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

June 4, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Jun-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 June 2003 Mercredi 4 juin 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

JUNO BEACH CENTRE

TRANSIT SERVICES

MINIMUM WAGE

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

IN PARRY SOUND

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

NORTHERN ONTARIO

MEDICAL SCHOOL

BURLINGTON SOUND OF MUSIC FESTIVAL

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KIDS FIRST LICENCES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LES PLAQUES

D'IMMATRICULATION

EN FAVEUR DES ENFANTS

ARCHIVES

AWARENESS WEEK ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE SENSIBILISATION AUX ARCHIVES

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (HELMETS), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (CASQUES)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(PRE-TREATMENT OF

HAZARDOUS WASTE), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION

DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(PRÉTRAITEMENT DES DÉCHETS DANGEREUX)

SARS INQUIRY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 PRÉVOYANT

UNE ENQUÊTE SUR LE SRAS

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(ELECTION CANCELLATION

INSURANCE), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ASSURANCES (ASSURANCE-ANNULATION DES ÉLECTIONS)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION

DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(INSTALLATIONS INDUSTRIELLES)

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION FOR

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

PROTECTION FOR

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

LAND DEVELOPMENT

ENERGY CONSERVATION INITIATIVES

CONTAMINATION IN PORT COLBORNE

ADAMS MINE

VISITORS

MARS DISCOVERY DISTRICT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AGRIBUSINESS

VISITORS

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

VISITORS

PETITIONS

DIABETES TREATMENT

ITER FUSION PROJECT

HYDRO RATES

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

RIGHTS INFORMATION FOR CHILDREN

HYDRO RATES

TURKEY POINT BEACH

HOME CARE

TRAFFIC TICKETS

REINSTATEMENT FEE

LONG-TERM CARE

OPPOSITION DAY

INSURANCE

Wednesday 4 June 2003 Mercredi 4 juin 2003

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My statement is to all the members on the government side. It is now 11 years since people on ODSP

have had an increase. The maximum they receive is $930 a month, or $11,160 a year. It is not possible to live in Ontario on $11,160 a year. The government has promised a tax credit for people

making $11,000 a year. A tax credit is not a help. The government has made a big promise to increase ODSP payments, but the budget speaks for itself when it includes no items whatsoever to fund

that increase.

People on ODSP are not numbers; they're not clients; they are people. They have dreams, they have hopes and they have needs, as each and every one of us do.

Accommodation is not a privilege; it is a right. In our province it is unbelievable that people cannot afford a place to live. Food is not a privilege. Surely in Ontario food is not a privilege.

Food is a right.

I would challenge any government member to live for one month on $930 -- no credit cards, no having dinner with other people. Find accommodation and food and

clothing on $930 a month. I believe it is not possible.

I am imploring government members, do not use recipients of ODSP for election purposes. Do not misuse them. Do the right thing: fund an increase now.

JUNO BEACH CENTRE

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I am happy to speak today to the efforts of groups and individuals in my riding who, in their own

way, are helping Canadians remember the valiant efforts of our combatants in the Second World War.

I would like to mention the student council at Cayuga Secondary School, the Who-Did-It Club of Simcoe, and the Royal Canadian Legion branches in Port Dover,

Selkirk, Scotland and Simcoe that have all, through hard work, raised funds for the Juno Beach Centre.

I'd especially like to point out the 2853 Simcoe Legion Army Cadet Corps. They fundraised $7,000. I attended their 34th annual review this Sunday, under their

commanding officer, Captain Dan O'Neil. As a former member of the militia, we're very proud of our cadet corps.

During the door-knocking to raise money, the cadets heard stories from many people who were directly affected by the war.

As we speak, hundreds of Canadian veterans who landed on that beach 59 years ago, and their families, are returning to remember this historic event.

The Juno Beach Centre will open its doors to the public this Friday, June 6, coinciding with the 59th anniversary of the D-Day landings on the beaches of

Normandy. Our Premier, Ernie Eves, will be present. Our contribution as a province is $1 million, and an additional $1.5 million is going toward the creation of a Queen's Park memorial to the

warriors who fought in that terrible conflict.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On March 27 this year, the federal Minister of Transport, David Collenette, announced that the federal

government was investing $435 million to improve GO Transit's rail network in the extended greater Toronto area. This significant commitment by the federal government, combined with the persistent

efforts of GTA municipalities to properly fund public transit, forms two thirds of a partnership that would ensure the maintenance and expansion of public transit services throughout Ontario.

Since 1998, the Harris-Eves Conservatives have done nothing but run away from their obligation to fund and expand public transportation in the province of

Ontario. Even after unrelenting criticism for ending provincial funding for public transit, your government has only restored a small portion of what has been historically allocated to local

governments.

In consistently starving municipalities throughout this province of public transit dollars, this government has shown that they have no interest, even when given

incentives from the federal government, to participate as a full partner in the area of public transportation.

Now that hundreds of millions in additional federal funds have been dedicated to public transit in Ontario, your government must take major steps to improve rail

transit for Niagara residents. The benefit to Niagara's economy, environment and overall quality of life would compel any reasonably minded government to act on this important initiative.

The citizens of St Catharines and Niagara demand that the provincial government make increased access to rail transit a top priority; provide commuters and

others with an alternative to the crammed, increasingly expensive and often unsafe highways; and make it easier for greater Toronto area tourists to come to Niagara.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Ontario's lowest-paid workers need a raise. The NDP raised the minimum wage four times, from $5.40 to $6.85,

but for over eight years the minimum wage has been frozen at $6.85 an hour. Since that time, inflation and the cost of living have eaten away at the minimum wage. Ontario's lowest-paid workers have

seen a pay cut of almost 20% as a result, and that's nowhere near close to a survival income.

A person working full-time on minimum wage makes much less than even $15,000 a year, and that's below the poverty line for most people in Ontario. One quarter of

all workers are paid less than $10; most, 61%, are women; 37% of single mothers in the labour force have a wage below 10 bucks an hour. These people need a raise. They need a raise to get by, to

survive and to boost spending in the local economy.

The government's double standard on this issue is appalling. The Conservatives, joined by Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus, voted themselves a 28% pay

increase. Ontario's minimum wage workers need a pay increase far more than Ontario's MPPs.

The NDP has a public power plan that would give these workers the raise they sorely need and deserve. Public power means every man and woman should have the

right to a fair and livable wage. Howard Hampton and the NDP would immediately increase the minimum wage to 8 bucks an hour and thaw the eight-year freeze on the wages of the lowest paid. Public

power means it's unfair for MPPs to raise their own salary by over 25% when the lowest-paid workers haven't received a cent's raise in over eight years.

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

IN PARRY SOUND

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Over the past few months, health care services in our province have faced a serious test. In my mind, we

have shown our ability to respond, thanks to the people working to protect our health.

This is clearly the case in Parry Sound, as health care workers at the West Parry Sound Health Centre and the Muskoka-Parry Sound Health Unit have taken every

precaution to ensure that the community's safety is first and foremost. I have spoken to many of these people, and I can assure you they are doing everything necessary and according to protocol.

These people are going above and beyond the call of duty, and I know they will continue to do so.

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the health care workers at the West Parry Sound Health Centre and the Muskoka-Parry Sound Health Unit. This

weekend I was in contact with many of these people as they worked straight through the weekend to protect our public health. Dr Salwa Bishay, Muskoka-Parry Sound director of chronic disease and

injury prevention, Mr Peter Jekel, director of infectious diseases, John Boyd, chair of the Muskoka-Parry Sound board of health, Dr William Hemens, acting medical officer of health, and Norm

Maciver, CEO of the West Parry Sound Health Centre, are providing strong and effective leadership on this issue. Their hard work, along with that of their colleagues, the doctors, nurses and health

care providers, makes me confident that we will be able to keep our public health secure and prevent SARS from spreading into our communities.

I know that you will all join me in recognizing each of these dedicated workers and thanking them for their commitment and tireless work.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Ontario Liberals recognize that Ontario families are being charged outrageous auto insurance rates.

Constituents of all ages have been coming to me with incredible insurance stories and concerns. I'll share just one of them today.

Linda and Rick have been driving for 31 years with clear driving records. Their son Scott has been driving for less than five years. The family was paying $1,400

per year for insurance. It has now been increased to $4,525. Why? Because after 31 years, the family had a first accident. Their son had a minor at-fault accident in a parking lot. The mother,

Linda, had a moderate at-fault accident at an intersection. Their insurance was cancelled. Remember: two drivers, 31 years, clean record.

The first-act forgiveness policy cannot be applied to the son because he is considered a new driver, and the forgiveness policy cannot be transferred to his

mother. It's a Catch-22. Because of this, other insurance companies will not take them. The result is an increase of three times more than the original rate. Here is how fairness works in Ontario:

in spite of the fact that Rick, the father, was not involved in either accident, his rates were increased because it was his vehicle that was involved, making him high-risk.

The law requires that all drivers in Ontario be insured, yet the government has done nothing to protect Ontario families from escalating insurance rates, unfair

practices and a market that doesn't appear very competitive. On behalf of my constituents on Hamilton Mountain, I join my colleague from Toronto Centre-Rosedale in demanding that this government

protect Ontario consumers. Stop catering to your corporate friends and put Ontario families first. All that people are asking is to have access to fair and stable insurance rates.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): Am I ever glad the member for St Catharines is here, because I wanted to tell him about the representation

that the highways are benefiting in other areas of the province.

I rise today to tell all of us about the announcement that I had the honour of making in the great riding of Perth-Middlesex. On Friday, May 23, I, on behalf of

the honourable Frank Klees, our hard-working, efficient, effective Minister of Transportation, announced three highway improvement projects in and around my riding. These three projects, worth a

combined total of $8.8 million, will improve Highway 23 in North Perth and South Huron and Highway 8 in West Perth. This money is being invested in restoring and replacing bridges, resurfacing

sections of the highway, and adding a left-hand turn lane at the Campbell Soup factory in my hometown of North Perth. With more than 600 people employed at the Campbell Soup factory and trucks

coming and going, this left-hand turn lane will improve this

section of the highway on the south edge of Listowel immensely.

