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

June 15, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Jun-15 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 15 June 2004 Mardi 15 juin 2004

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HALIBURTON FOREST

AND WILDLIFE RESERVE

SAM LAWRENCE

ANNIVERSARY OF GUYANESE INDEPENDENCE

RAIL OVERPASS

REBOUND YOUTH PROGRAM

RITSON ROAD ALLIANCE CHURCH

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH LONDON

COMMUNITY-BASED

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

FEDERAL ELECTION

ANNUAL REPORT,

INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTRICITY

RESTRUCTURING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA RESTRUCTURATION DU SECTEUR DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT (SUPPLEMENTAL NEWBORN SCREENING), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ (DÉPISTAGE COMPLÉMENTAIRE DES NOUVEAU-NÉ

S) MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

QUALITY OF LIFE

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

TORONTO POLICE SERVICE

WATER QUALITY

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

PETITIONS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

OPTOMETRISTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PROPERTY TAXATION

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PROPERTY TAXATION

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

ONTARIO BUDGET

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

FISH HATCHERY PROGRAM

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

WATER QUALITY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADAMS MINE LAKE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE LAC DE LA MINE ADAMS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I have a message from the Honourable Lieutenant Governor signed by his own

hand.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the

year ending 31 March 2005 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HALIBURTON FOREST

AND WILDLIFE RESERVE

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today to share news of an exciting new tourist attraction located in my riding. This past

Friday, the only passenger submarine operating in freshwater anywhere in the world was launched. Visitors to the Haliburton Forest and Wildlife Reserve can now take a submarine ride that takes them

70 feet below the surface of pristine MacDonald Lake.

MacDonald Lake is home to the Haliburton gold lake trout and Haliburton Forest and Wildlife Reserve. It offers visitors the unique opportunity to see the

abundance of fish and the intact ecosystem of the glacial lake. The lake trout have been isolated at MacDonald Lake and nearby watersheds for around 100,000 years.

Frequent visitors to the area will already know about the other attractions that are available at the wildlife reserve -- I'm sure the Chair of Management Board

will know this -- including a canopy walk, which takes visitors 70 feet above the forest floor through a stand of old-growth pine trees, dog sledding, a wolf exhibit, an observatory and a

planetarium. The canopy boardwalk is over half a kilometre long and winds through the treetops between two platforms suspended from the treetops above. There is a spectacular view across the lakes

and forests.

Tourism is important to the economy of this province, and very important to the economy of my riding. As we move into the summer tourist season, I want to wish

all the tourist operators a successful season and encourage members from all sides of the House to visit and enjoy the spectacular scenery and attractions like our new submarine.

SAM LAWRENCE

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's my privilege today to rise and pay tribute to the 70-year anniversary of the first CCF member elected to

the Ontario provincial Parliament, Sam Lawrence.

As members will know, Sam Lawrence was elected from the jurisdiction of Hamilton. He originally hailed from the country of England. He was a very active member

of the trade union movement and in fact joined the Masons back in England in 1897. In 1912 he moved to the city of Hamilton with his family and remained very strongly committed to the causes of

working people through his entire public life, which was quite extensive.

In 1922 he was elected initially to the city of Hamilton council and served there as a ward councillor, and then, many years afterwards, as a member of the board

of control. In 1934 he was elected to the Ontario Legislature, becoming the first CCF member at Queen's Park, and served as the leader of the CCF, of course, in that capacity.

He was president of the Stone Cutters' Union, spent 60 years as an active member of that union, and not only did he participate in the causes of working people

in the city of Hamilton, but he represented the interests of working people in Ontario as a CCF member. So it's my pleasure to recognize the 70th anniversary of his membership here at the

provincial Legislature.

ANNIVERSARY OF GUYANESE INDEPENDENCE

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): To the people of Ontario, on behalf of my constituents in Etobicoke North and beyond, I rise today in

commemoration of the anniversary of Guyana's independence and to let people know that there is a grand independence festival in Toronto this weekend.

