished were carrying a 45-pound hose pack up five

flights of stairs, then hoisting a 50-pound rolled hose over an edge; using a nine-pound mallet to drive a 65-pound I-beam a distance of five feet; running through 140 feet of pylons; and dragging

a 170-pound rescue dummy a distance of 75 feet.

Dr Paul Davis, founder of the firefighter combat challenge, said of the Mississauga team, "These are the ones you want fighting a fire.... They are the best in

the world."

Angie, Tanya and Tammie, Mississauga residents are indeed fortunate to have you in our fire department. We are very proud

of you and congratulate you on this remarkable achievement, and the members of our Legislature join in the congratulations.

VISITORS

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sure the members of this Legislative Assembly will

want to join my esteemed colleague from Hamilton West, David Christopherson, and me in welcoming the grade 9 students from Hillfield-Strathallan College, including those from my daughter Whitney's

class. They're in both the east and west galleries. They're accompanied today by Mr Dalton, Mr Warner and Mr Wilkinson. Welcome.

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

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I might also draw to the members' attention in the west members'

gallery, in addition to the students from Hamilton, my beautiful partner, Denise Doyle, who is here today also.

ANNUAL REPORT,

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that I today laid upon the table the 2002 Annual Report of the Provincial Auditor.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I beg leave to present a report on enhancing the role of the private member from the standing

committee on the Legislative Assembly and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Marland: I'm very pleased to present this report on enhancing the role of private members and on expanding the role of technology in the

House and its committees.

I am doubly pleased because the report was the product of an all-party consensus and I want to thank all the members of this House who participated in the

committee meetings that led to the making of this report.

The report recommends that private members' time on Thursday mornings be expanded by two additional hours; that up to three members should be allowed to

co-sponsor private members' bills and resolutions; that private members' bills that receive the support of at least 75% of the membership of the House should be fast-tracked for early consideration

of, and voting on, all post-second reading stages of the legislative process.

The report also recommends that there should be more referral of bills to committee after first reading, more committee scrutiny of draft bills, more use of

select committees, more consistency in the referral of bills to committees and further discussion on quorum requirements to improve fairness and equity for all private members.

Finally, the committee recommends that consideration should be given to more use of technology in the chamber, starting with the table and the dais.

In my 18 years in this Legislature, I have not enjoyed any committee and work of a committee as much as this one, and I do again thank those members for the

tremendous amount of commitment, work and homework and for being part of these discussions and producing this report. I congratulate those members and thank them.

I now move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA VÉRIFICATION

DES COMPTES PUBLICS

Mr O'Toole moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 218,

An Act to amend the Audit Act to insure greater accountability of hospitals, universities and colleges, municipalities and other organizations that

receive grants or other transfer payments from the government or agencies of the Crown / Projet de loi 218, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la vérification des comptes publics afin

d'assurer une responsabilité accrue de la part des hôpitaux, des universités et collèges, des municipalités et d'autres organisations qui reçoivent des subventions ou

d'autres paiements de transfert du gouvernement ou d'organismes de la Couronne.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I urge the House to give this bill some consideration before they pass judgment. This is about accountability in

public sector spending. In light of the fact that the auditor of Ontario, Erik Peters, is here today, it's more out of respect in the circumstances that I ask the opposition to read the bill before

they comment and to be accountable to the taxpayers of this province.

VISITEUSE /

VISITOR

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): Monsieur le Président, j'aurais un point d'ordre: I would like to introduce a good friend

of mine in education from Newfoundland who really wanted to visit the Ontario Legislature, Andrée Thoms.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Minister, on the basis of the Provincial

Auditor's report tabled today, to be a consultant in Ernie Eves's Ontario is to have died and gone to heaven. You are spending two and a half times as much on consultants this year than you did in

1998. That's $662 million this year. Your consultants are often paid two or three times more than ministry staff to do the exact same work. In fact, in the case of the Ministry of Public Safety and

Security, more than 40 consultants are former employees of the ministry. It's like winning the lottery, Minister. You quit the ministry staff on a Monday, and by Wednesday you can get hired back to

the same job and get paid more than double your original salary.

How can you possibly justify this incompetence, this mismanagement, this outrageous use of taxpayers' dollars?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): First, I would like to thank the Provincial Auditor

for the report. We do welcome his recommendations, as we do every year, as every government does. This is an opportunity for us to improve the way government does business; we recognize that as

well.

What I will tell you is this: in terms of the consultants, there are a number of measures which the auditor is requesting or recommending. I'm pleased to tell

you that a number of mandatory requirements have been instituted in our directives in order to deal fully with the auditor's concerns.

If I could share some of them, dealing with some mandatory requirements, in terms of the consulting services, the following best practices will now be

mandatory requirements: require ministries to fully document the process for determining the availability of internal ministry or government resources prior to acquiring consulting services;

clearly define requirements for the assignments; follow an established process for evaluating bids and selecting vendors. These are a few of them.

We have fully agreed to follow all the recommendations of the auditor. We agree with them. They will be

instituted.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, all of that is simply all too lame. You've had seven years over there to get your act together and somehow act in a

responsible way when it comes to taxpayers' dollars.

Let's take a look at some specific examples. The Ministry of Health paid one consultant $360,000 over a two-year period. When the contract finally ended, they

hired a staff person and paid that person $60,000. In short, you paid a consultant three times the cost of hiring a ministry staffer.

One contract at the Ministry of the Environment was supposed to be capped at $25,000 but wound up costing taxpayers $455,000. That's more than 18 times the

projected cost. Your own ministry hired one consultant whose rates started at $725 a day in April 2000, doubled to $1,800 a day one month later, and then jumped again to $2,600 a day just four

months later.

So you tell me that we haven't got money for textbooks, for MRIs, for affordable housing, for public transit, but in your Ontario, there is no shortage of

money when it comes to consultants.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What I did say, and very clearly, was that the auditor made certain recommendations. We have fully agreed to implement all

of them.

I will share some other things with you, if I could. In the annual report of the Provincial Auditor, page 42, he indicates that, "Many of the contracts were

continuous arrangements with the same consultants who had previously worked on other ministry projects. For example, four consultants had been under contract to the minister for more than seven

years at rates between $250 and $430 daily, earning fees between $60,000 and $100,000 annually. These earnings by consultants were more than double the salaries earned by employees occupying the

comparable positions within the ministry."

That was from his report in 1988. That was under the Peterson government, the Liberal government.

I think we should make sure we compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Laughter.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: They think it's funny, but this is their past record.

Every year, the auditor brings forward recommendations. We've agreed to implement them. I would hazard a guess that there has never been an auditor's report

that has ever said the government has done a wonderful job.

Mr McGuinty: I can understand why the minister wants to talk about the last millennium, but I want to talk about today's Provincial Auditor's

report. I want to talk about your record and the fact that you've had seven years on the job to get your act together, and you've failed to do so.

Again, Minister, you're spending two and a half times as much on consultants today as you did three years ago. You're the guy who promised to get government

spending under control. Instead, you cut funding to our hospitals, you've cut funding to our schools, you've cut funding to our seniors and our most vulnerable; but when it comes to consulting

friends, there is no shortage of money whatsoever.

You're hiring former ministry staff days after they've quit their jobs to do the same work at two to three times the cost. And you're going to like this one,

Minister: the Provincial Auditor points out that some of the people you're hiring don't even pay their taxes. One consultant you hired in your ministry had tax arrears of over $100,000.

I ask you again: at a time when there's no money for MRIs, no money for textbooks, no money for affordable housing, no money for public transit, how can you

possibly justify this outrageous use of taxpayers' dollars?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, let me respond in a couple of ways. The Leader of the Opposition has certainly taken liberties with his

expression of his idea of what reality is. The reality is, the hospital budgets have been going up substantially under this government; health care has been going up substantially under this

government. I have no idea where he's getting his information. There's no connection to reality.

I will tell you this. Within the auditor's report, he does indicate as well on page 174: "The directive provides adequate direction and guidance to ministries

to ensure that, if followed, the planning, competitive acquisition, and management of the use of consulting services are undertaken with due regard for value for money."

Clearly there have been some breaches of the protocol of that directive. We have undertaken to make sure they do not occur. We have in fact taken measures to

make sure that these steps are taken care of. Some of the other things we've implemented as well: the Minister of Finance will be required to verify the accuracy of tax declarations submitted by

vendors. This information can be made available to the contracting ministry.