This investment is part of our government's five-year, $20-billion SuperBuild initiative, designed to facilitate the largest infrastructure building program in

Ontario's history. These projects are good news for the people and businesses of Perth-Middlesex. They'll make our highways safer and smoother for residents, tourists, truckers and farmers. Keeping

our highways and bridges in good repair is an investment in our future. Safe, reliable highways are important to the quality of life and prosperity enjoyed by the constituents of

Perth-Middlesex.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

MEDICAL SCHOOL

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Today the people of northwestern and northeastern Ontario received bad news. Our northern Ontario medical school

is delayed by another year.

The concern that we have in Sudbury and northern Ontario is whether this is another Sudbury Regional Hospital. Is this the same type of project that you people

managed in Sudbury, with its regenerated hospital? Listen: the communities of Thunder Bay and Sudbury together have over 80,000 people who do not have doctors. We were relying on you, the

government, to ensure that problem was dealt with. You spun this to the people of northeastern and northwestern Ontario. In fact, you told the people that it would be up and running 12 different

times, that the starting day would be 2004. What do we find out today? It's 2005, with no guarantees.

Well, let me tell you, I have a message from the people of Thunder Bay, Sudbury and northwestern and northeastern Ontario: we want that medical school. We want

it now. We want answers. We want to know what happened to the plan you had. What happened to the money you invested? The fact is, had you invested the money when you should have, not two years

after the announcement, today we would be talking about the 2004 opening. Instead, our communities of northeastern and northwestern Ontario continue to get bad news when it comes to health care

from the Harris-Eves Tories -- not good enough.

BURLINGTON SOUND OF MUSIC FESTIVAL

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I'm pleased to rise today to acknowledge the efforts of the community of Burlington as we prepare for the

weekend of June 12 to 15, for our annual Sound of Music Festival. This next year marks our 25th anniversary. This is an outstanding festival. It's home for the Burlington Teen Tour Band, one of the

most famous youth marching bands anywhere in North America, and also for the Top Hat Marching Band, another group that performs.

This year's headliners include David Wilcox. I'm pleased to report to the House that Ronnie Hawkins's health has improved. He's going to be our headliner on

Saturday night. Natalie MacMaster and Rik Emmett are among some of the great talent that's going to be there. Saturday will be the annual parade. There's karaoke, big band competitions -- there's

something for everyone of all ages.

I encourage everyone in the province to put aside some time that weekend to come to Burlington, Ontario, to experience one of the best festivals that we have in

the province.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): Are you going to sing karaoke?

Mr Jackson: I'm not going to sing karaoke this year.

I do want to thank the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation for its annual contribution of $15,000 from the tourism event marketing program. We will be marketing

in Buffalo, in the United States and in Quebec to reach as many tourists to come to Burlington and Ontario for the Sound of Music Festival.

VISITORS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sure that members of the Legislature will want to welcome

a couple of fathers who are here to see their sons who are pages. First of all we have Mr Santino Nucci, from Thunder Bay, father of Mario Nucci. Thank you very much; it's good to see you. We also

have Ken Seguin, from Windsor West, whose son Nicolas is a page. They're doing a great job.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We welcome our families here today.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated June 4, 2003, of

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Mr Hoy from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presents the committee's report as

follows, and moves its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr23,

An Act respecting the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation.

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr12,

An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent;

Bill Pr20,

An Act respecting the Thunder Bay Foundation.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual costs of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr20,

An Act respecting the Thunder Bay

Foundation, and Bill Pr23,

An Act respecting the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KIDS FIRST LICENCES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LES PLAQUES

D'IMMATRICULATION

EN FAVEUR DES ENFANTS

Mr Duncan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 79,

An Act to support children's charities in Ontario / Projet de loi 79, Loi visant à aider les _uvres de bienfaisance pour enfants en Ontario.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): This bill proposes an optional program allowing persons to make donations to support the work of

children's charities in Ontario when paying fees for licences, permits and number plates issued under the Highway Traffic Act. Donors may request specially designed number plates in recognition of

their donations.

This is a program done in a number of American jurisdictions which has raised literally hundreds of millions of dollars in a voluntary way for children's

charities in those states.

ARCHIVES

AWARENESS WEEK ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE SENSIBILISATION AUX ARCHIVES

Mr Johnson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 80,

An Act to proclaim Archives Awareness Week / Projet de loi 80, Loi proclamant la Semaine de sensibilisation aux archives.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): Ontario has a rich and colourful recorded history. Archives play an essential role in the preservation and

use of this history. This bill proclaims that the week beginning on the first Monday in April of each year is Archives Awareness Week.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (HELMETS), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (CASQUES)

Mr Levac moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 81,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 81, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This is a reintroduction from the last sitting. The bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to make it an offence for any

person to use a skateboard, scooter, inline skates or roller skates on a highway without wearing an appropriate helmet. Parents and guardians of a person under the age of 16 are also guilty of an

offence if they authorize and knowingly permit the person to contravene this restriction. A police officer may require a person to provide identification if the police officer finds the person

contravening this restriction.

The authority to make regulations to exempt persons from the requirement to wear helmets is repealed.

Medical officials tell me that 50% of all related head injuries could and would be eliminated if this amendment were adopted.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(PRE-TREATMENT OF

HAZARDOUS WASTE), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION

DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(PRÉTRAITEMENT DES DÉCHETS DANGEREUX)

Ms Di Cocco moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act to require the pre-treatment of hazardous waste before it is used as landfill / Projet de loi 82, Loi

modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement pour exiger le prétraitement des déchets dangereux avant leur dépôt dans une décharge.

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

The member for a short statement?

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): This bill will change the fact that Ontario is the only jurisdiction on the continent of North America

that doesn't require the pre-treatment of hazardous waste before disposal. This bill amends the Environmental Protection Act by requiring the pre-treatment of hazardous waste before it is disposed

of in a landfill.

SARS INQUIRY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 PRÉVOYANT

UNE ENQUÊTE SUR LE SRAS

Mr Hampton moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 83,

An Act to provide for a public inquiry to examine the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in the Province of Ontario / Projet de loi 83, Loi

prévoyant une enquête publique pour examiner la poussée du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère dans la province de l'Ontario.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): The bill requires the Premier to recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council that a commission be

appointed to inquire into and report on the outbreak of SARS and to make recommendations directed to the avoidance of similar diseases in similar circumstances. The commission is given powers under

the Public Inquiries Act. Once the inquiry begins, the commission must make an interim report in six months and a final report in 12 months.

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(ELECTION CANCELLATION

INSURANCE), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ASSURANCES (ASSURANCE-ANNULATION DES ÉLECTIONS)

Mr Parsons moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 84,

An Act to amend the Insurance Act to allow for the sale of election cancellation insurance / Projet de loi 84, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les assurances

pour permettre l'offre d'une assurance-annulation des élections.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1357 to 1402.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Clement, Tony

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Stockwell, Chris

The Speaker: Those opposed?

Nays

Johnson, Bert

Stewart, R. Gary

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 39; the nays are 3.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): In recognition of large expenditures by Elections Ontario over the last four months, this bill

amends the Insurance Act by authorizing the sale of election cancellation insurance. The Chief Election Officer and individual candidates are permitted to purchase the insurance. The

section that

authorizes the sale of election cancellation insurance ceases to have effect if a system for fixed-term elections is implemented.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION

DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(INSTALLATIONS INDUSTRIELLES)

Mr Levac moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 85,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act to regulate industrial facilities that use, store or treat hazardous materials / Projet de loi 85,

Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement pour réglementer les installations industrielles où sont utilisés, entreposés ou traités des matériaux

dangereux.

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

The member for short statement?

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This is the reintroduction of a bill submitted last session. The bill amends the Environmental Protection Act by

requiring that industrial facilities that regularly use, store or treat significant amounts of hazardous materials prepare and submit an environmental report on their property every five years. The

report will be available to the public. A facility that is ceasing operations is required to submit a final environmental report. Owners of the industrial facilities are responsible for any

environmental damage that occurs on their land while it is under their care. I believe this will end any brownfields in the future.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): I would like to ask for unanimous consent to move a

motion with respect to the standing committee on estimates.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Baird: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 59(e), the standing committee on estimates may sit this afternoon at its regularly

scheduled time.

I know the Minister of Education would like to second that.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION FOR

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday, I met with a group of nurses

from North York General Hospital, and they shared with me their very real concerns. They told me of one thing in particular that they are very, very worried and at the same time angry about; that

is, the masks they are wearing are not adequate. One nurse told me she has gone 11 weeks wearing a mask that was never properly fitted. They also shared with me that there are now 25 nurses

hospitalized at the North York General Hospital alone as a result of working with patients suffering from SARS. One of those nurses is now in critical condition.

The nurses expressed to me that they are exhausted and frightened for themselves and their families, and they're asking for a guarantee of basic

protection.

Minister, you will recall that on May 2, I believe, you issued a directive that nurses be fitted with appropriate masks and that they wear those masks in SARS

units, critical care units and emergency rooms. Why is it that over one month later we still have nurses working in SARS environments in Ontario hospitals who are not equipped with appropriate

masks that are fitted for them?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for giving me his take on issues. I too have been

meeting with nurses, basically on a daily basis over the past few days, as well as with other hospital officials and medical practitioners. I want to assure him, and through him this House, that

the absolute safety of our health workers, as well as our patients of course, is our top priority when dealing with the second SARS outbreak.

I too have heard those concerns. I can tell you that we have been learning a lot over the last 11 weeks when it comes to the protection of our health workers

and what types of masking, gowning and gloving procedures are best. We continue to learn and we continue to, I believe, have the best kind of directives and protocols found anywhere in the world.

So that process will continue.

Mr McGuinty: Sir, it's one thing to have directives in place and it's quite another to ensure that they are being followed. You issued that

directive back on May 2. Nurses told you and me yesterday that, in many cases, they're not equipped with properly fitted masks.

This seems to be, Minister, another important reason why we should be holding a full, independent public inquiry. When I talk about a full, independent public

inquiry, I'm talking about one that provides our nurses and other health care workers with whistle-blower protection. I think it is essential to ensure that they can come forward without any sense

of reservation whatsoever. I think we have to have authority to the commissioner to compel witnesses and to subpoena documents where he or she believes that is necessary.