It was on May 26, 38 years ago, that Guyana, the "land of the waters," achieved independence from the United Kingdom. Today it is a fellow member of the

Commonwealth and has enjoyed good diplomatic relations with Canada since 1964. Though it's located in South America, over half of its population is of South Asian ancestry. This fusion of cultures

has led to a distinct society that is renowned for its hospitality, festivals and energy.

This year, from June 18 to June 20, Toronto's Guyanese community will be holding its ninth annual independence day festival. The event holds the distinction of

being the largest annual gathering of the Guyanese community outside of Guyana itself. This year, the festival begins with a launch reception on Friday at 7 pm, and events will continue Saturday

and Sunday at the L'Amoreaux Community Recreation Centre.

I invite all my fellow members of Parliament and all the people of Ontario to celebrate Guyana's independence, to meet with Guyanese Canadians in their

constituencies and to exchange ideas about the future of both of these great members of the Commonwealth.

RAIL OVERPASS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise today to ask the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal to take the safety of the citizens of the town of

Ingersoll into consideration and allocate funding through the Canada-Ontario municipal-rural infrastructure fund toward the construction of a much-needed railway overpass.

The county of Oxford has met with the Minister of Finance and has sent a business plan to the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Public

Infrastructure Renewal outlining the risks to public safety and the need for provincial funding. This plan demonstrates the significant public safety risks caused by railroad tracks which run

directly through the town and sever traffic movement from one side of the town to the other.

These tracks carry over 40 trains a day and are often used to shunt cars back and forth. As a result, emergency service vehicles are frequently unable to cross

the town to provide services to the citizens on the other side of the tracks. The Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal's news release states that the Canada-Ontario municipal-rural

infrastructure fund is meant to address local priorities like local roads and bridges, as well as help address other health and safety priorities.

I urge Minister Caplan to include the town of Ingersoll in those health and safety priorities by funding the provincial portion of this overpass so that the

emergency service vehicles can serve all citizens of the town at any time of the day. I urge the minister to do this without delay and demonstrate his dedication to the safety of all the citizens

of Ontario. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Minister Caplan.

REBOUND YOUTH PROGRAM

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I'm pleased to rise today to speak about an important program in my riding that has been reaching out to

help troubled youth for two decades. Sarnia-Lambton Rebound is a volunteer-based, non-profit organization that has been supporting at-risk young people in my community since 1984.

Rebound provides programming for youth who are beginning to experience difficulties with their families, their schools or the law. For 20 years, Rebound has

helped over 10,000 young people to develop skills that promote a positive response to self, to others and to their community.

Rebound's success has been outstanding: 92% of youth who work with Rebound remain out of trouble with the law, and that's an amazing success rate. Rebound is

estimated to have saved the Ontario government more than $13.8 million by diverting youth away from the court system and on to better lives.

I'd like to take this opportunity to commend the large number of volunteers and staff at Rebound for their tremendous contribution to the community for over 20

years. They do us all a service by helping our young people to grow into better citizens and lead better and happier lives.

RITSON ROAD ALLIANCE CHURCH

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the Ritson Road Alliance Church in my riding of

Oshawa on 50 years of prayer, celebration and giving to our community.

The Ritson Road Alliance Church began as a group of individuals meeting in a tent to celebrate their faith, led by then Reverend Bill Newell. When the weather

became too cold, they moved indoors to a facility across town to continue their worship. The church finally constructed a permanent residence in 1970 at the corner of, yes, of course, Ritson Road

and Oshawa Boulevard, where the congregation still meets today.

The Ritson Road Alliance Church has a long history of community involvement, especially with children, youth and teens. Since the inception of the church in

1954, programs have been organized for the younger members of the community, such as children and teen camps, day camps during the summer, and most recently basketball camp for teens.

Pastor Al Nikkel, staff and the congregation of the Ritson Road Alliance Church are networking with other local churches in the community in the hope that

together they can provide bigger and better programs for the youth of Oshawa.