We've identified that there has been a problem; the auditor has identified a problem. We've agreed to follow all of his recommendations. Clearly we've taken

the steps to ensure that this does not occur.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD ON

LAW AND ORDER

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the Solicitor General: your abysmal record on law and order has finally been

exposed. On the matter of arrests, there are 10,000 outstanding arrest warrants for offenders in Ontario, including high-risk offenders. On the matter of rehabilitation, the auditor tells us, of

the 3,000 sex offenders who have been released into the community, 2,400 are not receiving essential rehabilitation. On the matter of supervision, one third of the most serious offenders on parole

have reoffended, without any immediate consequences, not even with a change in their parole conditions.

Despite all of your continuing tough talk on crime, it's clear that your incompetence is putting Ontario families at risk. How can you possibly justify this

don't arrest, don't rehabilitate and don't supervise approach that you are bringing to serious crime in the province of Ontario?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): We have, obviously, read the Provincial Auditor's comments with respect to

outstanding warrants. I think the auditor used a figure of 10,000 outstanding warrants. That was an estimate. He indicated, I gather, in the report that it was an estimate, and it's unfortunate

that he extrapolated in the way he did after visiting a number of offices.

The reality is that we did check on CPIC and the number is 5,900. Of the 5,900 --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm not sure they want an answer. Of the 5,900, there were 178 outstanding warants for level I category offenders.

Mr McGuinty: I'm going to rely on the Provincial Auditor, if you don't mind, when it comes to the facts, and the facts speak for themselves.

Today in Ontario, you are only attempting to rehabilitate one out of five sex offenders. Forty per cent of the most serious level I offenders are lacking a risk assessment or a plan to even keep

track of them. And yet all these offenders are out on the street, not just at risk of reoffending but actually committing new crimes because you haven't done your job.

Minister, you are putting people's lives at risk. When I talk about level I, as you well know, we're talking about child molesters, sexual assaults, people who

commit assaults causing bodily harm and other violent crimes. It is one thing to write press releases and make speeches to the public, sounding tough on crime. It's quite another thing to do your

job and to do it well. I'm asking you, Minister, when are you going to start to do your job well and protect public safety in Ontario?

Hon Mr Runciman: I said this last week: a Liberal talking about law and order is a walking, talking oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp.

The reality is that over the past seven years, the Harris and Eves governments have done more to improve public safety in this province than any other

provincial government in Canada. On a regular basis, we have brought issues to this House. I'll just raise one, since the member opposite is talking about sex offenders. This government is the

first and only government in Canada to bring in a sex offender registry to track sex offenders in this province. We have attempted to get the federal government to move on this issue. As of today,

nothing is happening.

The Leader of the Opposition is trying to change his image and convince Ontarians and Canadians that they are for public safety, that they are for tough law

and order. The track record of that member and his party proves just the opposite.

Mr McGuinty: We have more of the same: all talk, all bluster. When it comes to the facts, we choose to rely on what the Provincial Auditor

said in his report. The facts are that this government's record when it comes to arrests, rehabilitation and supervision is absolutely abysmal. I think this minister and this government should be

embarrassed when it comes to their record on law and order issues in Ontario.

We have a plan for safe and strong communities. We call for 100 more parole and probation officers to make sure that offenders are in fact being properly

supervised. We're calling for 1,000 more police officers to start enforcing the 10,000 arrest warrants. We're also calling for 50 additional prosecutors beyond those this government is hiring.

Minister, our plan is tough on crime. You're all talk; you're all bluster. We've got a plan here that's going to get the job done.

Hon Mr Runciman: I think that's not going to wash with any of the public or the voters in Ontario. When you talk about what's happened in

policing and in public safety in Ontario, we can talk about the 1,000 new police officers this government put on the front lines. We can talk about the violent crime linkage and analysis system we

put in place to track serial predators across this province. When you talk about victims' rights, no government in the country has done more for victims of crime than the Ontario government under

Harris and Eves. There's the sex offender registry.

We can ask the members opposite what their stand has been on the Young Offenders Act in this country. What has their stand been on dealing in an effective way

with young offenders committing serious crimes in the province? What has their stand been on the strict discipline facility for young offenders that this government put in place? What's their stand

on the Club Fed resorts the federal Liberal government runs across this country? We know their stand. Ontarians know their stand. It's weak-kneed at best.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question for the acting Premier. Your habit of picking the pockets of Ontarians to benefit

your corporate buddies has become an addiction. The auditor says you shelled out $246 million for one of your favourite consultants, Andersen Consulting, although they've now changed their name to

Accenture to cover their tracks. What did you get for $246 million of public money? The auditor says that $66 million was just a giveaway and $22.2 million was for work that government employees

should have done and could have done. Then he says that at the end of the day, the product you got doesn't work.

Now the auditor finds that you've extended the contract for another $38 million. Acting Premier, if you can't kick the habit of fleecing Ontarians to benefit

your corporate friends, don't you think it's time you went in for rehabilitation?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): That was kind of a funny question. I'll refer the

question to the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I thank my colleague across the way for the question. We're very

pleased to receive the auditor's report. We appreciate the work he does in the public interest, and we welcome his recommendations. I would like to inform my colleagues here in the Legislature that

most of the issues addressed by the auditor in his report were issues that our ministry was aware of and in fact had already been working on.

Let me talk about the program that my colleague across the way is referencing. We had in Ontario a system to deliver assistance to those who require social

services that was literally archaic. It was a very, very old system, completely incapable of delivering the kind of service, the information needed, not only for those people who needed the service

but for those who were delivering the service.

We undertook a major transformation in our ministry to implement a huge new computer system: eight systems integrated into one. It has been a mammoth

undertaking.

Mr Hampton: To that the auditor says the whole thing doesn't work. After a quarter of a billion dollars, it doesn't work. The reality out

there is that Andersen Consulting, who have now changed their name to Accenture to hide from the public, and some of your other consultant friends are reaping hundreds of millions of dollars and

the people are getting nothing for it.

Let me give you some examples. At Environment, you paid $455,000 for a contract that was supposed to cost $25,000. At Management Board, you gave a $1.7-million

contract without a competition. You just called up one of your friends and said, "Would you like $1.7 million?" At SuperBuild Corp, your mistake resulted in a $681,000 gift to a financial adviser

and a contract that cost $3 million when it was only supposed to cost $1.5 million. I'm surprised you guys haven't hired Winona Ryder as a consultant, given your record.

The question is, when are you going to cut off your corporate friends and start looking after the public of Ontario that wants to see money for schools, that

wants to see money for health care, that wants to see money for child care? When do you start looking after them?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Speaker, to the Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That gives me an opportunity to continue with what I was saying in terms of the improvements we've done following the

recommendations of the Provincial Auditor. I'm sure the leader of the third party wants to hear these.

These are the new mandatory requirements that are added to the directives to ensure effective management of consulting service assignments. First, all payments

must be in accordance with contractual provisions. Second, all payments for applicable expenses must be in accordance with the travel management and general expense directive. Third, any

overpayment of fees and expenses must be recovered, unlike other governments before. Fourth, all consulting assignments must be properly documented annually. Fifth, the vendor's performance must be

managed and documented. Any performance issues must be resolved and reported to the Management Board Secretariat. Last, all required approvals must be obtained for all changes of scope in terms and

conditions of agreements.

There are a number of very technical things that we have now managed, following the recommendations of the auditor, to

tighten up on behalf of the people of Ontario to ensure there's more accountability to the system. There are a number of others on another list I have. If we ever continue this, I will certainly

share that with the public of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: And the auditor says to that that you aren't following your own rules, that the lure to provide some booty to your corporate

friends means that you routinely ignore these rules.

Another example: your privatizations. The auditor points to your Hydro privatization and he says that just in the last year you've added $700 million more debt

and the taxpayers have had to pick up $341 million in debt financing charges. So get this: your private hydro friends are making money hand over fist, but the people of Ontario have had to pick up

another $1 billion in costs.

I ask the question again, acting Premier: when are you going to stop looking after the greed of your corporate friends and start looking after all of the

things that the ordinary people of Ontario need: the schools, the hospitals, the environment, child care, all of the things that the average family out there is asking for? When do you start

looking after them instead of looking after your corporate friends?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Since I have the floor, I'm going to continue talking about the measures we've taken to follow the recommendations of the

auditor.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You might think it's funny but I think it's serious. I've got a whole list of things that I can relate in terms of your

government that you didn't follow. But rather than do that at this time -- maybe I'll save it for the next time you come back -- I'll share with the public some of the measures we're taking, and

we're honestly and sincerely trying to follow these recommendations of the auditor because they're important.

The auditor recommended the establishment of an improved process for collecting information on the ministry use of vendors of record. We're now requiring the

ministries to provide annual reports to the Management Board Secretariat on the use of consulting services, including vendors of record and their performance in managing the process of planning,

acquiring and managing consulting services during the fiscal year.

doing during the course of the contract, but also after the contract is completed, to have a report done then to make sure that the money has been best spent for the people of Ontario. These are

measures we believe are very important to follow the directions of the auditor.