I think that is the best thing we can do out of honour to those nurses and those SARS patients and those families who have lost loved ones. I think the most

responsible thing we can do in the face of this very real challenge is to hold a full, independent public inquiry. Why is it, Minister, that you continue to refuse to proceed with that kind of an

inquiry?

Hon Mr Clement: First of all, on the issue of masking, let me assure the honourable member in this House that in fact it is Ontario that sets

the standards for masking, and we certainly expect compliance. There have been cases of improper mask use. We have not thus far been able to connect any of those cases to a case of SARS, from a

scientific point of view. There are other issues that come into play where SARS is in a hospital setting. But so far, what I am told by public health officials, by the commissioner of public safety

and, indeed, by all of our medical experts is that there hasn't been a case of improper mask fitting being the cause of an illness. Nonetheless, it is important to have proper mask fitting.

I can tell you that when it comes to whistle-blower protection, there is an obligation under the act, because this is a reportable disease, to protect our

health care workers when they serve the obligation to report a case of SARS. We will protect them. We will protect them under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and we will protect them because

they are doing their job by reporting any case of SARS or suspected SARS. Certainly, that is our commitment, and that is the Premier's commitment as well.

Mr McGuinty: I say to the minister again that there are nurses today working in Ontario hospitals who are not being adequately protected

because they don't have the right masks. They told me about that yesterday. I can give you their names and numbers and you can speak with them directly, Minister.

I want to come back to the issue of the public inquiry. I think we owe that to those nurses, I think we owe it to Ontarians who are suffering at present from

SARS and I think we owe it to the families who have lost loved ones. I'm talking about a full, independent public inquiry, complete with whistle-blower protection and the power to compel

witnesses.

I'll tell you why I think that our approach is more responsible than the one that you're advocating: because this approach, an independent public inquiry,

takes it out of my hands, takes it out of your hands, and turns it over to an independent commissioner who conducts a comprehensive, thorough investigation into what went wrong, what happened and

lays out for all of us a responsible, intelligent road map to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen to us in the future. I think that is the best thing we can do for Ontarians. I think it's

the most responsible thing we can do for Ontarians. I ask you, Minister, why won't you agree to a full, independent public inquiry?

Hon Mr Clement: I want to assure the honourable member and, through him, this House, that we fully intend to get to the answers that all of us

seek. Every health care worker seeks these answers, every public health official seeks these answers and I, as Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, want the answers to these questions as well. So

I want to assure the member, in case he has not heard me recently, that we do want an independent investigation; we do want an inquiry that will be completely public on this issue. So I want to

assure the member that that is the intention of this government.

The honourable member says that he came across some certain information yesterday about this. It's a good thing that I also spoke to those very same nurses

because otherwise I would wonder whether he was treating this as a reportable disease or not, because this is a serious matter. If the honourable member has issues he wishes to raise, please raise

them -- if not with me, then with Dr Young or Dr D'Cunha -- so we can help protect the people of Ontario rather than scoring partisan political points in the Ontario Legislature.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. Minister, your party's biggest fundraiser lent

your party's biggest donor millions of Ontario pension fund dollars, and he did so in an extraordinarily unusual investment -- extraordinary not only for the Ontario pension fund but very

extraordinary for the pension fund industry as a whole. In fact, the Ontario pension fund has never done another deal like this, either before or since.

Yesterday, Mr Weiss confirmed that he likely spoke to Mr Cortellucci about this kind of deal while he was still acting as your party's fundraiser. This is from

the National Post, "Don Weiss said he discussed business opportunities with Mr Cortellucci at fundraisers."

This is from the Toronto Sun, "When you look back over the years, I would talk about real estate ideas ... I must have had those conversations with him on

those subjects."

Minister, are you still saying today that there is no conflict of interest here whatsoever when your biggest fundraiser makes this kind of extraordinary deal

with your biggest donor?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): You'll forgive me if I don't take your

interpretation

of the facts, the same way as I didn't with your colleague who is sitting next to you. What I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition is quite clearly what I said yesterday in his absence, and

on Monday as well. I refer him to yesterday's Hansard, June 3, on page 827. I will say exactly the same thing. What's at issue here is not who's involved with these transactions but whether or not

due process and due diligence were taken, and I believe they have been.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Come to order, please. Sorry for the interruption.

Mr McGuinty: I take from that, Minister, that you don't believe there's any kind of a conflict of interest here. What I'm going to do, then,

is provide you with more information today, in the hopes that this will lend some clarity to your vision on the matter of this conflict.

We reviewed Mr Weiss's appointment and his statements to the government agencies committee. The facts are shocking. The facts are that Mr Weiss continued to

work at the PC Ontario fund for at least nine months while sitting as a member on the pension board. He did not sever his relations with the party fund, in fact, until a month after his

confirmation as chair. For nine months, Mr Weiss was raising money for your party from donors like Mr Cortellucci, while he sat on the board of the Ontario pension fund, involved in making

decisions about how to invest pension money.

I ask you again, Minister: how can you possibly say that there is no conflict of interest here of any kind whatsoever?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Once again, I've dealt with this question yesterday and the day before --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Well, you'll forgive me if I don't take what you're saying as the facts. Facts are facts; what you believe is probably

something totally different.

There's no overlap with respect to Mr Weiss. Mr Weiss appeared twice before the committee dealing with these appointments, and clearly twice he passed.

I don't believe there's a conflict. We've asked, in fact, my deputy minister to report back to me; she has. We certainly asked whether or not there's any

conflict. There's indication that there is not, and I'll take the word of my deputy minister over the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr McGuinty: When a review of seven multi-million dollar land deals takes just a couple of hours, it isn't a review; it's a whitewash. That's

the difference.

Let's take it from the top again, Minister. Here are the facts. If you dispute these facts, then please tell me. Number one: your party's biggest fundraiser

lends your party's biggest donor millions in pension fund dollars.

Number two: the deal is very unusual and extraordinary, not only for the industry as a whole but for the Ontario pension fund in particular. This kind of a

deal has never happened before or since. Thirdly, for nine months Mr Weiss was working both as a fundraiser for the party and as a member of the board of the Ontario pension fund.

I say to you, Minister, that those facts are beyond dispute. I'm asking you again, how is it that you can possibly say in the face of those facts that there is

no conflict of interest of any kind, none whatsoever, to be found here?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Let me deal with real facts. In 1991, the policy was brought in which allowed investment in mortgages. One of the reasons

was that they wanted to have a balanced portfolio. This was reconfirmed again several years later.

The facts are these: according to Benefits Canada, in their review of the top 100 pension funds in Canada, 1.7% of total assets are invested in mortgages. In

this particular case, this results in 0.3% of the total assets. So it's not a huge investment when we look at the entire portfolio of $11.5 billion.

What we are concerned with on this side is whether or not due process and due diligence were followed. We're satisfied they were.

The Leader of the Opposition is making all kinds of allegations. I suggest to him that he check his facts, and if he's certain of his facts he should repeat

those facts outside the House.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, yesterday you were forced to admit that your

scheme of emergency temporary electricity generation will cost at least $100 million. That's $250,000 per megawatt just to install these temporary generators. On May 6 you told this Legislature

that if these generators had been available last summer, they would have run for only 14 minutes. Taking your figures, Minister, if that happens this summer, the cost of using your temporary

generators for 14 minutes would be $7 million a minute for power.

Minister, is $7 million a minute for privatized, deregulated electricity your idea of a good deal for Ontario consumers?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): If the member opposite had checked the facts, he would

discover that when I suggested to use the term of 14 minutes, that was in relation to diesel-powered generators.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you're the one that's telling us that these natural gas generators will be a substitution for diesel. You're the one who

was telling us they would be used infrequently. I note this $100-million cost is just to install and set them up. It doesn't include standby charges, natural gas charges or the eventual production

cost. But we know that this will happen on a very hot summer day when there's not enough electricity, when your deregulated market sees the price spike up to, oh, 50 cents or 60 cents a kilowatt

hour. Then these generators will come on, so we'll be paying a very high premium indeed.

Minister, if you insist that this is cheaper power, will you disclose the contracts so that the people of Ontario will see just how much you really are going

to charge them for this latest episode of privatized, deregulated electricity?

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite says a number of things which are not factual, so I'll correct them. I'll repeat that the 14 minutes I

referred to last summer was for diesel generators that would only have been used in the case of an emergency. The natural gas generators have a dual benefit: to reduce our reliance on expensive,

imported power and to provide a standby capacity. So he's wrong there.

When he said that $100 million is just for the installation, he's wrong there. When he said that I said this would be cheaper power, he's wrong there. Wrong,

wrong, wrong.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I have a copy of what you said on May 6. You said, "We are looking to the private sector to ask what opportunities might

be available. There could be opportunities with respect to large natural gas portable generation or from some small diesel-powered generation." Then you said that if we'd had this policy in place

last year, it might have been required for 14 minutes.

You're the one who says it will cost $100 million just to set it up. You're the one who says, "Oh, we might only need it for 14 minutes." Do the quick math and

it works out to $7 million a minute for hydroelectricity. Then there's the cost of natural gas, there's the standby charge, and we know from other boondoggles like this in the privatized,

deregulated market that you pay a premium for the electricity. This is the people's money. This is what they will have to pay one way or another.

Will you disclose the contracts so that people across Ontario will see just how much -- $7 million a minute, $7.5 million a minute -- they're going to be

paying for your latest episode of privatized, deregulated electricity?

Hon Mr Baird: The leader of the third party never lets the facts get in the way of a good argument. I clearly spoke of the 14 minutes being

the case in emergency standby diesel capacity, not in the natural gas contracts that have been awarded. I never said they'd be cheaper and I never said anything the member opposite has described.

He's wrong. There's a name for days like that for this member. They're called weekdays.

The policy we brought forward is a measure to both reduce our reliance on expensive imported power in emergency situations and provide stability of supply. I

think it's important for the people of Ontario -- whether you have a seniors' home, where you have frail and elderly adults; whether you have a hospital; whether you have enterprises in the

province that depend on electricity -- to take a reasonable precaution to ensure that we have adequacy of supply in a tight market.

Mr Hampton: Please take this to the Minister of Energy so he can read his own words.