I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me and take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate the great efforts of the Ritson Road

Alliance Church for 50 years of giving to our community.

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH LONDON

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I rise today to honour one of London's longest-running community-based crime prevention programs. In June,

Neighbourhood Watch London will celebrate 21 years of continuous service. Starting in 1983 with a single watch established by a concerned citizen, it has grown to cover one third of London, with

over 450 watches serving more than 40,000 households.

Neighbourhood Watch has proven to be extremely successful. Over 76% of break-and-enters in London occur in an area where residents do not participate in that

program. Their success comes by sharing crime prevention techniques and by the constant vigilance of more than 10,000 volunteers.

Neighbourhood Watch continues to grow with the support of the city of London through base program budgets and fundraising initiatives such as HomeFinder.

HomeFinder is a highly reflective plate that attaches behind existing house address numbers and reflects emergency vehicle lights back to the street, making it easier to find addresses more quickly

in an emergency situation.

Working with the London Police Service and other community partners, Neighbourhood Watch is helping to make the neighbourhoods of London safer.

This government is committed to community justice programs, and we recently expanded youth justice committees in Toronto to help neighbourhoods deal more

effectively with low-risk young offenders.

Studies have shown that community-based crime prevention initiatives and court alternatives are successful in helping to create strong and safe communities. I

applaud Neighbourhood Watch London. I congratulate the program on its 21st anniversary.

COMMUNITY-BASED

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the health minister for investing in community mental

health services. One in five Ontarians experiences mental illness in their lifetime. As many as four in five Ontarians have a family member, friend or colleague who has experienced a mental illness

in their lifetime. I've learned that over 70% of Ontarians with moderate mental illness never receive help.

There have been 19 provincial government reports since 1988 that have recommended increases to the core budgets of community mental health services, yet the last

increase to the core budgets of community mental health services was in 1992.

Our government is fixing this serious deficiency. Increased funding to community health services will give Ontarians better access to quality care closer to

home. I'm particularly happy with the focus on prevention and intervention. This will provide greater support to families and caregivers, while relieving overload by expanding case management,

crisis response and taking action before things spiral out of control.

Bonnie Yagar of the Fair Share task force recently congratulated our government for our recent initiatives on mental health after years of little or no funding

in Peel for mental health.

It is critical that greater access be provided for people with moderate and severe mental illness. Yesterday's announcement gives me great hope that this will be

accomplished and I applaud the health minister and our government for this directive.

FEDERAL ELECTION

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Here we go again, déjà vu all over again: recycled Harris-Harper Reform-Conservatives pushing

reckless tax cuts and service cuts and private health care. Another part of their platform that particularly caught my eye is their plan to deal with municipalities, or rather, a plan not to deal

with cities.

Harris-Harper Reform-Conservatives look at the gas tax and see it as an easy way to buy themselves some votes. In essence, they plan to transfer part of the gas

tax to the province and then make up the lost revenue by eliminating the Canada strategic infrastructure program and the municipal-rural infrastructure program. What they propose is to give with

one hand and take with the other. This is a high-stakes game. The people of Ontario will see through this hidden agenda.

In contrast, the Liberal platform promotes a new deal for cities. The new deal is about transforming the relationship between levels of government and improving

the places Canadians call home. The key word here is "municipalities." It is clear which leader truly understands the values and goals of the citizens of Ontario. Mr Harper refuses to recognize or

invest in our cities.

I believe our Premier said it best when he said, "We need to have a respectful and productive partnership with the federal government, working together on behalf

of Ontarians, instead of squabbling with each other, at the expense of Ontarians."

I know we can work together on behalf of Ontarians come June 29. I only hope the next federal government has the best intentions of our provinces and our

communities in mind.

ANNUAL REPORT,

INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 2003 annual report of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTRICITY

RESTRUCTURING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA RESTRUCTURATION DU SECTEUR DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

Mr Duncan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 100,

An Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de

loi 100, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l'électricité, la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l'énergie de l'Ontario et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d'autres

lois.