CORPORATE TAX

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the acting Premier again, the auditor says this has been going on for seven years and is just

getting worse. You've shown yourself, as a government, to be really tough on the poor and the vulnerable, but when it comes to the rich and the powerful, you disappear. You're a real pussycat.

Today's auditor's report reveals that almost half of Ontario's corporations have not even filed tax returns for the audit year; 355,000 corporations didn't bother filing tax returns for this

corporate year. The auditor says you're not even trying to collect those corporate taxes. When it comes to cracking down on the little guy for sales tax or going after the poor, boy, your

government is a real pit bull. The question is, why are you so soft when it comes to getting your corporate friends just to pay their taxes?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): I refer that to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I would agree with the honourable member that whether you are an individual, whether you are a company,

you have to pay the taxes that you owe. First of all, our government believes very firmly that individuals and small businesses and companies should be paying less tax, and we have been taking

steps to ensure that occurs; but what tax is owed should be collected and that's why the ministry is implementing the auditor's recommendations. In addition, we have hired 750 auditors,

investigators, collectors and compliance staff and we are collecting over $400 million in tax that is owed to the taxpayers of Ontario. We will continue that record because, I agree, taxes that are

owed should be paid.

Mr Hampton: I agree. When it comes to going after the little guy for sales tax or when it comes to going after someone who received $10 or $20

more in a social assistance cheque, boy, you're really tough.

Some of these corporations actually work for your government. They're consulting companies that haven't been paying your taxes and then you hire them. For

example, Mr Tough-on-Crime there, the Minister of Public Safety: they've hired lots of consultants who don't bother paying their taxes, and you hire them again. Management Board -- the minister who

is supposed to be looking after all this -- hired a consulting company that's dodging $110,000 in taxes.

Premier, acting Premier, Minister of Finance -- I don't care who it is over there -- don't you think you could at least get the consultants you're feeding

money to to pay their taxes?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member may think 750 investigators to investigate those companies and those organizations that owe tax is

insignificant. He may think that $400 million in increased revenue because of our tax enforcement procedures is not relevant. We on this side of the House would disagree. We are taking steps to

improve enforcement, to improve auditing procedures, to improve the information technology that allows the ministry to know which companies are there, which ones should pay tax to the government,

and we will continue to do that because we think that is right, is responsible and is being accountable.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We'll stop the clock. In the members' east gallery we have a former colleague, Mr Leo Jordan, the member for

Lanark-Renfrew in the 35th and 36th Parliaments.

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, I want to talk to you today about your

failure when it comes to taking care of Ontario's frail elderly.

Last year you commissioned a PricewaterhouseCoopers study that found Ontario has the lowest standards of care of all jurisdictions reviewed. It said that we're

providing the lowest quality of care, that our frail and elderly are not getting the physiotherapy they need, and that you are restraining the elderly much more frequently than you should be.

What's more disturbing, as we discover today in the Provincial Auditor's report more than a year later, after that original PricewaterhouseCoopers study, is that the auditor found "no evidence to

indicate that the ministry had addressed the results of the study."

Minister, can you please stand up and explain why it is that you have obviously decided to completely abandon Ontario's frail elderly?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I believe the associate minister can provide an excellent answer to that

question.

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I want to begin by thanking the Provincial Auditor for his report today. At

the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, we take the auditor's report very seriously. We always strive to do better at the ministry. In fact, our inspections are on target for this year. If you

look back to 1995, there were 33 full-time compliance advisors at the ministry; today there are 42. The ministry has taken action, for example, against Oakville Lifecare for non-compliance. We do

not issue idle threats when it comes to ensuring the health and well-being of the most vulnerable in our long-term-care facilities in this province.

I also want to add that, back on July 31 of this year, we invested an additional $100 million in new money to provide better nursing and personal care to

seniors and those who require long-term-care services in our facilities. On top of that, we have added some 20,000 new long-term-care beds to the system through our $1.2-billion investment in new

and redeveloped long-term-care beds in this province.

Mr McGuinty: I can appreciate that recitation, Minister, but the Provincial Auditor tells us you are failing miserably when it comes to living

up to your responsibility to protect Ontario's frail elderly. Here are the facts: the auditor says you have no standards of care in our nursing homes, something we've been telling you for years. He

says that at the time of his investigation, not a single nursing home in Ontario had an up-to-date licence. He tells us that most homes that opened after 1998 have never been issued a licence.

Minister, you're supposed to be the one protecting our seniors, standing on guard for them and implementing tough and rigorous standards. On the other hand,

you have removed the requirement to have a registered nurse on duty, on-site, at all times; you have removed the minimum 2.25 hours of personal care nursing each day; and you won't even guarantee

our parents and grandparents one bath a week.

I ask you again, why will you not stand up here and admit that when it comes to living up to your responsibilities to protect Ontario's frail elderly, you have

been nothing short of an abysmal failure?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, we take the auditor's report very seriously. We are striving to do better. Yes, it is true that we need to do a better

job with our paperwork when it comes to facility licences in this province, but our focus has been on providing even better care for residents. I can say that as of September 1, 2002, each and

every nursing home in this province does have a current and valid licence to operate.

The Leader of the Opposition today said he takes the word of the Provincial Auditor. Well, let's look at what the Provincial Auditor said in 1990. In 1990,

when he was reporting on the David Peterson government, the Provincial Auditor reported that there were inadequate inspection procedures for homes for the aged in place in this province. In the

same auditor's report of 1990, he also pointed out that the procedures used by the Liberal government of that day to monitor the quality of care in nursing homes required significant

improvement.

The fact is, it is our government that took action to fix the problems caused by the Liberals and the NDP. That is why we will not take a lecture from the

opposition parties when it comes to the provision of long-term-care services in this province.

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Farmers in my riding and across Ontario are

extremely interested in the ongoing consultations related to the Nutrient Management Act. They appreciate the extent to which our government is prepared to listen to their concerns and to ensure

that we not only protect our rural water supply but also maintain the competitiveness of the vital agri-food industry.

Minister, I understand that last week at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture convention you made an important

announcement related to nutrient management. Can you explain for the members here in the House today, as well as the farmers across Ontario, the details of this particular announcement?

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

enthusiastic support of the agricultural community, not only in his riding but in the province of Ontario.

Our government has recently completed the first round of discussions on the nutrient management plan. We have gone to a number of places, addressed the content

of the requirements and done a lot of work with respect to that.

At the Ontario Federation of Agriculture meeting last week, I introduced stage 2 regulations. We had a discussion about how we might proceed forward with them,

and it was agreed upon by the farm groups and myself that we would enter into stage 2 of the consultations starting in December and continuing through January. During that time we will be talking

about the construction and siting of barns, about issues such as quality standards for the land application of nutrients and about nutrient management plans.

It's a good time for the agricultural community to get involved in the nutrient management legislation that's coming forward.

Mr Dunlop: As I mentioned earlier, farmers, municipalities, environmental groups and other stakeholders are showing a great interest in

participating in the consultation process. Could you inform the Legislature on how many people participated in the stage 1 consultations and how and where these people can become involved in the

stage 2 consultations?

Hon Mrs Johns: I'd like to thank the member again and say that during stage 1 consultations we heard at the hearings from about 580 people. We

also got a number of written submissions. Everyone could write in, either through the EBR, the OMAF Web site or the environment Web site, so we got some pretty clear and consistent messages.

It is now our pleasure to be able to go out on the second set, and we'll be starting those in December. We intend to be in Mississauga on December 11. I

believe my parliamentary assistant, Toby Barrett, will be there. We will also be doing consultations on December 13 in Teeswater, on December 16 in Brockville and Trenton -- Doug Galt will be doing

those -- and on December 19 in Grimsby. So we're going to have a lot of discussion in December and again in January. All people have to do is either check the environment Web site or the OMAF Web

site if they want to know the location closest to them, and we ask you to get involved.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question is for the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services.

For the second year in a row, the Provincial Auditor has identified that you have completely lost control of a consulting contract in your ministry. The auditor confirmed that in March of this

year, your ministry had paid Accenture $240 million -- $66 million more than the $180-million cap set by your government.

You told us this system would save taxpayers money, yet the auditor indicates that the benefits reported by your ministry "continue to be ... questionable."

Further, the auditor states, the delivery system implemented in January 2002 is "in many respects a step back from what had previously been available."