PROTECTION FOR

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Minister of Health, today I was at a rally outside Scarborough General Hospital, with nurses and

health care workers who are on the front line of the battle against SARS. They are overworked, overstressed and very scared and they say you have let them down. They say you've failed to protect

their health and safety, just as you failed to protect the health and safety of patients. They say you need to stop telling them to hunker down. You need to start listening to them because they're

the people out there who are actually putting their lives at risk. They're the people who are actually getting sick. They're the people, some of whom are dying. They don't need you giving them your

dismissive answers that they should just hunker down.

They want to know one thing: are you going to call a public inquiry, give them whistle-blower protection, or are you going to continue to talk about this

backroom investigation? Public inquiry, whistle-blower protection: yes or no?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): In the past 30 hours I met with nurses: yesterday morning, yesterday afternoon and

this morning, so I don't need any lectures from the honourable leader of the third party about keeping my

schedule open to talk to the front-line heroes who are doing the job for the people of

Ontario. I do listen to them.

I do know that this is a frustrating time. I do know that there are concerns about health and safety. I do know that we have to ensure that our hospitals are

safe places for patients and health workers. I do know that our government is working with them and their representatives to ensure that is the case.

Mr Hampton: Minister, yes, you have met with some nurses. Some of the nurses came back from that meeting and talked to me and this is what

they said: "Tell the Minister of Health to stop his tactic of trying to pit nurse against nurse or health care worker against health care worker." That's exactly what they said.

They said something else. They said that your government let its guard down against SARS too early. They say that they want real protection from SARS: masks

that work and protective clothing that works. They want standardized screening and protocol procedures for all hospitals, something that's not in place now. They want a province-wide patient

transfer tracking system so that we don't have another SARS patient being transferred without staff knowledge to another hospital.

That's why they want a public inquiry, so that all these issues can be squarely and fully before the public. Minister, do you support a public inquiry with

whistle-blower protection for nurses and health care workers, yes or no?

Hon Mr Clement: The answer is yes, of course. We are going to have that kind of investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the

outbreaks. I want to assure this House that is absolutely our intention because I want, the Premier wants, our government wants, answers to these questions as well. So I can tell you that that will

occur, that there should be protections, that there are protections for nurses or other medical practitioners to ensure they can do their job. Their job is to report cases like this to the public

health system. Of course they should and they will and they do have protection in that regard. The answer to the honourable member's questions is yes.

The honourable member speaks about ensuring that we're not pitting nurses against nurses, and health practitioners against health practitioners. I can tell you

I do that every day of the week. When are you going to start doing it?

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. I'd like to return to the matter of the deal between

your largest fundraiser and your largest donor.

We learned today that your fundraiser was on the board while he was taking donations from Mario Cortellucci. We also learned today that Don Weiss is admitting

that the decision to lend taxpayer-guaranteed pension money to your largest donor was done by an ad hoc committee. This sounds a lot like your government's famous sports team tax break walk-around

by cabinet. An informal group headed by Don Weiss decides to invest in the deal. Only after the deal was signed did the investment committee of the board get a chance to review the decision. Don

Weiss is on the investment committee too. They had no power to undo the deal, even if they chose to.

Given the unique nature of the deal, given that the pension board had never made investments of this nature, given the conflict of interest between your

biggest fundraiser and your top donor, how can you say today that there would be proper oversight of such a decision?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): These accusations are extremely wild and incorrect. I

suggest to the member that she check her facts. If she feels so sure of her facts, I suggest she repeat them outside the House. I'm satisfied we've had due diligence. I'm satisfied we've got no

conflicts. I'm quite satisfied in terms of the process that has gone through. That's what we're concerned about here. If you have any of these wild accusations of conflict of interest, please make

them outside the House and stand by them.

Ms Pupatello: Minister, I think your biggest problem is that people are connecting the dots and it's becoming a straight line. I'm asking you

a serious question about the behaviour of your government and what you consider to be good judgment. I expect a better kind of investigation than some kind of fly-by by a deputy minister over such

a serious issue.

I am asking you again: the decision to lend your top donor tens of millions of dollars was made by an informal group at the pension board, headed by your

biggest fundraiser. Decisions made in the hallways are rarely good policy decisions. We know the Ontario Pension Board never made this kind of deal before. We know other pension boards don't do

deals like this. We know your biggest fundraiser and your top donor discussed deals like this while Don Weiss was still working for the PC Party. While still at the party, he had his foot in at the

pension board.

We asked you yesterday about a conflict. I expect a reasonable investigation about how these dots are starting to connect. Why are you refusing to do this, and

what are you afraid is going to come to light --

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

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I am very pleased to hear the member correct herself inadvertently from her earlier statements this week. Earlier this week,

she was accusing the loans of being in the nature of hundreds of millions of dollars. Now she's down to --

Ms Pupatello: That deal is for over $150 million. Don't you be bullying me, mister.

The Speaker: Member take a seat. Order. This is the last warning to the member for Windsor West, I'm afraid. She has asked the question; the

minister now gets a chance to reply. If she yells out like that again, she'll be asked to leave. Sorry, Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: As I said, today in her own words she's talking about tens of millions of dollars, so obviously she's self-correcting

without actually correcting her own record.

Let's deal with the facts. Once again, as I just -- and I'm constantly repeating myself. Someone said that if you repeat yourself about five or six times, even

to dogs, you get through to them eventually. First of all, Benefits Canada reported in their top 100 pension funds that 1.7% of total assets is invested in mortgages. This is not an unusual

practice, considering that the total portfolio of the pension board into mortgages --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Excuse me. Thank you. In this case, the pension board total mortgage investment is 0.3% of their assets, so it's less than

the median, in fact. One of the things you need to do is make sure that the portfolio is diversified. These accusations are so wild, they're just afraid to say it outside the Legislature. Let them

do so.

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Education. Last night, our government put students first when we

voted in favour of ending the lockout in the Toronto Catholic District School Board. For nearly three weeks, the students have been unable to attend school because their board and union couldn't

come to an agreement. Worse than that, when our government took decisive action to bring about an end to this labour disruption, the opposition played politics and continually stalled --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): This is the last warning for the member for Hamilton East as well. He'll be asked to leave if he continues. Sorry

for the interruption, member for Scarborough Centre. I apologize.

Ms Mushinski: Can I start at the beginning?

The Speaker: Sorry, in the interests of time -- I hate to do that. If you could try and get close. You'll have to wrap it up. You've got, I

believe, about 20 seconds. I apologize for that. I hate to do it and I know it does throw you off, but we do need to keep on the time. I apologize.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that, Mr Speaker. Even last night, 40 opposition members voted against the bill, thus adding to their shameful

record on education.

There has been much confusion and misinformation about the contents of our recently passed legislation on returning students to the classroom because of the

opposition's fearmongering and rhetoric. Minister, what has this government done to bring labour stability to classrooms all across Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): Our government, this past year and in prior years, now has in place a process

that requires boards to negotiate three-year agreements with their teachers in order to ensure that we have stability within the educational system. We've also invested $680 million this past year

in order that boards and teachers can negotiate fair agreements.

We want to make sure that our students are in the classroom. We want to make sure there is stability in the classroom. We believe that this additional money,

which is 3% to the salary benchmark on two occasions, would certainly help to bring stability to the classroom for our students.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that response, Minister. As I said before, the opposition and other pundits have done a lot of fearmongering and

have taken every opportunity to say one thing and do another. Liberals especially tried to use Toronto's children as political pawns in this whole debate by tabling their own back-to-work

legislation so that they could claim credit even while voting against the back-to-work legislation. What's worse, the Liberal leader double-dealt his own caucus by saying one thing in this House

and then sending his caucus out to say something else.

Minister, for the record, could you please clarify the contents of this legislation? Does it make volunteer duties mandatory? Can you tell the people of

Ontario what was in this bill passed last night that put students first?

Hon Mrs Witmer: There was, unfortunately, an attempt by the opposition to try to confuse the public and the media about the contents of the

legislation. But I can tell you that the bill did a couple of things: the bill put the students back into the classroom; the bill ended the lockout of the teachers at the TCDSB; and the bill

ensured that students could return to class today to receive quality education.

The bill did not change the ability of the minister to change the duties of teachers. Since the 1950s, the Education Act has given the Minister of Education

the ability to alter teachers' duties. There is nothing new in this bill in this regard. That's been there since 1950.

LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I have a question to the Deputy Premier. I want to ask you again how your government can justify another

high-risk land speculation deal by your number one and biggest donor, Mario Cortellucci, who gave your party $1 million. How is it justifiable for Mr Cortellucci, your biggest donor, who bought

this land in Uxbridge that was frozen by your government, that the town of Uxbridge declined to rezone and to which the regional council in Durham unanimously said no rezoning, to still have bought

this land? Now we find out that he is going to be compensated with public land in Seaton. How many acres of public land -- 6,000 acres in Seaton -- are you going to give Mr Cortellucci for his

high-risk speculation? How much does he deserve in Seaton?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): The Minister of Municipal Affairs would be very pleased to respond.

Hon David Young (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I am pleased to respond, actually. I'm pleased to try to set the record

straight.

I am disappointed by what the Liberals are engaging in, which I would characterize as drive-by defamation. They seem to be pulling facts out of thin air and

presenting them as reality.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order.

Sorry for the interruption, Minister.

Hon Mr Young: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I'm not certain if this is one of the items that Mr McGuinty brought back from his media training in Chicago or Washington. What I am certain of is that we set

out to protect 100% of the Oak Ridges moraine. We did so by bringing together environmentalists, municipal leaders and land developers and we reached a consensus that will protect all of the land

in the Oak Ridges moraine, one of the most environmentally sensitive areas of --

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

Mr Colle: I'd like first of all to correct the record for the new minister. You did not protect all of the moraine. In fact, another one of

your favourite developers was allowed to build 7,000 homes on the most sensitive part of the moraine in Richmond Hill. For starters, you let him do that. Now you've got your biggest donor, who

comes in at the last minute, and everybody says, "Incredible. This is a smart guy, with all his money. Why would this guy buy this land that you can't develop?" Then we find out why he bought this

land that nobody could develop: because your government is now going to give him how many acres of public land in Seaton? How many acres are you going to give him for being the big donor that you

love so much? How many acres does he deserve?

Hon Mr Young: I'm not particularly impressed by the puppy-dog tears the member opposite sheds. I remember him standing up and saying, "Let's

get together and protect the moraine," as we were in the process of doing that. We have done just that.