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

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

All those against the motion, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 68; the nays are seven.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Duncan?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I will have a ministerial statement.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT (SUPPLEMENTAL NEWBORN SCREENING), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ (DÉPISTAGE COMPLÉMENTAIRE DES NOUVEAU-NÉ

S) Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 101,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act / Projet de loi 101, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

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

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): This bill would include, under the public insurance program, coverage for a condition that many infants

and children unknowingly suffer from, called medium chain dehydrogenase deficiency, which may be the cause of one out of 100 infant deaths thought to be related to SIDS. It is a piece of

legislation that is being strongly pushed for by many families around the province, including a family that has been touched by this in my constituency.

I should give credit: It was originally presented as a private member's bill by the now Minister of Energy, and I hope that it can get all-party support.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding

private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent to put forward the motion? Agreed.

Hon Mr Duncan: I move that pursuant to standing order 96(g), notice be waived for ballot item 28.

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

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from

6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, June 15, 2004, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Mr Duncan has moved government notice of motion number 132. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion

carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1402 to 1407.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Dunlop, Garfield

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Miller, Norm

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 56; the nays are 25.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): For the past 10 years, the people of this province have witnessed our

electricity system decline from being the envy of the world to a point where if we don't act quickly and prudently, we will find ourselves in very serious trouble. With this legislation, we begin

to unravel the mess that was left by the previous government, as witnessed in Bill 35. Of Ontario's present generation capacity of 30,000 megawatts, almost 18,000 megawatts are due for retirement

or refurbishment by 2020. During that period, peak demand is expected to grow by 400 megawatts per year. We find ourselves in this situation because previous governments failed to act prudently,

failed to act responsibly and sometimes just failed to act.

From its first days in office, the McGuinty government has made energy issues a top priority and has moved boldly to bring positive change where it was

desperately needed, but we have much to do to secure our energy future. This we know for certain: All else remaining constant, if Ontario's electricity system were left to continue on the course it

has followed, it would cease to serve us, cease to power our economy and cease to be the great enabler it has been for more than a century.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Member for Nepean-Carleton, I'd like you to be quiet so I can hear the minister.

Hon Mr Duncan: Therefore, it gives me great pride to stand in the House today to introduce the proposed Electricity Restructuring Act for

consideration by this assembly. Through this legislation, we are charting new ground in the history of Ontario's electricity sector. We are putting Ontario back on a solid footing by taking a

balanced approach that addresses the critical need for new supply, increased conservation, consumers' desire for price stability, the importance of public leadership and the need for private

investment.

Our plan includes a strong public leadership role, clear accountabilities and a coordinated planning approach to address the growing gap between electricity

supply and demand, in order to keep the lights on now and far into the future. Beyond all else, our proposed legislation will create stability in a sector that has been rocked far too often. It

would reorganize the institutional structure in a way that will best suit the people of Ontario over the long term.

Under our proposed legislation, the Ontario government would continue to set targets for conservation and electricity from renewable sources and set guidelines

for diversity of supply. However, responsibility for ensuring long-term supply adequacy, a mandate that no existing institution in Ontario's electricity sector now carries, would belong to a new

institution, the Ontario Power Authority. It will ensure that never again will we find ourselves in the predicament we're in today.

The power authority would assess adequacy and reliability of electricity resources and forecast future demand. It would also prepare an integrated system plan

for generation, transmission and conservation, to be reviewed by the Ontario Energy Board. In addition to its planning functions, the power authority would have the power to procure new supply and

demand management initiatives, either by competition or by contract. When necessary, it would use a competitive and transparent procurement process which would foster innovative and creative

approaches to meeting our supply needs.

It's crucial that private investors be allowed to enter Ontario and support the construction of the thousands of megawatts of electricity that we need to build

over the next 15 years. We must send a clear and unambiguous message that Ontario's electricity sector is a great place in which to invest.