In the Kitchener-Waterloo Record it is reported that the local social services committee says your system is costing too much and the service is poor. The new

computer system that you've already mentioned is riddled with glitches, delays and errors.

Minister, can you please explain to the taxpayers of Ontario why you have allowed --

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

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): To my colleague across the way I say thank you for the question.

As I indicated earlier, we're very pleased to receive the auditor's report. We had already been alerted to the number of concerns that he noted in his report and have been working diligently to

address them.

I want to explain to my colleague across the way first of all that we undertook a mammoth change in our ministry in finding ways to deliver services. It was a

change required not only for those to receive better services, but to assist those who offer the service. It is enormous. For instance, the average daily volume of transactions in delivering this

huge program is 1.3 million transactions per day delivering services to more than 600,000 people. It replaced eight outdated systems with one system. It was a very complicated change. The auditor

undertook a review of this process while it was still being rolled out. A number of the changes he noted have since been improved. Is there more to do? Probably yes --

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

Mrs Dombrowsky: Minister, what is mammoth is the amount of money you have wasted on a system that isn't as good as the one you're replacing.

You cite improvements. The auditor cannot find any. You are spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money on a case management system that is not more efficient. The auditor would indicate your

system is less efficient. He reports that with this new system the ministry had little assurance that only eligible individuals receive the correct amount of financial assistance. That's what it's

supposed to do.

Minister, you've had two years and what have you done? Instead of getting to the bottom of these inefficiencies and addressing the problems, sources in the

industry would indicate that your ministry has quietly renewed its contract with Accenture. This scathing report from the auditor demands that you release the details of your new service contract,

include how much it will cost, and explain what you are going to do to assure the people of Ontario that no more taxpayer dollars will be wasted on a system that isn't as good as the one it

replaced.

Hon Mrs Elliott: While we definitely appreciate the work that the auditor does which allows us to work to improvement, I can say to my

colleague across the way that certainly, from our side of the House, we do have a different view. In my hand are letters of support from a number of people who have definitely indicated to us that

the system is working. Let me again say to my colleague across the way what we have changed: eight archaic systems into one modern system, a system that allows individuals who are accessing

information from individuals requiring service all across the province to ask consistent questions, get consistent information -- something that was never possible in days past; on-line processing

that allows instant responses to a constituent so they don't have to wait for up to 14 days as they did in days past; more personal response -- someone can call up now and get information and know

in moments whether or not they are going to be eligible for service, rather than what we had in days past. It is a greatly improved system. It will be more improved as days pass.

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question also is for the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services, the hard-working,

energetic minister from Guelph, the Honourable Brenda Elliott. Last week a member of the opposition talked about a form that he said would make it very difficult for Ontario disability support

program recipients. He claimed the recipients would have to know all of their medical appointments and needs a year in advance. Minister, I cannot believe this is true. My wife and kids, my

neighbours and friends can't believe that this is true. Nobody believes this is true. I've always maintained this government does everything we can to improve the lives of individuals with

disabilities. Minister, what is this form, what is this misguided member talking about and what have you done to improve the application process for Ontario Disability Support Program recipients

who are in need of these benefits?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): To my very hard-working colleague from Perth-Middlesex, I'm glad

he didn't believe it is true, because in fact it is not.

We've worked very hard to improve services for those who are disabled in Ontario, and that includes the application process, again working to replace

haphazard, cumbersome forms of days past with a single application form that was designed with assistance from those in the Ontario Medical Association along with our ministry officials. We moved

from an after-the-fact type of system to an upfront form of application, which was particularly helpful to citizens who might have an ongoing medical problem.

Let me give you an example. If someone was going to require dialysis treatment, this disabled individual could speak to their doctor, have the form filled out

indicating how much care was going to be needed, how many treatments were going to be needed for an extended period of time. That could then be submitted to our ministry office and the funds flowed

up front as opposed to after the fact with each individual service, and so make life easier for that person who's not only disabled but in fact ill.

Mr Johnson: I knew the Minister would not introduce a form that would make it more difficult for ODSP recipients.

Interjections.

Mr Johnson: I knew you'd use all your influence to do the right thing, unlike the opposition.

To eliminate the confusion, Minister, I'd like you to stand in your place and clarify for me and all of us once and for all why this is a better system, and

can you still help people who face unexpected or emergency medical costs?

Hon Mrs Elliott: It was very important that we provide the flexibility for someone to be able to get care and manage their funds at the same

time. So we have this new form that the client can fill out with the doctor to anticipate what kinds of costs are going to be needed in the future, which can be initialled each time they go to the

doctor's office to verify that that care has been given. In the case of an emergency, we have the flexibility that a receipt can still be submitted. That cost can still be reimbursed to that

disabled individual who has required medical attention.

Why did we do this? Because it matters to us that we work to make the lives of those disabled better in the province of Ontario. Whether it's filling out forms

or getting care, they can count on the Eves government to be behind them and to help them in every way possible.

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Associate Minister of Health. Your government has abandoned Ontario seniors who live

in long-term-care facilities. The auditor makes it clear today that you have no idea how or where nursing dollars are being spent. You have no staff-to-patient ratios, so you can't guarantee that

the frail and elderly are receiving quality care in these institutions.

In 1995 the auditor told your government to renew the standards for hands-on nursing care, and you cancelled those standards altogether. You've done absolutely

nothing about the shocking results of the 2001 report, which clearly showed that Ontario seniors are at the bottom of the heap when it comes to receiving nursing, bathing and therapy services.

Minister, admit it today. You have no idea where these dollars are going, and you can't guarantee that Ontario seniors in long-term-care facilities are

receiving quality care.

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I want to thank the Provincial Auditor for his report today, and to state

again that we take his report very seriously.

He did point out some areas that the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care could show some improvement in, and we are doing that. For the member opposite to

say we have done nothing for long-term care is absolutely wrong. We have done 100 million things since July 31 this year, when we announced $100 million in new funding for nursing and personal

care, so that each and every nursing home, municipal home for the aged and charitable home in this province would get additional money so that additional nurses, additional personal care workers

and additional health care aides could be added to the system.

We might want to look at what the Provincial Auditor said about the NDP in 1995. He said the NDP was aware of significant growth projected for the population

over age 65 in this province, but they simply did not have a strategy for dealing with the anticipated increase in demand for long-term-care services. It was this government that acted by building

the 20,000 beds.

Ms Martel: Minister, the auditor made it clear: you don't have a clue where your long-term health care dollars are going. He said that you

have no standards of care for hands-on nursing, that you have no staff-to-patient ratios, that you were not issuing licences to new nursing homes that opened after 1998 and that you have no system

in place to monitor those facilities that regularly fail to meet compliance standards. In short, you don't have a clue what's going on and you can't guarantee that the $100 million you announced in

July is ever going to go into improving patient care.

Minister, when are you going to implement standards of care in Ontario nursing homes so that Ontario seniors will be at the top instead of at the bottom of

receiving quality care?

Hon Mr Newman: I can say that this government has taken long-term care much more seriously than your government did when you were in office.

In fact, the NDP government didn't add a single net new bed to the system. In the 10 years from 1988 to 1998, there wasn't one net new bed added to the long-term-care system in this province. The

Provincial Auditor pointed out to the NDP in 1995 that there was a growing and aging population in this province. He pointed out that they had no strategy in place to deal with that growing and

aging population. They were not adding beds to the system.

It was this government that in 1998 moved forward on an ambitious plan: $1.2 billion and 20,000 new beds added to the system, up to 16,000 beds in our older

facilities being updated, as well as the record investment announced on July 31 of this year of $100 million. That's 100 million things we've done for long-term care in this province to ensure

we're improving the nursing and personal care of our most vulnerable residents of this province in Ontario's long-term-care facilities.

CORPORATE TAX

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the auditor's report. One of the most

shocking things in it, among many, was the fact that it looks like about half of Ontario's corporations are not even bothering to file a corporate tax return.

In your answer earlier you indicated that, well, you've taken steps now, but I want to know the answer to this: the auditor points out that the reason for it

happening is that the Eves government has stopped enforcing things. Since 1995, you don't even send out a letter telling people to file. Since 1997, you don't send out a letter saying that if they

don't file, there will be some action taken. So the government deliberately did not follow up on half of the corporations in this province not filing taxes.

I want to know the answer to this: why did the Eves government allow this non-filing to double, and why did you refuse to send out the letters telling people

to get their income tax in?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): First of all, I disagree with the assertion in the honourable member's question. We have indeed taken

steps going back to 1996 to put in place improved procedures, to hire new staff to make sure we were going out and collecting tax that was owed to the Ontario government, to the taxpayers. As a

matter of fact, we collected over $1.4 billion this spring. As of March this spring, we have collected over $1.4 billion in taxes that are owed to the government, taxes that were owed that had not

been paid. There was a $400-million increase from what we anticipated we would get.