Because we have anticipated a hypocritical approach to this by members opposite and others, we brought in independent, impartial people to ensure that this

process was one that was beyond approach. We brought in people like David Crombie, who oversaw the process in the early stages. We brought in Justice Houlden to oversee the fairness of this

process. As you know, he is a retired, very well respected senior justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario, as it then was. He was brought in, and his mandate continues. He is there to make sure

that what happens is in the interests of the people of Ontario. He continues to be there to serve that purpose so that individuals like you do not use a forum like this to act in an irresponsible

way.

ENERGY CONSERVATION INITIATIVES

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Energy. In the recent speech from the throne, the government made several

commitments that will help ensure that Ontarians have a supply of power today, tomorrow and into the future. One of those commitments was to conservation measures and cleaner sources of power. We

know from our consultations with the people of this province that this is indeed important to them. Can you please tell the people of Ontario what you are doing to follow up on these important

throne speech commitments?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): We've taken a number of initiatives, particularly with

respect to demand-side management and our 45,000 people who have been able to convert to energy-efficient appliances.

I did want to respond to the leader of the third party, who passed over Hansard to me. Earlier today, the leader of the third party said, "On May 6 you told

this Legislature that if these generators had been available last summer, they would have run for only 14 minutes." The Hansard that he sent over said, "large natural gas portable generation or

from some small diesel-powered generation." I would suspect the latter, meaning diesel-powered generation for 14 minutes. I suspect the leader of the third party will want to get up and apologize

for misleading the House.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm going to ask the minister to withdraw it.

I did see him use it. You can't hide it behind the paper. I would ask that you don't use electronic instruments in the House.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Wait until I'm finished. And I would ask with you to withdraw as well, please.

Hon Mr Baird: Withdraw.

Mr Maves: Thank you very much, Minister, for clearing up the now muddied waters about the question of diesel generators muddied by the

conflicting statements by the leader of the third party.

My constituents are deeply interested in measures being utilized to follow up on those throne speech commitments for conservation and green power. Could you

expand further on what actions you are taking to do that?

Hon Mr Baird: In addition to the 1,300 megawatts of clean, green electricity that we have available to the grid today that wasn't available

last summer, we've announced our intention to proceed on a number of initiatives, including moving forward with the renewable portfolio standard, something which has been strongly urged by our

alternative fuels commissioner, Mr Gilchrist. We've almost made a commitment that the government of Ontario will be buying 20% of its power from emerging renewables, something that we believe is

important to show leadership by example. We're allowing for net meters and that people can have interval meters in the province of Ontario. All of these initiatives are incredibly environmentally

friendly and are good news, not just for supply but as well for the environment.

CONTAMINATION IN PORT COLBORNE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): This is to the Minister of the Environment. This morning, I once again joined residents from Port

Colborne to hand out dirt bags to Inco stakeholders. This is soil from their yards. I'm going to send this dirt bag over to Minister of the Environment, Mr Stockwell.

We've just learned that the Inco consultants working for your government's community-based risk assessment process have been hiding horrific test results since

last January, results that show high levels of cancer-causing nickel in the air they breathe inside their homes. Marcel Laroche and Wilf Pearson are here with us in the gallery. They have the two

most contaminated homes of all. They're breathing in this air. They want to know, minister, were you aware of those results and what are you going to do about this immediate risk to these families?

They are breathing in cancer-causing air.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): The Ministry of the Environment issued an order to Inco to clean

the 25 homes in the area. Inco immediately began the process of cleaning up the site. The problem we have here, I say to the member opposite, is that 20 of the site's residents refused to allow

Inco on to their properties. The problem is, if they refuse to allow Inco on the property to clean up the contaminated site, it becomes very difficult to clean up the contaminated site.

So I say to the member opposite, I would love to see these sites cleaned up. I know Mr Hudak would love to see these sites cleaned up. I implore the residents

of those 20 units: allow Inco on, allow our order to be carried out, allow them to clean up your land.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I know these neighbourhoods. I know these residents. They're seniors, retirees and young families. They're

hard-working, decent, honest people. They've been poisoned over the course of decades with carcinogens in their soil and in their air. They're not even safe in their own homes. The Inco consultants

suppressed the data around the carcinogenic toxic air content for four months while these people continued to inhale it, along with their little grandkids toddling along their living room floors

and the sidewalks leading up to their front doors. These people feel betrayed by Inco and betrayed and abandoned by this government. Inco is not their friend. Inco is their enemy. Inco's interests

are diametrically opposed to theirs.

Why would you allow the data around carcinogenic air content to be suppressed for four months, and why isn't the government advocating for these people instead

of collaborating with Inco in an effort to oppress and suppress them?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I say to the residents, and I speak to you very directly today, I'm your friend and the Ministry of the Environment is

working to help your situation. I can say to you emphatically this: we've ordered Inco to clean up 25 homes. Inco has said they will. They've begun cleaning up, and they've cleaned up five of the

homes that would let them in. The 20 that are left: you won't let them on the property to clean up your site. I ask you as residents, over top of the opposition's politics, please let Inco on your

land, let them clean up your site, so that if the contamination is causing you problems, we can stop and move forward from there. I can only be that clear. We did our job. We said the site was

contaminated. We ordered Inco to clean it up. Inco is cleaning it up. Let them on your property and let them clean it up.

ADAMS MINE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I'd like to go back to the Minister of Natural Resources and ask him some questions about that dirty

little land deal he was trying to pull off around the Adams mine before I called his office --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Coming from the NDP benches here is a bunch of

stuff that isn't parliamentary, and I'd ask you to try and hear what they're saying. It's certainly outside the rules.

The Speaker: Yes, we will listen, and I will ask the table to listen as well. I would ask all members on all sides to be careful. The

temperature is getting up in here. We're at the point now where we'll start throwing people out. I would ask everybody, in their language and in their actions, including what they're using in here,

to please adhere.

During some of the discussions we had ministers talk about, members of this House talk about the decorum in here. I hope those same people will go to their

colleagues who are misbehaving, say the same things they said in their speeches and help the Speaker try and control what happens in here. I hope the members who have said that in their speeches

will also go to their colleagues. I think it would be very helpful if they did that.

The member for Timiskaming-Cochrane.

Mr Ramsay: I'd like to go back to the Minister of Natural Resources and ask him about this dirty little land deal up at the Adams mine that he

was trying to pull off before I called his office in early April. Both you and the deputy minister have said there would be a 60-day review. According to the Deputy Premier, she stated that shortly

you would be giving us the details of that. Yesterday you stated that the MNR staff had looked at this deal in 1998.

Minister, I have confirmed today that the parcel of land you referred to was almost half the size of the piece that we're talking about today. Now Mr

Cortellucci, your biggest donor, wants almost twice as much land as was originally contemplated in the Adams mine dump proposal EA. Why are you prepared to sell Mr Cortellucci almost twice the land

that was considered back in 1998, that was really necessary to facilitate this project?

Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): The only thing dirty about this deal is the way the opposition is trying to present it

in the Legislature.

Quite frankly, this went through an entire process in 1998, and it is the district manager's decision in this. What this member is trying to do is have the

politicians get involved and make decisions and circumvent the process, and we will refuse to do that. Very clearly this land that he is speaking about contains the monitoring stations, the dams,

the holding ponds and buildings that were part of the original mining lease when this took place.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, it's twice the size that was contemplated and discussed in the EA. The reason it's dirty is because there's no

transparency of this. You didn't tell anybody about it until we discovered it, and then you decided to slap on the 60-day review. That's what happened. I've checked with the First Nations bands,

both the Nishnawbe and the Matachewan, and as of yet your office has not consulted with them.

Also, three weeks ago, your Kirkland Lake district manager received a counter-offer that offered 36% more money for that land in question, and yet we haven't

had any response as to what you're doing and who you're talking to. There's been no response to that or with whom you're discussing and consulting about this. We don't know what the status of that

counter-offer is.

Minister, can you assure me today that you are not prepared any longer to sell this land to your biggest contributor, Mr Cortellucci?

Hon Mr Ouellette: What I can assure is that we receive thousands of requests for lands on an annual basis at the Ministry of Natural

Resources. Each and every single one of those is determined on the unique and individual merits of the case. We will ensure that the proper process is complied with within the Ministry of Natural

Resources.

VISITORS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Before I start my question I would just like to point out that my son's class from Bracebridge and

Muskoka Lake Secondary School is in the west gallery with their teacher, Alf Cowling. Now that I've significantly embarrassed my son, I'll go on with my question.

Interjection.

Mr Miller: He's in the third row. Stand up, Stuart.

MARS DISCOVERY DISTRICT

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation. Minister, it is my

understanding that you recently participated in the groundbreaking ceremony for the MARS Discovery District. Can you please tell the House how much money has been committed to this project and what

the money will be used for?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): I'd like to thank the member for Parry-Sound Muskoka for the question

about a project that is really visionary for Ontario.

The MARS project is about medical and related sciences. That's where the acronym comes from. The primary location in Ontario is at the corner of College Street

and University Avenue in Toronto. We had the initial groundbreaking just recently in co-operation with the federal government and the private sector. It's symbolically located: it's about the life

sciences, research and development, the participation of our university sector -- the University of Toronto campus right here; the government of Ontario right here at Queen's Park as a facilitator;

the financial services sector in Toronto; and, of course, the five teaching hospitals at the University of Toronto. It will have fabulous benefits for us, not only in terms of treatment, but in

terms of providing challenges for our young people in the life sciences right here in Ontario.

Mr Miller: It is clear that this government is committed to investing in science, technology and innovation. The MARS Discovery District is a

great example of that. The discoveries and innovations that come out of such clusters around the province are improving the quality of life for all Ontarians. I am glad to hear this government is

supporting such an important project.

I understand that you have made a number of funding announcements since the House last sat. Can you please bring us up to date on these new funding initiatives

and what the money will be used for?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The biotech strategy isn't just about Toronto. It's about all of Ontario; it's about all our great universities in the

province. There was more than $30 million announced by Premier Eves last year as part of our biotech strategy for our universities, from the University of Ottawa right to the University of Windsor.

This is a tremendous cluster of innovation for Ontario, forward-looking over the next five, 10, 15 years.