Having a fully functioning electricity sector is not only about generating raw power. To that end, the power authority would establish a conservation bureau,

headed by a chief energy conservation officer, to provide leadership in planning and coordination of electricity conservation and demand management measures that will help consumers save energy and

money. This would be the first time for this type of initiative in Ontario. The conservation bureau would help us build a true conservation culture, which, as the Premier has clearly stated, must

be a cornerstone of Ontario's long-term energy future.

Under the proposed legislation, the wholesale electricity market would continue to operate but there would be several changes in the oversight mechanisms. The

Independent Electricity Market Operator, or IMO, would be renamed the Independent Electricity System Operator, or IESO. It would continue to operate the wholesale market and be responsible for the

operation and reliability of the power system. Responsibility for the market surveillance panel would be transferred from the IMO to the Ontario Energy Board. The Ontario Energy Board already has

oversight powers to guard against abuse of market power. The transfer of the market surveillance panel to the board is consistent with the board's consumer protection responsibilities and will

consolidate and strengthen this mandate.

Under the proposed legislation, the Ontario Energy Board would continue to have a strong role in protecting consumers through licensing and rate regulation,

and would ensure economic efficiency, cost-effectiveness and financial viability of the elements of Ontario's electricity system.

With regard to electricity rates, the board would approve an annual rate plan for low-volume and other small consumers, who would pay a blended price based on

regulated, contract and forecasted competitive prices. This would ensure that prices to consumers are fair, stable and predictable and that those who use power will pay its true price.

Under the proposed legislation, consumers who do not wish to participate in the regulated rate plan would have other options, such as purchasing their

electricity from energy retailers.

Medium and large businesses would continue to have the flexibility to pay the market price for electricity, or could use energy retailers or financial hedging

instruments to manage energy costs.

There is no doubt that this legislation is very complex. In addition, there are many technical regulations that will need careful and thorough attention

because they will have far-reaching implications for our citizens and our economy.

Accordingly, this bill will be subject to extensive consultation and input over the summer in order to ensure we get it right, and to ensure that changes are

made in the best interests of Ontarians.

We know we will need the ongoing benefit of the ideas, expertise and dedication of those in the electricity sector to meet the challenges that face us. We also

invite all citizens to bring us their ideas and concerns at those hearings.

If we work together, we can build an Ontario that has an electricity supply that is the envy of our competitors and a magnet for investors. If we work

together, we can make up for over a decade lost in Ontario's electricity sector and ensure Ontario's prosperity for decades to come.

The proposed legislation is a start. By ensuring a reliable, sustainable and diverse supply of power at stable, competitive prices, and creating a conservation

culture, we are delivering the real, positive change that Ontarians need and deserve.

The Speaker: Responses?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I want to first say that I attended the minister's announcement just a short time ago in the press gallery, and it

really is important that I stand here today and recognize former ministers John Baird and Jim Wilson.

There's absolutely nothing new in this bill. In fact, it's a reannouncement of what I heard on April 15 at the Empire Club. Really, the only things you've

added here are two new layers of bureaucracy, and how you're going to pay for that on top of that is going to be in the bill. At the end of the day, this is about raising the cost of

electricity.

The new power authority you've announced replaces the IMO, which has been doing the planning and implementation. No one here on this side would disagree with

the conservation authority you're announcing. The only issue is, you've cancelled the tax credits in your last budget that we had already implemented on energy-efficient appliances.

Minister, you've got to know that you're running out of time. The clock is ticking. While you're eliminating 25% of the generating capacity, what is the cost

to the taxpayers of Ontario? Ultimately, all of this is going to show up in your bill at your house.

The consumers of Ontario should be put on notice today by you and this government that you have no intention of keeping any promises. This is yet another

broken promise, because you are raising electricity prices.

Look at the objectives of our government. No one would disagree with sustainability, increased conservation and engaging the private sector; they're all

laudable. In fact, we support those initiatives. But there's a gaping hole in the generation part of the equation. You know that. In three years, this province could be plunged into darkness

because of your inaction. You've created more bureaucracy and not one new kilowatt of power.