The improved enforcement procedures are working. Do we need to do more? Absolutely. That's why we started with the last auditor's report to put in place

improved procedures. They have been coming on-line on a regular basis. We are improving the enforcement. We are improving the amount of money we're bringing in. We thank the auditor for his

continued vigilance in this area, and we will continue to implement his recommendations as we improve tax collection in the province.

Mr Phillips: Listen, I think the public understand and pay attention to the Provincial Auditor. I've been saying about the government, don't

listen to what they say; watch what they do. The auditor's report shows half of the corporations not filing their returns. The auditor's report says the major reason for that is because of the

government. The auditor's report -- the people of Ontario, I think, have confidence in the Provincial Auditor. This is what he says: this increase is "largely attributable to the ministry's reduced

efforts." Default notifications haven't gone out since 1995. "The threat to cancel a corporation's charter and seize its assets" hasn't gone out "since 1997."

It's very clear. Despite all of your rhetoric, the auditor has found you out. I say again to you on behalf of the Premier, how in the world could you allow the

number of corporations in this province, virtually half of them, to not be filing corporate income tax, when people in this province are begging for money for health care and education?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The reason we have had over a billion dollars' worth of tax revenue collected that was owed to us as of March 31, this spring,

is because of the steps we have taken and are continuing to take to improve the collection of taxes in this province: over 750 auditors and investigators; new information technology; new field

audits; training of staff. The auditor has continued to push us in this area. We agree with his recommendations. We've started taking steps since 1996 and we will continue to take steps because,

whether it's an individual, a small business or a company, if taxes are owed, they should be paid.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question today is for the Minister of Public Safety and Security. As all members of this House are

aware, an ongoing battle has been waged in the streets of Toronto over the last few weeks involving gun violence. Far too many people have lost their lives in the violence involving a firearm. In

fact, at least one victim, the individual who had illegally overstayed his short-term entry visa, was a resident of my riding.

I think all Canadians understand that the federal government is supposedly moving forward with gun control. They have every right to question how all of these

crimes can be committed when, supposedly, guns are controlled in this country. The legislation is designed to keep firearms out of the hands out of the wrong people. I wonder how the minister can

explain how all these crimes are being committed with guns in the city of Toronto.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): Thanks to the member for Scarborough East for the question. The sad fact is

that the gun control legislation brought in by the federal Liberals simply does not work, nor evidently does the sentencing associated with gun-related crime. The federal cousins of our friends

across the floor have spent far too much of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on a registry that fails to target criminals and instead targets the farm widow who has an antique shotgun stored in her

attic.

In addition, the sentences and fines that are given out to offenders who use a weapon in the execution of crimes is hardly a deterrent. The fines are often

just the cost of doing business for criminals and criminal groups, and the sentences they receive are often plea bargained down.

We have called on the federal Liberals to not only invest dollars into front-line policing initiatives, such as our community policing partnership, but also to

create stiffer sentences for crimes that involve the use of a weapon.

Mr Gilchrist: I thank the minister for his response. Much like we've seen with the Romanow report this week, where the federal government is

trying to suggest that just because there are some recommendations out there, magically a problem has been solved. Contrary to what the members across in this House think, we on this side of the

House are not at all surprised to hear the auditor's report suggest that the billion-dollar boondoggle that has been federal gun control legislation has not protected the people of the province of

Ontario. In fact, I'm sure that the fed's own auditor will agree and will go into great detail to comment about the failures of the federal legislation.

As well, it's quite obvious that the members opposite have no idea what it takes to implement a law-and-order agenda since they've simply photocopied ours.

Our government is onside with victims of crime and the law-abiding citizens of this province. I would like to ask you to tell the members of this House what

we've done here in Ontario to try and get a grip on gun violence in this province.

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm pleased to see the member for Scarborough East has pointed out the fact that the Liberals here in Ontario are just as

weak with their law-and-order agenda as their cousins in Ottawa. The Dalton-come-lately approach just won't sell.

I'm proud to say that our government does take the issue of gun violence very seriously. One example is the OPP's provincial weapons enforcement unit. This

unit has an ongoing relationship with other police forces, as well as the RCMP, to reduce the flow of guns into Canada. Their projects have seen quite a number of firearms taken out of the hands of

criminals in Ontario. In fact, this year to date they've seized 807 weapons and laid 230 charges. That's over 800 weapons that would have been used to terrorize our neighbourhoods that are now

safely out of the hands of criminals. The Toronto police weapons unit is also making successful seizures.

We are making headway, but with increased support from the federal Liberal government, we could clearly make greater gains. It's time the federal Liberals got

off the bench and into the game.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. The Provincial Auditor today gave a significant warning

on the electricity front; I might add that I think the auditor has been very vigilant in this area on behalf of taxpayers. The warning he gave us today was about selling off more assets of Hydro

One. He urges the government to be very cautious in selling off assets, because if you sell off the 49% of Hydro One, that revenue cannot be used to pay down the stranded debt. He is concerned, as

we are, that over the next few weeks it is your government's intention to sell it off. Recognizing that the auditor has now warned you sufficiently, can you announce today that the plans for the

sale of 49% of Hydro One are not going to proceed?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): As the Premier and this government outlined in the spring, we have started a process for a strategic

partner to assist the government in bringing private sector discipline into Hydro One. I think some of the discoveries that have occurred in the last couple of months would certainly show the need

for that. Second, we need investment in the system, and a strategic partner will help us do that. We have a competitive process out there. At the end of the day, we will make a decision in the best

interests of Ontario taxpayers when the bids are in.

Mr Phillips: Well, I love the private sector discipline Mr Farlinger has brought to the management of Hydro for the last eight years.

You are, I gather, confirming that it is your intention to proceed to sell a significant portion of Hydro One. You told the Legislature a few weeks ago that

this would be done in a public way. We've since found out it's all being done behind closed doors, privately, with a deal that will be signed, the contents of which the public may never get to

see.

Recognizing what the auditor has warned us, the Legislature, about -- this is his message of warning to us today -- will you agree not to proceed with the sale

of Hydro One unless you bring forward any deal -- we are against the deal, by the way -- for approval here by the Legislature in public? Will you agree to that today, if you will not agree to

simply do what the auditor is recommending and cancel the sale completely?

Hon Mrs Ecker: If the honourable member is seriously suggesting that we should debate the finer points of electricity, the hydro transmission

lines and offers here at the table, then he doesn't understand much about the competitive process that is laid out to have bidders assessed in an appropriate way to make sure the offer is good for

Ontario taxpayers. That is exactly what we are doing. It is a process where the criteria are out there, where the bidders have an opportunity to make their case.

At the end of the day, what is important here is that there be private sector investment in the hydro transmission lines, that consumers can be assured that

the system will function the way it is supposed to, so that the electricity system can function the way they want it to function, that when they turn on a light the power is there, and also to

ensure that the organization is being run in the most cost-effective fashion possible.

We laid these criteria out in the spring. Those are the criteria we will --

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

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Health. As the Romanow report makes clear, Ontario is the leader in health

innovation across Canada.

Interjections.

Mr Maves: It's true. Pardon my voice, Speaker.

There are almost 1,000 independent health facilities currently operating in Ontario right now. These IHFs offer services such as CT scans, X-rays, laboratory

testing and dialysis. All are privately owned facilities providing Ontarians with quality, publicly funded health care services.

Could the minister please clarify once and for all for this Legislature that our plan to extend access to MRI services in Ontario through privately owned

facilities is acceptable under the Canada Health Act? Could the minister also explain that this plan is consistent with our established practices -- by the way, originated by the Liberal Party of

Ontario and followed through on by the third party since 1990 -- that govern the hundreds of independent health facilities currently operating in Ontario today?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for the question. As I've said on many occasions, our

approach to MRIs and especially the legislative, regulatory and contractual protections to prevent queue jumping is not only consistent with the Canada Health Act, but is a model for other

provinces contemplating enhanced access for their citizens. As the Premier said yesterday in this Legislature, we have spoken to Mr Romanow, we have talked with his officials at the commission

about this and we have their support for our approach and its specific protections.