In addition, we have invested $70.8 million to support the research infrastructure of 109 projects at our universities across the province; $22.2 million for

the UK-Canadian consortium for structural genomics research; a Connect Ontario program -- I know the members opposite are interested in this -- $55 million that brings high-speed telecommunication

to northern and rural communities in Ontario. This is the great leveller, when we're able to connect across the province of Ontario, in northern and rural areas in particular.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Mr Speaker, is the Minister of Finance in the House? I see her briefing book is still here.

I'd pose the question to the Deputy Premier, but she seems to have split as well. Oh, she's back.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. To the member, it's not helpful. Member, take your seat. It's not helpful when we do that. It's pretty

tough to keep order in the House when you do things like that. All members go in and out, on all sides. We have occasion to have to go in and out. The ministers sit here. There's no need to start

off with that. It just gets everything going.

The member may ask the question now.

Mr Smitherman: Mr Speaker, I apologize. I did not mean the word "split" to be inflammatory, and I sincerely apologize. I do apologize for

that.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm right here. I don't know how the member

opposite didn't see me, but I've been in the House.

The Speaker: Thank you. It's not a point of order.

The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale.

Mr Smitherman: My question is to the Minister of Finance and it concerns the state of automobile insurance in this province. I want to talk

about some numbers. Today is the seventh anniversary of the introduction by the former finance minister of the Automobile Insurance Rate Stability Act. In the last quarter, the automobile insurers

in Ontario have sought and received approvals for average increases of 19.2%. Seven months ago this House passed Bill 198, with regulations to follow, which promised some rate stability. Yet last

week you yanked those very same regulations from the cabinet agenda, and we find that this week those regulations are being trotted around the province of Ontario and focus-grouped to consumers in

an attempt to get fraud centred out as the reason for rate increases in Ontario.

So I ask this question to the Minister of Finance: Madam Minister, on the issue of automobile insurance, when will you stop hitting the snooze button and bring

forward changes that will offer some protection to Ontario's hard-hit automobile insurance consumers?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): To the honourable member, first of all, again this seems to be the day to challenge Liberals and their

facts. It has not been pulled from cabinet. Good heavens.

Secondly, we passed legislation last year that laid out a legislative framework to improve the auto insurance system to make sure we could help to stabilize

rates and provide benefits for consumers, and also try to fight the fraud and abuse that had slipped back into the system. We were very clear that the second step needed to be regulations. I don't

know where the honourable member was, but we released those regulations publicly because we were interested in good consultation and feedback from all the different groups. I don't recall getting a

submission from the honourable member about how we could make those regulations better. I'd certainly welcome that advice. We've worked with health care practitioners, lawyers, advocates on behalf

of consumers, consumer groups and insurance groups to make sure those regulations will do that job consumers need to have done.

Mr Smitherman: Madam Minister, you may think that consultation and feedback are some acceptable strategy when action is required, but they are

not. The evidence is in that Ontario's automobile insurance consumers are being hard hit.

Stand in your place today and commit to a firm date, and then explain to us how it's appropriate, when automobile insurance is in a time of crisis in our

province, that it takes you eight months to bring forward regulations that are acceptable and have the effect of offering some protection to consumers who are being dropped by the day and are

seeing exorbitant rate increases. How long does it take to act in a time of crisis?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I distinctly recall that when we bring in legislation and we try and move that legislation through the House in a timely

fashion, the opposition's criticism is that we're doing it too fast, that we're not consulting. So I find his new-found concern to be a little bit insulting.

In the stage that we're at now, as the honourable member well knows, we have put forward regulations for consultation. I will take this as acceptance by the

honourable member. I'm sure he's had time to read those regulations. Health care providers have been working with us on it, insurance companies, advocates on behalf of consumers and consumers have

been working with this government to make sure those regulations indeed expand the rights of innocent victims to sue, expand the rights for children, provide treatment guidelines for better access

to care for consumers. I will take that --

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

AGRIBUSINESS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for my honourable friend the Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with

responsibilities for rural Ontario. A few minutes ago, the House was informed about the MARS project and how it will bring business, researchers and entrepreneurs together at a world-class centre

of excellence here in Toronto. This is great news, representing yet one more example of how the provincial government is creating a strong economic climate which supports job creation and

growth.

The members on this side of the House understand the enormous importance of Ontario's agribusiness sector and that agribusiness is the second-largest sector in

our provincial economy. My question to the minister is this: will the minister inform the House about the progress he's making in ensuring Ontario agribusiness continues to be a global leader?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member from Waterloo-Wellington for his question. His

constituents are well served by the honourable gentleman, who is tireless in his work on their behalf.

Through the OSTAR RED program, the Ernie Eves government continues to forge and support working partnerships across Ontario, capitalizing on new and innovative

opportunities for economic growth and leadership. The MARS Landing is an outstanding example of this type of partnership. MARS Landing brings together business, academics and government into a

centre of excellence in Guelph dedicated to turning scientific potential into reality. MARS and MARS Landing will be closely linked so that the project partners -- MARS, the University of Guelph,

the city of Guelph department of economic development and Ontario Agri-Food Technologies -- can combine agricultural research findings with innovations. This project will ensure rural Ontario

biotechnology businesses and researchers can effectively use information and commercialization opportunities for intellectual property rights, international trade, risk capital, financial

assistance, regulatory approvals and process, marketing and production.

VISITORS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Visiting us today -- they were here for question period -- were

students from Dundas school from my riding. I want to say that they're a very well educated group of people. They asked me if I knew the Sergeant at Arms, and when I told them that I sat next to

him in the Legislature, they were quite excited that I actually knew him. So they've done their homework, they know how this place works, and I want to welcome them here today.

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Administrator was pleased to

assent to a certain bill in his office.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): The following is the title of the bill to which His Honour did assent:

amend the Education Act and the Provincial Schools Negotiations Act / Projet de loi 28, Loi visant à régler le conflit de travail opposant l'Association des enseignantes et des

enseignants catholiques anglo-ontariens et le conseil scolaire de district appelé Toronto Catholic District School Board et modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation et la

Loi sur la

négociation collective dans les écoles provinciales.

VISITORS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: visiting us today from Thorold are Anne and Dominique Forgeron. I hope

others will join me in welcoming them to this, their Legislature.

PETITIONS

DIABETES TREATMENT

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas type 1 diabetes is a life-altering condition and is the leading cause of blindness, amputation, kidney failure and heart disease in Ontario;

"Whereas research has proven that an insulin pump not only prevents complications but also reverses it by putting a regular amount of insulin into the

body;

"Whereas the cost of an insulin pump prevents most Ontarians from using it;

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

"To provide funding for the cost of an insulin pump and ongoing supplies so that the citizens of Ontario who require this treatment can benefit."

I'm pleased to join the dozens of my constituents who have signed this petition.

ITER FUSION PROJECT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham, as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed ITER fusion research facility would result in 68,000 person-years of employment and an estimated $9.4 billion in foreign investment;

"Whereas ITER would bring international scientists and researchers to Canada and place our nation in the forefront of new developments in research and

technology;

"Whereas ITER is strongly supported by business, labour, educators, elected officials and citizens throughout" Ontario and "Durham region, the host

community;

"Whereas the province of Ontario has already recognized the economic importance of ITER to Canada and the world by committing $300 million to support the

Canadian ITER bid;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: that the Parliament of Ontario take the necessary steps

to strengthen the Canadian bid for the ITER research facility, including the commitment of more funds and other resources to support a successful Canadian bid; and that the province of Ontario ask

the federal government to show the leadership and commitment necessary for Canada to win the ITER bid."

I'm pleased to sign and support this very important initiative from the municipality of Clarington, including its leader, Mayor John Mutton.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): First, I'd like to thank Cheryl Frenette and those good folks at Hillside General Store at the top of

the hill in Laird township, at Pumpkin Point Road, for getting these signatures for us.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has mismanaged the electricity policy of the province of Ontario;

"Whereas last fall the McGuinty Liberal call for rebates, although fiercely rejected by the government, gained huge public support. With no options open, the

government introduced and passed a plan to rebate $75 to customers and place a cap on electricity commodity prices at 0.043 per kilowatt hour;

"Whereas Mike Brown, MPP, has been fighting for rural rate assistance;

"Whereas the Ernie Eves government forces Great Lakes Power customers to pay into a fund for rural rate assistance; and

"Whereas rural rate assistance would reduce the distribution bills for customers by hundreds of dollars each year;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, support the efforts of Mike Brown, MPP, to have rural rate assistance extended to the Great Lakes Power service area

immediately."

I agree with my constituents. The ones who signed these petitions are mostly from Echo Bay, Desbarats, Bruce Mines and from St Joseph Island.

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 the 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 imposed liability on the owner of a vehicle that fails to stop for a school bus that has its overhead red signal lights flashing; and

"We ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

This is signed by a number of residents from Cottam and Leamington, and I, too, have signed the petition.

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I'm pleased to present this petition, signed by 2,300 Wilfrid Laurier graduate

students and the Canadian Federation of Students. It's to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas operating grants per capita for universities in Ontario are now at the lowest of any province in Canada; and

"Whereas average tuition fees in Ontario are the second-highest in Canada; and

"Whereas average undergraduate tuition fees in Ontario have more than doubled in the past 10 years; and

"Whereas tuition fees for deregulated programs have, in certain cases, doubled and tripled; and

"Whereas Statistics Canada has documented a link between increasing tuition fees and diminishing access to post-secondary education; and

"Whereas four other provincial governments have taken a leadership role by freezing and reducing tuition fees;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

"Freeze tuition fees for all programs at their current levels, and

"Restore government funding to public education, and

"Take steps to reduce the tuition fees of all graduate programs, post-diploma programs and professional programs for which tuition fees have been deregulated

since 1998."

Since this is my alma mater, I'm pleased to sign it.

RIGHTS INFORMATION FOR CHILDREN

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

"Whereas the availability of rights information for children under provincial care is legislated under

section 108 of the Child and Family Services Act;

and

"Whereas the child advocate testified at the inquest into the death of Stephanie Jobin that the Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services has

prevented the office from publishing rights information for the past three years; and

"Whereas seven children have died in the care of this government; and

"Whereas the Office of the Child Advocate would indicate that prior to this government, the last questionable death in care was in 1977;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act immediately to permit the Office of the Child Advocate to publish and distribute this

essential, legislated rights information for Ontario's children in care, as well as establish a Web site for the Office of the Child Advocate."