Minister, you should know that your false commitment to shut down the five coal plants, which are laudable objectives, was hasty and reckless. You simply can't

remove 7,500 megawatts of generating capacity out of the system with no plan. How long is it going to take you to replace that lost generation capacity? The people of Ontario should be concerned,

because at the end of the day, you, the consumer of Ontario -- that's you and I -- are going to pay the price.

The minister isn't being truthful. In fact, I wonder if his own caucus is aware of the great risk. There has been much study done on this. Our previous

minister, John Baird, set up the generation-conservation-supply task force, an excellent report. There is the Manley report, the Epp report; you can go back to the Macdonald report. We've

studied.

Over the summer, I'm going to be watching and I'm going to be encouraging the consumers of Ontario -- the small businesses, the dairy farmers who know their

price for electricity is going to double. That's the warning shot that's been made here today.

Minister, you really have no plan except to create more bureaucracy and increase the price. Of course you can create more supply, but the issue remains, at

what price? You think you can provide natural gas as a short-term solution, but with all the information I've heard on the supply of natural gas or liquefied natural gas, the question remains for

all the experts, at what price?

Be straight with the people of Ontario and tell them your bill today really isn't the restructuring of electricity, it's the repricing of electricity. You have

to be straight with the people.

I can recall the debate on electricity. In the last several years, we've had several attempts -- when we were in government you encouraged and in fact voted

for the freezing of the rates. You know that the rate is the issue here.

All you've done is confuse the civil servants. The IMO is confused, the Ontario Energy Board is confused, and the new power authority is not sure what its

mandate is. You didn't answer the questions at the press conference today, and I expect over the next few weeks there will be more questions than answers. But I can assure the people of Ontario

there is one certainty: You can rest assured there is going to be less supply and higher prices, thanks to the inaction of the Liberal government and the broken promises.

Be truthful with the people of Ontario. In fact, the reason I voted for it is I do support conservation and I support stability in supply and confidence in the

customers. The Liberals have supplied none of the above. So over the next month or two, during the summer, I look forward to watching closely, and not just on behalf of the constituents in

Durham.

I was also surprised today, Minister, at how you openly criticized Ontario Hydro. You should be ashamed of what you announced today. It was nothing more than

two more levels of bureaucracy.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Now we know why all the accountants and the lawyers and the lobbyists on Bay Street have been rubbing

their hands and are almost absolutely giddy. The reason is because what they're going to get from the Liberals is the Mike Harris-Jim Wilson hydro privatization scheme. You should take a bow

because the grand imitators have just lifted your hydro scheme.

Oh, yes, there is some Liberal doublespeak around the edges to hide some of it, but at the end of the day this is about private power. This is about private

hydroelectricity. Private companies will want at least a 15% profit. Up goes the hydro bill. And they will want the Eleanor Clitheroe-style executive salaries: $2 million a year, $1 million in

bonuses, a $1-million-a-year pension, a $6-million severance payment, the expense accounts, the limousine and -- how can I forget? -- maybe even the yacht. Guess what, consumers of Ontario? That's

going to be on your hydro bill.

The private companies, if they are going to build a $1-billion generating station, will have to borrow the money. But when they go to borrow the money, they'll

pay at least 2%, perhaps 3% more in interest rates; $1 billion paid back over 20 years at a 2% higher interest rate. That's about $200 million. Guess what, consumers? That's going to go on your

hydro bill.

Then there's the doublespeak. While this is a private market, while this will be private purchases of electricity and therefore more expensive, to try to hide

it, the Liberals are going to create more bureaucracy. So now, not only will you have the Ontario Energy Board, but you will have something called the Independent Electricity System Operator and

the Ontario Power Authority, and these folks will all want to be on the gravy train as well. They will want the big salaries and the big executive offices. And guess what, consumers? You will pay

for that on your hydro bill. What the minister didn't say to consumers is, "Get ready for your hydro bill to go up again" -- yes -- and to go up significantly and increase on a year-over-year

basis.