I welcome the opportunity soon to cut ribbons on these new clinics to serve the people of Ontario, to reduce wait times and to get better health outcomes,

which of course is the goal of at least the members on this side of the Legislature. As the member for Niagara Falls mentioned, there are many private labs, many X-ray clinics, many other such

institutions that exist in this country. It's like when you visit your family doctor or local clinic. The buildings you go to are privately owned and run, yet the service --

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

VISITORS

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today in our gallery we have representatives from the Yonge-Bloor-Bay

Business Association that I was very happy to speak with not long ago, if they could rise and have applause: Rose Hahn, Norman Bergstein, our own Douglas Jure -- I love to say that -- and of course

Jon Johnson is also here and is well known as one of the pre-eminent authors for books regarding NAFTA. Perhaps you wouldn't mind standing and taking a bow.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

resident for nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

government's own study."

I affix my signature. I am in complete agreement with this petition.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Yesterday there was another tragic accident along Highway 69. This petition deals with the multi-laning of that

Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"Whereas so far this year 10 people have been tragically killed" driving between Sudbury and Parry Sound along Highway 69; and

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

"Whereas immediate action" -- not promises, not rhetoric, but immediate action -- "is needed to prevent more needless loss of life; and

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

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Harris-Eves government to begin construction

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

Of course, I sign this petition, and I give it to Garnet to bring to the table.

DÉRÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): J'ai une pétition ici qui contient plus de 3 500 noms, ce qui porte à plus

de 6 500 signatures de citoyens concernés.

« À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

« Attendu que le gouvernement Harris-Eves a déréglementé le marché de l'électricité ontarien le 1 er mai 2002

sans que cela ait fait

partie de ses programmes de 1995 ou 1999 et sans mandat de la population de l'Ontario;

« Attendu que le prix de l'électricité a atteint des niveaux outrageux, augmentant parfois de 100 % depuis le 1 er mai 2002

et causant de graves difficultés financières aux Ontariens et Ontariennes;

« Attendu qu'Ontario Power Generation (qui appartient au gouvernement de l'Ontario) a demandé à la Commission de l'énergie de

l'Ontario la permission de réduire de 20 % le rabais promis aux Ontariens et Ontariennes si le prix de l'électricité dépassait les 3,8 cents le kilowattheure;

« Attendu que l'instauration d'un climat de concurrence dans le marché de l'électricité a été gênée par

l'incertitude engendrée par les tentatives du gouvernement Harris-Eves de vendre une portion d'Hydro One et qu'un tel manque de concurrence a eu un effet à la hausse sur les prix;

« Attendu que le gouvernement Harris-Eves a autorisé le versement de salaires et primes exorbitants de l'ordre de 2,2 $ millions par

année à l'ancienne présidente de Hydro One et au-delà de 1,6 $ millions par année au vice-président d'Ontario Power Generation;

« Nous, soussignés, demandons au gouvernement Harris-Eves de prendre des mesures immédiates pour faire en sorte que les Ontariens et

Ontariennes payent ce service essentiel qu'est l'électricité à un juste prix et demandons également que le gouvernement conservateur et son chef, Ernie Eves, déclenchent

une élection générale sur l'instabilité du marché de l'énergie pour ainsi donner aux Ontariens et Ontariennes la parole à ce sujet. »

J'y ajoute ma signature avec fierté.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I'm hoping that the page from Windsor West can bring these to the desk once I read them. This is our page

from Windsor West. You have to stand in so everyone back in Windsor can see you, Niyi. Our petition:

"Whereas animal abusers are not currently subject to any provincial penalties;

"Whereas it is currently impossible for a judge to ban puppy and kitten mill operators from owning animals for the rest of their lives; and

"Whereas Ontario SPCA investigators need to act on instances of cruelty to animals in a more timely fashion, thereby lessening the animals' suffering;

"Whereas it is currently not an offence to train an animal to fight another animal; and

"Whereas Ontario's animals are not adequately protected by the current law;

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

"To pass the amendments to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act developed by a governmental working group (which included the

Ontario SPCA) and submitted to the office of the Solicitor General of Ontario in June of 2001, so that the above conditions, among others, will be properly addressed."

I will be signing this petition. I'm giving it to Niyi for submission.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

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

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

their warning lights activated;

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed this.

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the over 60,000 Ontarians living in long-term-care facilities are older, frailer and sicker and require more care than ever before;

"Whereas government funding has not kept pace with increasing needs of residents of long-term-care facilities;

"Whereas current funding levels only allow limited care;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly" of Ontario "to ask the government to provide additional operating funding to increase the

levels of staffing to an acceptable level of service and to reduce the risk to those individuals living in long-term-care facilities across Ontario."

I have also signed the petition.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I have a petition on behalf of my constituents. It says:

"Whereas Ontario opened its electricity market to competition as of May 1, 2002, with resultant extremely high prices; and

"Whereas suppliers are permitted to upwardly adjust metered consumption by a factor which varies area to area, and base most elements of the rendered accounts

on this upwardly adjusted consumption; and

"Whereas this practice appears to be in conflict with the provisions of the federal Gas and Electricity Inspection Act,

section 33(k), (

l) and (m);

"Therefore, the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to dispense with the competitive market system and revert to the system in effect

prior to May 1, 2002."

I'll sign that on behalf of my constituents.

POLICE SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas in 1956 the province of Ontario ordered the township of Atikokan to create a municipal police service because the township's population had exceeded

5,000; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario has since failed to make any provision for Atikokan to return to provincially subsidized policing when the township's

population fell below 5,000 in 1980" -- it continues to be below 5,000; in 2001, it was "3,632;

"Whereas since 1980 Atikokan has had to spend over $14 million on policing while the province was providing free ... or heavily subsidized ... policing to all

580 of the other small towns in Ontario; and

"Whereas this injustice has resulted in a significant municipal infrastructure deficit and an onerous burden on Atikokan ratepayers;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to right this injustice by negotiating a fair and equitable settlement with the

representatives of the council and police services board of Atikokan."

I first presented this petition yesterday. There are now over 300 signatures from the township of Atikokan on this petition. I affix my signature in full

agreement.

WATER EXTRACTION

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

"Whereas we, the residents and cottagers of Bob's Lake, strenuously object to the permit issued by the Ministry of the Environment to OMYA Inc to remove 1.5

million litres of water per day from the Tay River, without adequate assessment of the consequences and without adequate consultation with the public and those people and groups who have expertise

and interest; and

"Whereas it is our belief that this water taking will drastically impact the environment and seriously affect the water levels in Bob's and Christie lakes.

This in turn would affect fish spawning beds as well as habitat. It would also affect the wildlife in and around the lakes;

"Whereas Bob's Lake and the Tay River watershed are already highly stressed by the historic responsibility of Parks Canada to use Bob's Lake as a reservoir for

the Rideau Canal; and

"Whereas the movement of water from the lake through the watershed for navigation purposes in the canal provides sufficient stress and problems for the lake.

This water taking permit will only compound the stresses on the waterway;

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

"We request that this permit be rescinded until a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of water taking by OMYA Inc on the environment, the water levels and

the water needs of these communities is complete. An independent non-partisan body should undertake this evaluation."

I'm happy to affix my signature to this petition and hand it to the page, Brian.

HIGHWAY 407

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

"Whereas motorists using Highway 407 are being gouged with charges that are far beyond what is reasonable and justified;

"Whereas billing errors are forcing motorists to spend hours on the telephone trying to have such errors corrected;

"Whereas some motorists in frustration and exasperation are paying charges they did not incur for the use of Highway 407;

"Whereas the government of Ontario acts as an enforcer for the Highway 407 Corp and is, in our view, complicit in the collection of questionable charges;

"Whereas the Eves-Harris government sold Highway 407 to a buyer who has increased charges well beyond what the government promised;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly to condemn the Conservative government of Ontario for selling Highway 407 to private interests and for

permitting the Highway 407 Corp to raise charges for the use of the highway and other administrative charges that cannot be justified."

I affix my signature; I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

effective August 1, 2002; and

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

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the increase in the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day;

and

"Whereas according to the government's own funded study, Ontario ranks last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a resident for

nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

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

"Demand that Premier Eves reduce his 15% fee increase on seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities and increase provincial government

support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

Of course I affix my signature and give it to our page, Olaniyi, from Windsor to bring to the table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any

other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 210,

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of the pricing, conservation and supply of electricity and in respect of other

matters related to electricity, when Bill 210 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without

further debate or amendment, at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called on that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading is called, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or

amendment; and

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

That, in the case of any division -- I want to be very clear about this -- relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five

minutes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Stockwell has moved government notice of motion number 81.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I stand in my place and proudly say that I won't be supporting this time allocation motion as we, Dalton

McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals, have consistently spoken out against time allocation motions because what they do is stifle and limit debate. They stifle and limit the opportunity for Ontarians

to take

part in the process of policy-making. We all know that this particular government, especially since Premier Eves has taken over, has used time allocation, or might I say, has abused time

allocation on too many occasions.