I will affix my signature to this petition because I am in full agreement.

HYDRO RATES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition that's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas electricity bills have skyrocketed under the Harris-Eves government's flawed electricity plan; and

"Whereas some consumers have signed higher fixed-rate contracts with retailers, without adequate consumer protections; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has failed to address electricity supply shortages in Ontario, forcing the purchase of American power at premium prices,

driving up prices still further; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government appointed a board of directors for Hydro One that has been paying themselves extravagant salaries, compensation packages

and severances for senior executives; and

"Whereas Hydro One bought 90 municipal utilities, serving about 240,000 people across Ontario, at premium prices and with borrowed funds. These purchases with

borrowed funds have increased Ontario's debt burden; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has added additional fees and taxes on to local electricity distribution companies. These charges have also been passed

along to consumers;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris-Eves government take immediate action to ensure that Ontarians have fair and

reasonable prices for the necessary commodity of electricity in Ontario and that the Harris-Eves government and its leader Ernie Eves call a general election on the instability of the energy market

so that Ontarians may have a voice on this issue."

This has been signed by about 25 individuals from my riding. I agree with it and I affix my signature to it, and I'm handing it over to Kaitlynne-Rae, one of

our pages.

TURKEY POINT BEACH

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I wish to present 400 signatures on this petition from the Turkey Point area. It's a petition

presented to our Minister of Natural Resources, Jerry Ouellette, at a meeting with key stakeholders yesterday. It's entitled "Clean Our Beaches.

"We, the undersigned occupants that reside at or visit Turkey Point for recreational purposes, have concerns that the beach in front of Ordnance Avenue, being

unsafe, dirty and a potential haven for E. coli, Lyme disease, West Nile virus etc -- a safe environment should be mandatory for families and children who want to enjoy the beach. To rectify the

situation, we the taxpayers demand safety above all and that our pristine public beaches be cleaned, weeds cut and manicured, and all forms of idle stinkponds be removed. Rocks should also be

considered, moved and relocated elsewhere, for public parking and walking safety. To rectify the situation, we the taxpayers that employ the MNR employees through hard-earned tax dollars would like

to see this matter acted on. If after years of these endless demands on deaf ears are not met, we as individual taxpayers will see to the necessary arrangement of cleanup as to offset any cost to

the government that represents we the taxpayers."

This petition concerning management of the beach-wetland area at Turkey Point is not in the required format, Speaker, but I wish to forward these views. I

affix my signature to it and I will convey it to the clerks' table by a page from my riding, Aja Sutton from south of Simcoe.

HOME CARE

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas well-managed and adequately funded home health care is a growing need in our community; and

"Whereas the provincial government has frozen community care access centre budgets, which has meant dramatic cuts to service agency funding and services to

vulnerable citizens, as well as shortened visits by front-line workers; and

"Whereas these dramatic cuts, combined with the increased complexity of care for those who do qualify for home care, has led to an impossible cost burden to

home care agencies; and

"Whereas the wages and benefits received by home care workers employed by home care agencies are well below the wages and benefits of workers doing comparable

jobs in institutional settings; and

"Whereas front-line staff are also required to subsidize the home care program in our community by being responsible for paying for their own gas and for

vehicle maintenance; and

"Whereas other CCACs and CCAC-funded agencies across the province compensate their staff between 29 cents and 42.7 cents per kilometre; and

"Whereas CCAC-funded agency staff in our own community are paid 26 cents a kilometre, with driving time considered as `hours worked';

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

"To act now to increase funding to the CCAC of Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington in order for it to adequately fund service agencies so they can fairly

compensate front-line workers."

I will sign my signature to this petition because I am in full agreement.

TRAFFIC TICKETS

REINSTATEMENT FEE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): This is a very short petition signed by about 80 individuals, and it states as follows:

"We, the undersigned, believe that the $100 reinstatement fee currently being charged by the Ministry of Transportation for forgetting to pay a traffic ticket

is an extremely unfair revenue grab which does not suit the offence. Furthermore, due to the fact that the courts may have a wrong address to send a warning letter to, we believe a

warning-of-intent letter giving an appropriate period to pay would better serve the purpose of having a ticket paid, opposed to the current `you're suspended' notice. We also note that under the

current system, a citizen could also face a criminal offence without knowing that they have been suspended."

I'd like to file this. I agree with it, and I'm handing it to our page, Sarah.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid 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 comparable in Saskatchewan back 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."

I affix my signature. I'm in agreement.

OPPOSITION DAY

INSURANCE

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I move that the Legislative Assembly directs the government of Ontario to correct their

failure to protect Ontario consumers who are experiencing skyrocketing automotive, home and commercial insurance rates, and who are having difficulty obtaining reasonable insurance coverage or are

being dropped as loyal customers, even in cases where there has been no change in their risk factors. It's addressed to the Premier.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): This is opposition day number 3. The Chair recognizes the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale.

Mr Smitherman: It's an honour for me to have the opportunity, on behalf of my party, to speak to this opposition day motion.

We bring this opposition day motion forward today in the names of hundreds of thousands of Ontario motorists, homeowners and business operators who have had

been experiencing extraordinary hardship in the provision of insurance in Ontario. Our objectives in bringing this issue forward are clear: it's our obligation as an opposition party to bring

forward issues and to force the government to act in areas where in the last long while they have demonstrated a severe unwillingness to do so. Their inaction in the face of a growing, mounting

crisis is a serious problem, and it is something we look forward to working very hard to address.

Our objectives with respect to insurance are very clear. Particularly with respect to automobile insurance, it's our obligation and our responsibility to

ensure that those who are injured have fair and rapid access to appropriate medical rehab services. We see the obligation to reduce and stabilize auto insurance premiums in Ontario and to enhance

access to automobile insurance through a move to a more competitive marketplace.

It's very clear that the Harris-Eves government has failed to fulfill its promises to reduce and stabilize auto insurance rates in Ontario. It is here, on the

seventh anniversary of the introduction by the now Premier of the automobile rate stability act, that we find ourselves in a debate when 19.2% is the average rate of increase for automobile

insurance in Ontario.

We say as well that the government has failed in its obligation to create a regulatory environment that will adequately protect loyal consumers who, through no

change in their own risk factors, have found themselves in difficult problems or being dropped by insurance carriers. This is a failure on the part of a government that likes to name bills in

populist ways but doesn't very much like to bring forward the necessary regulatory changes in a highly complex marketplace, one that is highly regulated, to make sure the protection of consumers is

at the foundation of the government's responsibility. Today we look across the way at a government that every single day seems more like a government with attention deficit disorder, a government

that seems unable, in a time of crisis, like the one that is facing people in the insurance marketplace in Ontario, to act in their interest and protect them against the problems you will hear

about.

Over the course of this afternoon nine Liberal MPPs will speak to you, and many of them will raise hardship cases, anecdotal circumstances that are backed up

by some of the following numbers. I'll put a few numbers on the record early on. Average individual increase in automobile insurance premiums in the last quarter -- many of these approvals given

already to insurance companies but with the message not having been received yet in the envelope at the homes of insurance consumers across Ontario -- 19.2%. Average individual increase in auto

insurance over the past four years: 40%. The Facility Association, the insurer of last resort, has in the last year or so gone from providing services, insurance, for 1.2% of Ontario's automobile

insured -- moved in little over one year from 1.2% of the marketplace to 3% of the marketplace. There's been a 500% increase -- a 500% increase -- in the cost of medical rehab services since 1991.

The medical rehab cost associated with automobile insurance accidents has risen from $308 million in 1991 to $1.5 billion -- $1.5 billion -- and still rising, an increase of some 500%.

We know as well that the automotive insurance industry has paid out more in premiums, not even including administrative costs -- they pay out $1.02 for every

dollar of premiums they take in.

So we ask ourselves, in the face of that kind of compelling information, what kind of action have we seen from our government? In answers, or non-answers, to

questions today, the Minister of Finance has acknowledged what? She's acknowledged that a government bill passed in December 2002. She has acknowledged as well that, notwithstanding her claims that

much conversation has gone on, no regulation has been brought forward to the cabinet in this province that will begin to offer some stabilization of rates. That inaction in the face of the crisis

that exists in the auto insurance and broader insurance marketplace in Ontario is a further example of the extent to which that minister, the Minister of Finance, keeps hitting the snooze button in

the hope that this issue will go away. Well, it's not going away. Today we take this opportunity to hold this government to account.

For those people who are watching at home, settle in for the next two hours and 25 minutes and you will hear and you will see the stories of you and your

family and your neighbours. You will hear from the government lots of repetition of the same words that are designed to give you comfort, but words that have failed you, because today is the

seventh anniversary of the introduction of a bill which had this laudatory explanation that went with it. In June 1996, Ernie Eves, the then Minister of Finance, introduced Bill 59,

An Act to

provide Ontario drivers with fair, balanced and stable automobile insurance and to make other amendments related to insurance matters.

Seven years to the day, the average rate of increase for automobile insurance in the province of Ontario in the last quarter: 19.2%. That is the record of the

government of the day. We call upon them to act in a way that will protect consumers and ensure that the Ontario insurance marketplace is a healthy one where competition is at the backbone of it

and that we have the benefit, as those who are seeking a compulsory service, of a competitive marketplace and services that are provided when we need them and at costs that are much more reasonable

than what we're seeing today.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I say at the outset I'm going to be splitting my time with the member from Sault Ste Marie.

It's a pleasure for me to participate in the debate. I want to begin by some comments that I heard made by Ralph Nader, who was on The Current about two weeks

ago. Ralph Nader was being interviewed by Anna Maria Tremonti about insurance rates. They were talking not only about Ontario, British Columbia and the problem that Premier Bernard Lord is facing

right now. Ralph Nader was very good and very clear. He said the following, "Increasing automobile insurance rates have absolutely nothing to do with higher payouts being made -- absolutely

nothing." He pointed out that in fact Canada does not have the kinds of multi-million-dollar awards to victims of auto insurance because in Canada the courts have imposed a cap on damages that are

awarded for pain and suffering. So he said that it is absolutely false for the insurance company or for anybody else to try and tell people in Canada that the reason their rates are increasing is

because of these high awards. They are capped and they don't resemble what's going on in the United States. That's not the reason.