I can tell the minister that private sector companies will only come here if they get the price they want, as you know and I know. For example, natural gas is

saying, "Hey, we want eight cents a kilowatt hour." That is significantly higher than what people are paying right now, and that's why their hydro bill will go up.

But there are some other things here that people need to understand. What we've had in Ontario, actually, is control over our electricity supply. What the

Liberals will now do is turn electricity into a completely tradable commodity, just like natural gas or oil. I've heard people say, "Gee, the oil comes from Canada and the natural gas comes from

Canada. Why do we have to pay the same high rate for natural gas that they're paying in Chicago?" The reason is that under the North American free trade agreement, oil and natural gas are tradable

commodities. We pay what they're willing to pay in Chicago.

The Liberals are now going to do the same to electricity. So electricity that's produced in Ontario will not necessarily belong to Ontarians any more. If

somebody in Chicago is prepared to pay much more for the electricity, that's where it goes, and we either have to pay the same price or we don't get it. People need to understand that. Liberals are

now turning our electricity system into a completely tradable commodity, and that will mean, down the road, that if we want to keep our own electricity, we have to be prepared to outbid New York or

Chicago or Detroit. The price of that will be very, very expensive, and it too will show up in the hydro bill.

You know, I was expecting an actual plan today, but we still don't have a plan. What the government is saying is, "We're going to create these new bureaucratic

bodies and perhaps they will create a plan." The timeline is growing shorter, yet instead of having a plan, we get more gobbledegook and more bureaucratic creations from this government. That means

that while these people wait, coal burns, and it means that while they wait, the electricity shortage problem grows more serious.

VISITORS

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am very pleased to acknowledge in the House the

presence of a very distinguished individual from India, Mr Sukhraj Singh Bajwa. He was the former session judge and Registrar General of the Rajasthan high court and was appointed as advocate of

the Supreme Court.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): That is not a point of order.

We have in the east gallery a former member, Murray Elston, the member for Huron-Bruce in the 32nd, 33rd, 34th and 35th Parliaments.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier, and I'm pleased to see that he brought his copy of the budget

with him today.

Yesterday in question period, the leader of the New Democratic Party asked the Premier very directly a question with respect to sewer and water pipes and the

health care premium, as it was then called -- now called a health care tax for reasons of convenience. The Premier certainly left the impression in his answer to that question that there was

nothing wrong with spending the health care premium on sewer and water pipes. Yet today, on his way into caucus, he said something totally different in a scrum, and on June 2 this year the Premier

said, "I'm Dalton McGuinty, and I want you to know that every penny of Ontario's new health care premium will go to health care."

Yet on page 44 of his budget it says, "To ensure that there will be funding, both for health care and for other health enhancing priorities, the government

will introduce proposed legislation to create the Ontario health premium to support a $2.4-billion increase in funding for the programs that contribute to healthier Ontarians this year."

That statement in the budget certainly leads one to believe that --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you. Premier?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm delighted to have this opportunity to demonstrate that the leader of

the official opposition and the leader of the third party are completely, absolutely and utterly wrong with respect to their

interpretation of what we're doing here.

On page 43 of the budget, it indicates that we're making an additional $2.2 billion, roughly speaking, by way of new investment in the Ministry of Health and

Long-Term Care. The premium this year is only going to generate $1.6 billion. Every penny that we generate by the new premium will be invested through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in

better quality health care for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is for the Premier. First you brought in your health tax -- broken promise -- that

has inflicted such punishment on working families and seniors in Ontario. Now they find out that that money is going into infrastructure projects and not just health care. The people of Ontario and

the people of my riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke don't equate infrastructure investment with health care. They equate health care with a visit to their family doctor or a medical procedure of

some kind or another.

Premier, your finance minister stated in the budget that, in short, every cent of this premium would be invested in health. You reiterated that commitment in

your radio ads. We now see that this is not the case. You performed a sleight of hand with the facts.