If we were to do a little history on the use of time allocation motions, you would see that the government that the Conservatives across the way like to refer

to so often, the Peterson government, only used time allocation five times from 1985 to 1990. Bob Rae's NDP government used time allocation 18 times in their five years -- a 300% increase from what

the Liberals did. But here is the figure that is I think most startling to the people of Ontario: between Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, the government in power today has used time allocation motions

87 times.

So you wonder why we as the official opposition constantly refer to the governing body over there as the Harris-Eves government: because Mike Harris and Ernie

Eves -- partners, if you will, in crime -- have decided that they will stifle debate in this Legislature, that they will cut off opportunities for people in Ontario to take

part in the Legislative

process of defining policy by limiting the amount of input that they can have. They've done that on 87 occasions. Premier Eves took power just a little while ago, and it should be noted, quite

sadly, that he has invoked time allocation on every bill with the exception of one. So what we have here, people, is a government and a Premier across the way who don't want to have debate, who

don't want the people of Ontario to have debate.

Do you know that when you define a time allocation motion, what you are really saying is that it's a closure motion, that the government doesn't want any more

debate on it? They are carefully worded so that they don't only stifle debate in this particular instance, but they also stifle debate when every bill comes back for third reading. So it's a double

whammy that the people of Ontario are getting. They are, in fact, not being provided with opportunity to have input into the laws which are going to affect them directly.

Let me speak in particular to this bill, Bill 210, which is the Electricity Pricing, Conservation and Supply Act. I believe the people of Ontario should have

input into this. I believe that this has serious ramifications for the municipalities across Ontario. It would have been my hope, certainly, as an individual, that this government send this to

committee so that the committee could travel to Sudbury and hear from people who are running our local utility why this government has to ensure that they provide resources for those

municipalities, like Sudbury, which had started to prepare for deregulation.

Our city is going to suffer to the tune of approximately $6 million to $7 million. That's what it cost us to prepare for deregulation. Do you know that Bill

210 doesn't address that? Bill 210 says, once again, "Guess what, residents of municipalities across Ontario? You're going to be hit with another downloaded cost. There is no question, with Bill

210, you will be getting a rebate, but those costs that have already been expended by our local utility have to be recovered." The way they will be recovered is through our property taxes. That's

extremely sad.

There are alternatives to that. Had you sent this out to committee, had you sent Bill 210 on the road, to travel and to visit municipalities, like the

municipality of Sudbury, which is going to be negatively affected because of your changing of the course with regard to deregulation -- what we have here is no opportunity for my city to have input

into this bill. I think that's wrong.

For that reason, and also because you are stifling debate, I will be voting against this time allocation motion.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I raise this point of order on a very serious matter. We were

just presented with a motion by the government House leader which he refused to address. I think you will agree with me that in the last seven years that you and I have been here, this has never

happened before. The government has not in any way tried to justify the reason for bringing this motion forward.

Now, on the second go-round, they refuse to get up and discuss the bill. It has been an accepted practice in this House that we go by way of rotation, and to

force one party to use up all of its time so that the other parties can somehow get involved in the rotation later on, I believe, is an abuse of the process, in particular since this particular

motion wasn't even addressed or given any justification at all by the government House leader.

I'd like you to rule on that point of order, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: That is a point of order, but until you get me a prod so I can go around and make people stand up and do it, I will rule

that it's not my job to get speakers. So I go in rotation. Further debate?

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate your ruling but I hope somewhere down the line that the House leaders or the three

parties do address that very serious issue. It's getting to the point where people are wondering what's going on inside here. It has raised concerns of many members from all sides who have been

here for a long time and are deeply concerned about these types of democratic processes. So I would encourage that something get done for it.

Time allocation: here we go again, shutting down debate. In the 37th Parliament: total bills passed, 89; bills passed with time allocation, 51. Some 57% of all

of our bills are being passed this way now, and it's stifling debate. It's stifling great opportunities for people to point out concerns with legislation: some of the faults in it, some of the

flaws, some of the improvements that could get offered. The process of consulting, throwing a bill together and saying they have consulted, without anybody seeing the bill until they want to do it,

and then they throw in the first, second and third reading closure motions, making the debate stop so that no one can put feedback in except what's in this House: so when you diminish that, there

are really big problems with the process that are being pointed out.

I will say again, it is being pointed out by many members on all sides of this House. They're very concerned about this process, and I have to voice my

concern. Being relatively new to this process, my expectation was that we were trying to pass the best possible legislation in this place for all of the citizens of Ontario, and, boy, have I ever

got it wrong. I'm sorry to say that, and I hope there's a glimmer of light in this with the member for Kingston and the Islands' point of order. The fact is, we hope we can get members from all

parties to stand up and start talking about the process in this place. There's deep concern about that, and I know that no one is going to heckle, because they know we have to seriously talk about

that reform. Once we get into that, I'm sure we can get back to passing legislation that's the best possible legislation, not one party's complete, total idea of how this should run.

Why am I talking about that? I'll give you the examples. I had an interesting meeting with my municipality. They brought me in to talk to Brantford Power about

various issues about this particular bill, Bill 210. Maybe people are not aware of this, but the municipalities are going to be on the hook for a tremendous amount of money according to this

legislation. I'm going to go over three or four things that I hope the government is very aware of, and I hope it understands that AMO, small urban municipalities and utilities across the province

will not be happy with them. This particular bill is going to cost my Brantford Power utilities, and city council by extension, at least $5 million to $7 million in putting this thing together. I

saw the figures they showed me in terms of the calculations. Their calculations showed that if this rebate plan were allowed to be kind of functionally done by the municipalities, because of their

efficiency and the way they've run their utilities, that rebate cheque would be for $45. They're on the hook now for a $75 refund. That's a difference that they have to make up. It's unbelievable

that people are not aware of this.

I would caution us, let's not jump on the wagon so quickly as to say that this government's got it right. Maybe they've headed down the path of rebate, which

was already in existence, that should have been in existence. It was in existence, but not the way it turns out in this particular piece of legislation. I'd ask people to make sure that utilities

understand and then educate yourself on what's going to happen in your municipality.

There were three different options they had: declare themselves non-profit, declare themselves profit, or sell it back to the person they brought it from,

Hydro One. Guess what happens. They have to sell it back for the price they bought it for. By selling it back for the price they bought it for, whatever that price was that they got, that money is

gone. It's probably gone into roads, sewers and water. In some cases, it's up around $50 million to $60 million. That municipality, if they choose to do that, has to come up with $50 million to $60

million. A lot of the municipalities I'm aware of have decided to adopt a no-debt format, so that means they have to re-enter debt of $50 million or $60 million. That, to me, deserves a lot of

attention and possible debate, but we can't do that. We can't bring that to your attention because this is it; this is our last kick at the can.

There are other issues here. If you declare for-profit, and here's the real rub, you're given a resolution by the government, the government's resolution that

they're telling city councils they must pass. The wording basically says, "We, the municipality, have been ripping you off; therefore we adopt this particular process that the government says is

the way to go." Well, tell me that you're not going to get

preambles to that resolution, and deservedly so. If you get

preambles to that resolution that condemn the government for this particular

program, you're going to cost municipalities $5 million to $7 million and possibly go into debt for $50 million to $60 million if you sell it back. Who gets that gain? Nobody gets a gain except for

Hydro One.

And guess what Hydro One gets to do. Hydro One doesn't get to set the price. It's already got its price protected at 9.93. Our municipality has to set it at

4.3. The question I have that still hasn't been given an answer by the government side is, where did the 4.3 come from? They made it up. Municipalities get it locked in at 5.2, I believe. What's

the difference? Who pays that? Another cost to the municipality.

I'm saying to the government, you have not paid attention to this particular project. It's another example of trying to put a Band-Aid on a six-inch gash.

The mismanagement: I come back to that one. I've said it from the very beginning during these debates. There is large mismanagement that is going on from that

side, and they're going to placate. I saw the member from Stoney Creek stand up the other night and say, "I have not received one telephone call. They're gone." He said, "The telephones have

stopped ringing completely because we solved the problem."

Number one, you created the problem in the first place. Two, you had no plan on how this was going to roll out. Three, I want to include, and I think the

member for Sudbury is right, the member for Durham, because he's the one who says they've got it right, that they did it right all along and everything was perfect and hunky-dory, thank you very

much.