He said on the show that if people are really interested in understanding why rates are increasing, they should look at the financial statements of some of

these insurance companies. If they would look at some of the financial statements, they would see that many of these companies have incurred losses by playing the stock market and that's the reason

that drivers are facing increasing auto insurance rates. These companies have suffered big financial losses because of what's happening in the economy and, in order to make up for some of those

losses, they're going to drivers in this and every other province and gouging them with high insurance rates. That's what is behind all of this. It was very interesting to hear him talk about that.

He actually gave some Web sites where you could go and see how poorly some of these companies were doing and then make some inquiries about how much money they were jacking up auto insurance rates.

All in all, it was a very entertaining interview between Ralph Nader and Anna Maria Tremonti.

I want to talk about a conversation I had with a local broker about two months ago. He asked me not to reveal his name because he was very concerned that if it

came out where I had gotten the information I had received, or if I talked about him in a public way, he could lose the contracts he has with some of his insurance companies. He provides contracts

for a number of companies, and he was very fearful about that. We had a very good conversation. He called me, as a broker, to express his concerns about high insurance rates and about how he, as a

broker, was being asked to apply, I guess I could describe them as insider rules, from insurance companies in order to weed out drivers that those companies didn't want to insure any more. He, as a

broker, called me to say, "I've got all kinds of clients I have dealt with for years whom I am now trying to weed out because the insurance company that I provide coverage for, whom I get a

commission from if I sell, is not interested in covering these drivers any more because they appear to be in a high-risk category." He was very concerned about people who are being cut off, people

who had been clients of his for a long time and he was being forced to weed out, or, if they weren't being weeded out, the very high insurance premiums they now were being forced to pay.

The situation as he described it goes like this: you've got insurance companies that are not following provincial rules, which state that they can't

discriminate against drivers who are seeking auto insurance. I guess in industry terms it's called the all-comers rule. The same companies are not following the rules which force insurers to take

on the business of drivers, those same drivers who actually fit the underwriting rules that insurance companies have filed with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. Instead, these

insurance companies are developing internal rules, or side rules, which they are not filing with the commission. But it's these very rules that are being used to determine who will be covered and

in fact who won't. Again, these are rules that are not being filed because, if they were, I'm sure the commission would be all over these insurance companies, telling them that it is

discrimination, that it's against the all-comers rule and it can't be applied.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): Give us the names of the companies.

Ms Martel: Stick with me, judge. Stick with me.

The insurance companies are then telling their brokers to use these rules, the insider rules, the internal rules, when they're dealing with drivers who want

auto insurance. They're to apply these rules to essentially weed out those drivers who perhaps are high-risk or who maybe had a claim last year, those same drivers the companies don't want to

provide coverage to any more. The result of these insider rules being applied by brokers is that many drivers are being forced into a high-risk class for insurance, so they're seeing their premiums

being driven up substantially. The other result is that they're being denied auto insurance from that broker and that company.

What was most interesting is that the broker I was dealing with told me that he was told very clearly by one of the companies that he provides insurance for

that their company was expecting a backlash from the public because so many drivers are being turned away from companies they've had insurance with for a long time, or they're being forced into a

high-risk category and are watching their insurance premiums increase substantially.

The judge wanted some names. The best I can give him, for starters, comes from the February 17, 2003, Thompson's World Insurance News. I'm going to read some

of this into the record because I thought it was very important and because Mr Sampson is quoted in here as well. I'll get to him. But the February 17, 2003, issue of Thompson's World Insurance

News has two articles that I'm going to reference. One is called, "Rule Is Ineffective, Dominion CEO Says." The second one is, "Take-all-comers Rule Posing a Growing Problem in Ontario."

Here's the first: "The take-all-comers rule in Ontario auto has forced insurers to act in an unfortunate but rational manner, Dominion CEO George Cooke

says.

Insurers struggling to avoid business they don't want, and can't afford, in the face of that rule have developed numerous tricks for doing so. As a result, a

rule intended to benefit consumers is having an opposite effect.

"He says this is further complicated by some companies who are believed to be scoring books of business. This is the process of using criteria, some of which

is not permitted by underwriting rules, to weed out less desirable risks." Isn't that an interesting way to describe drivers? "Weed out less desirable risks." Isn't that offensive? I find that

particularly offensive.

"The questionable data, such as credit risk, is not expressly used to non-renew risks, simply to pinpoint the ones that the company will encourage brokers to

place elsewhere for other reasons." Isn't that lovely, how they describe people as "less desirable risks"?

"But when other companies see that a lot of new applications from a broker were previously with the same carrier and the broker still has a contract with that

carrier, they are naturally suspicious."

"`I've actually heard people say that if company X, Y or Z is the prior carrier, they don't want it,'" "it" being the driver. This is the way the insurance

industry describes people.

I want to remind you that this is Dominion CEO George Cooke. "He added, `To be very blunt, when one of your competitors is doing that (allegedly scoring) --

particularly if you respect the competitor to be good at risk selection -- when they don't want them, in a tight market nobody else wants them either.'

"This is when other companies employ some of the avoidance tactics, such as extending the processing period until the business goes elsewhere." So you've got a

broker who has to bring the client in now,

whereas before they would probably provide a quote over the phone. No, now the broker brings the client in and asks them a series of questions -- and I'll

get to the questionnaire because I have a copy of that, too -- and then that broker sends that application form to the insurance company. What the insurance company is doing, of course, is delaying

dealing with the processing of the application form in the hopes that, if they delay long enough, the consumer who needs auto insurance is going to go somewhere else. That's how they weed out some

of the less desirable risks.

"Mr Cooke says he can't say with certainty that scoring is going on, `but I've talked to enough people that think it's going on, so chances are there is likely

some of it going on, so I would guess FSCO is pretty busy checking into it.'" That's his quote.

"In response to this" -- allegation -- "FSCO issued a bulletin last July" -- July 2000; Rob, you'll remember this -- "reminding companies to abide by the

underwriting rules they have filed with the commission," so telling them they have some kind of obligation -- I assume it's a legal one -- that they are to follow the rules they have filed with the

commission, which says they can't discriminate against people with respect to auto insurance.

"Mr Cooke says Dominion remains open for business for the time being and is taking its share of the business `that has to be taken,'" as if it's some kind of

onerous burden to provide auto insurance to people in Ontario.

"He says, `I think all of our brokers realize that there's an expectation that they'll engage in some front-line underwriting and that they will also be

prepared to, if you will, share the stuff that people don't want,'" -- "stuff" being high-risk drivers. Don't you find it offensive that CEOs would talk about drivers in this way? Stuff?

Undesirable element wasn't the word -- undesirable risk.

"`Increasingly, however, other markets are less willing to take their share,'" -- "share" being providing auto coverage for people who drive in the province --

"`and they're doing all kinds of creative things, I'm told -- making it very difficult for us.'" You bet it's creative. It's really creative when you have internal rules that you don't file with

the commission and you're using those internal rules or insider rules and telling brokers to apply them so you weed out bad clients and you don't have to provide insurance. No doubt they're being

very creative.

"He says the effort continues to get rid of the take-all-comers rule as it isn't necessary in a competitive marketplace with more than 100 companies. He

believes that interference in a market leads to the bad risks paying less than they should and good risks paying more."

That's the first article, which gave me quite a bit of comfort and assurance that in fact the broker I was dealing with knew exactly what he was talking about

and was absolutely correct in his concern related to me that they were being forced as brokers to try and weed out people to whom these companies didn't want to provide insurance.

Let me deal with the second article. Sorry, I know this is taking a while, but I think it's important to get this on the record. The second article, same

issue, February 17, 2003, Thompson's World Insurance News, says the following:

"Take-all-comers Rule Posing Growing Problem in Ontario.

"The struggle to control growth in the Ontario auto market has made the province's `take-all-comers' rule a growing problem for some insurers and brokers

there.

"It appears to be leading to more and more broker cancellations as companies scramble to avoid the prospect of being the last market in a broker's office,

Lanark Mutual general manager Jim Moffatt told Thompson's.

"The rule forces insurers to take any business that fits within the underwriting rules it has filed with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. Changing

those rules is a costly and bureaucratic process.

"The Insurance Bureau of Canada has been fighting to have the rule removed," -- fighting with this government -- "and expressed disappointment that the

provincial government's recent auto reforms didn't make that change.

"In a position paper on Ontario auto" -- insurance -- "last fall, the bureau stated: `The rule no longer serves a public policy purpose, given the development

of a specialized high-risk insurance market in recent years.'"

I think there is a reason to have a rule that says companies have to cover people, because if they didn't have that obligation -- and many of them wouldn't --

those people of course would be driving without insurance, paying incredible rates or being forced into the high-risk category.

"In lieu of a FSCO rule change filing, the best defence against unwanted business" -- if you don't want to provide business to a driver -- "is broker

cancellations, said Mr Moffatt. This is not an appealing option for a company like Lanark, located near Ottawa, that wants to support its brokers as much as possible. The $12-million mutual is now

the only option in a couple of its brokerages. As a result, its growth in auto business in 2002 is about 32%, up from the 1% it usually maintains.

"There are very few tools for refusing business," Mr Moffat said.

"`We're just asking brokers to try and put it somewhere else. Do what they can.'" Do what they can to put the business somewhere else; do what they can to get

rid of those undesirable drivers.

"Although cancelling brokers is the swiftest way to control incoming business, some insurers have found other ways to work around the take-all-comers rule.

"One broker, who preferred not to be named, said some companies are encouraging brokers to take business elsewhere -- even if it fits within their underwriting

rules.

"This encouragement comes with the threat of cancellation if brokers don't comply.

"`I'm surprised someone at the government hasn't stepped in here,' the broker said." So am I, and that's why I'm raising it here today. Maybe the government

will.

"Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario CEO Bob Carter said eliminating binding authority on anything but super clean business has been a popular tactic. In

this way, an insurer can take a long time reviewing any applications that are sent to it. The hope is that by the time the company responds, the broker and his customer will have gone elsewhere for

coverage." Isn't that great?

"Another stalling tactic has been to send an application back to the broker over minor technical issues, saying it isn't bound because it isn't complete.

"While these methods put unfair pressure on brokers, they ar