Quite frankly, what we're going to find is municipalities across the province ringing the phones of the MPPs on the other side off the hooks, and I challenge

them to do that, because they're the ones who are saying there are no more phone calls, there are no more concerns about hydro, that it's all been taken care of. There's been a large hue and cry

coming from the other side saying that there's a lot of fearmongering going on -- they first accused the NDP and then they included the Liberals in this -- that there are going to be blackouts. I

didn't hear there were going to be blackouts from Joe Schmo down the street. I heard there were going to be blackouts from experts in the field, people who know exactly what happened in California

and all over North America where they decided to go down this road. The first thing they said is, "You know what? You think California was bad. You're in deep, deep trouble."

I want to end with just a couple of observations and a plea. My first observation is very clear: something is wrong that our municipalities are going to have

to absorb all the bad news in this situation. I challenge the government to ensure that our municipalities are not faced with that. And last, but not least, answer the question: where did you get

all your information; where did you get all your statistics? I'm telling you, they didn't do their homework and they've mismanaged the portfolio.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): It must be a real treat being a member of the official opposition and being able to come into this

House day after day and give exactly the same speech. It sure must cut down your research time and your preparation time and allow you to sleep in every morning. We hear the same old, same old

whenever it's a time allocation motion, about how terrible it is that the government is actually moving forward, that the government is showing initiative, that the government is listening to

people in this province and is then reflecting what we've heard with a piece of very positive and proactive legislation such as Bill 210.

The members opposite would suggest that if we continue the harangue that passes for debate in this chamber for more than the three days that have already taken

place on this bill, somehow it would change the outcome. The members themselves know that aside from the rare day in committee where they offer the occasional amendment, the debate here invariably

involves the opposition saying we are 100% wrong, that even if we did our policy development using a dartboard, we couldn't get anything right in seven and a half years. That's really quite

arrogant and it's really quite insufferable, and it is also quite inaccurate.

The reality is that this bill in large measure arises from an all-party report of the select committee on alternative fuels, that had as its members three

Liberals and one NDP, as well as four government members, and a government member as the Chair. While it may be painful, particularly for the members of the official opposition, to be reminded of

this fact, they signed on verbatim to the conclusions of that very important report. They signed on to a commitment to move forward with the decarbonization of our energy stream, to promote

alternative energy, to raise the profile of wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and fuel cells to unprecedented levels in this province, to come up with incentives to clean the air by cleaning our

energy stream.

Now the members opposite would suggest, having signed on to that report in June as the representatives for their party, that somehow the government shouldn't

act on it. But you know that if we didn't act on it, tomorrow's question period would revolve around why isn't the government moving forward, that it's been X number of months since this report

came in or that report came in. All day today we heard them talk about the auditor's report: why didn't the government do this; why didn't the government do that in a timely fashion? The reality is

that with this bill, we deny them the ability to continue to fearmonger, we deny them the ability to continue to create the false impression that notwithstanding the fact that they each had five

years at the helm, they each failed miserably to change the environment, to change the very mechanisms through which power is generated in this province, and instead went down that same old road,

building more coal plants and considering it a major accomplishment when one of the coal plants was converted to heavy oil or another one was converted to natural gas -- baby steps down that road

to cleaning up the energy stream. That's the best that either of those two parties can point to in a full decade of stewardship, a full decade of sitting on this side of the Speaker.

Our government not only commissioned the select committee, not only ensured that the report was received and accepted by the two most relevant ministries,

Environment and Energy, but has now given rise to over 50 different actions flowing from the select committee report. Let me pause for just a second here and explain some of the things the

government is doing.

We have put in place the most comprehensive, the most aggressive and the most creative assortment of tax incentives for businesses to develop new sources of

green power generation. We're talking about exempting them from capital tax. We're talking about rebating sales tax. We're talking about exemption from property tax. We're talking about allowing

them to write off the cost of building the generation equipment in the very first year in which those funds are expended. We're talking about taking the sales tax off solar products. We're talking

about creating a mandate for the OEB to guarantee that every local utility puts in place something called demand-side management, which, just like the natural gas industry, will create an

environment where, ironically, the utilities will be incented to cut your demand. They'll make more money if they help you, the consumer, control the amount of electricity you're using in your home

or your small business. In the natural gas industry, the natural gas suppliers have received $50 million as a result of those programs, but they've saved consumers $500 million in so doing.

We've also said we're going to be taking some bold and unprecedented actions to clean up the environment in northern Ontario. We've said we are committed to

eliminating the use of diesel as a fuel for generating electricity in the north and replacing it instead with completely clean and environmentally benign forms of energy generation, such as wind,

solar and fuel cells. No government in the province of Ontario has ever made that commitment. No government had ever suggested the complete closure of all its coal plants until our government.

Unlike the official opposition, which, having signed on to a report, having travelled, having done the research, having listened to hundreds of presentations,

written and oral, and coming to the same conclusion as the government members that the year 2015 was a reasonable benchmark, was a reasonable deadline for the closure of the last of our coal

plants, I guess feeling that they'd been trumped, outmanoeuvred, just arbitrarily decided they'd pick an earlier deadline. The small problem is that currently coal generates 21% of all the

electricity used in this province, so if you don't have a plan over the next four years to add 21% new capacity plus the capacity you're also going to need for the growth in the economy, you're

going to have the blackouts that our colleague from Brantford was just suggesting.

On the other hand, there is nothing in this bill that does anything nearly that irresponsible. There is nothing in this bill, just as there was nothing in any

previous electricity bill we've passed, that will lead to brownouts or blackouts in the province of Ontario, as the member knows full well. There has not been one blackout in Ontario related to

electricity supply -- has not been and will not be. That sort of fearmongering has no place in this chamber, and I think the member should be very ashamed to have made that suggestion here today,

as many of his colleagues have in the past.

We've gone much further than any government in the history of Ontario. But I think what is most gratifying, as a member of that select committee, is the

enthusiasm with which our Premier has embraced the concept of green power. I can tell you that as a member of the select committee, it was certainly my goal that we would see actions on the various

recommendations we brought forward: a total of 141 recommendations covering not just fixed forms of electricity generation but also cleaner ways of powering motive engines -- your cars, buses and

trains.

With this bill we have basically empowered the Minister of Energy to move forward on virtually every one of the recommendations that deal with fixed forms of

electricity. And in those areas where we have not announced a concrete action yet, I have been asked by the minister to take on the job of further research, working with stakeholders, consumer

groups, the Ontario Energy Board and everyone else involved in the production and use of electricity, to see how fast we can move on the balance of those recommendations.

Our commitment is absolute. Ontario is going to take a leadership role, not just within Canada, but all across North America when it comes to the promotion of

green energy. We already have in this bill the framework for bragging rights. There is no jurisdiction in North America that has offered the sort of tax incentives and the strong, strong support

for the philosophical concepts that were the underpinning of the select committee report. This is a bill that not only should pass very quickly, and for which every member of this House should be

demonstrating support -- we shouldn't even have wasted the three days of debate we've already spent, because every day we delay in passing this bill is another day's delay in getting the $75 rebate

cheque out to every consumer and small business in this province. It's another day's delay behind the empowerment of the ministry to move forward on these green power initiatives.

I'm excited to be able to share with you that, notwithstanding the bill has not passed yet, we have had incredible feedback from folks in the wind industry,

the water power industry and manufacturers of solar products. We have had offers of support in diagnosing all of the existing barriers to the development of green power. I can tell you that the

input we have had has been so detailed and thorough that we are going to be able to react at record speed in the preparation of the regulations and the policy statements arising from the new

direction that this bill empowers the Minister of Energy to take. It will be an extraordinarily exciting time to be in Ontario if you have an interest in alternative fuels. Of course the bill does

much more than that.

The bill also lowers electricity costs for consumers. It creates stability and certainty. It takes away the ability for -- unfortunately, I have to say -- the

folks on the opposite side here to do the day-in and day-out fearmongering that the sky will be falling, that people will face bankruptcy in their homes.

It was most humorous when the members opposite would trot out stories of people here in the city of Toronto whose bills had gone up, according to them, 100% or

more. The small problem was, here in the city of Toronto, as a result of the tardiness of Toronto Hydro in their application to the Ontario Energy Board, they were never relieved of the ability to

continue to charge the same 4.3 cents that they had been charging before the market opened on May 1. And so, if the rate for every consumer in Toronto was still 4.3 cents, precisely how do the

members opposite explain that anyone's bill would have gone up? Could it be that perhaps they used more power? I don't think there's ever been a circumstance, not just here in Ontario but anywhere

in this country, where folks buying more of a service shouldn't expect to pay more for that service. If you decide to leave your hot tub on all day, or if you decide to leave your air conditioner

on in a summer with record heat, all day while you're away at work, you can expect your electricity bill to go up. For the members opposite to have somehow suggested that that increased bill had

something to do with bringing in new competition and clarity in the electricity market was preposterous.

But they are now the architects of the portion of the