My question is this: How do you expect to restore faith in government -- in particular, your government -- when you treat the truth as if it were playdough to

mould and shape any way you see fit for your own political purposes?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The honourable member has a problem accepting the facts and reality. I'll repeat it. We're making an additional $2.2 billion

in investments through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care this fiscal year. The health care premium will generate $1.6 billion. Every single penny of that $1.6 billion of revenue generated

by the health care premium will be invested in better health care through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for the people of Ontario.

Mr Yakabuski: Mr Premier, your answer to the questions yesterday was quite different. Your answer to the questions admitted that money from

that health care tax was going into infrastructure programs. In light of this fact, would you at least do the right thing for the people of Ontario and order that those misleading ads be withdrawn

immediately?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again, the member doesn't want to allow the facts to get in the way of his particular story. But I will repeat it for the

sake of clarity and in order to drive it home once again: We're going to invest an additional $2.2 billion in health care through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care this year. The premium

will generate $1.6 billion. Every penny of that $1.6 billion will be invested in better quality health care for the people of Ontario through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is to the Premier. In Mike Harris and Ernie Eves's Ontario, debt went down, taxes went down,

and health care spending went up by $11 billion.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order.

Mr Baird: Elderly, frail seniors could visit a physiotherapist in Ontario and present their health card for health care services. Now, under a

Dalton McGuinty government, your health card is no good; you need your Amex card to get health care.

I want to ask the Premier directly: What should a frail, elderly senior do who has neither the money nor the Amex card to get physiotherapy services? What

should they do?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can understand why the honourable member would not like to cast his

mind back to what happened, but this former government added some $31 billion to the people's debt. He asked me what we're doing on behalf of seniors. I'd be delighted to tell him that.

One thing in particular is we're creating the opportunity for 100,000 more Ontario seniors to receive home care in their homes, so that they won't have to go

into a nursing home. We think that's a good investment on behalf of seniors in Ontario.

Mr Baird: The health care system that you demonized in opposition is now very close to being the law of the land in Ontario. Not since Oliver

North diverted funds from arms sales to the Contras have we seen such an outrageous diversion of funds from health care: in the form of chiropractic, in the form of physiotherapy, in the form of

optometry. You're diverting funds from health care for sewer pipes. It's outrageous and it's wrong.

I guess by your logic you could put health care money into roads because ambulances use roads. Where do you draw the line on this outrageous diversion of

funds? Will you now stand in your place and admit that it's a sham and that no one in the province believes you?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'll give him marks for creativity. He indulges in some wonderful fiction, but I think the people of Ontario are entitled to

the truth. I spoke to this matter a moment ago. I said specifically that when it comes to investment --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member from Erie-Lincoln and the member from Oak Ridges come to order.

Premier.

Hon Mr McGuinty: One of the additional benefits that we're providing to seniors through this, our first budget, is a significant investment,

close to half a billion dollars, in nursing homes. By way of that investment, we'll be hiring 2,000 additional staff, including 600 nurses. We'll ensure that a registered nurse is on duty on a 24/7

basis in our nursing homes.

We are guaranteeing that our parents and grandparents who find themselves in nursing homes will be getting at least two baths every single week. We're

increasing the comfort allowance for people who find themselves in our nursing homes by a 3% increase. Those are the kinds of investments that we are making through this budget in the interest of

Ontario seniors.

Mr Baird: I say to the Premier opposite, boy, it takes gall for you to talk about honesty and the truth. Right around the province of Ontario,

I'll put my credibility against yours any day of the week.

We've discovered this diversion of funds from health care to sewer pipes. You now stand in your place and you say that every penny from your new health tax

will go to health care. That's not what you said yesterday. I suppose you'll now pay for the sewer pipes out of the federal health transfer. By your logic, physiotherapy, chiropractic and optometry

are less important than sewer pipes. Premier, will you now join the official opposition? Will you now join the New Democratic Party? Will you now join a growing number of your own backbenchers

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Baird: -- and every single Liberal MP from the province of Ontario who is calling upon you to back down from these irresponsible and

reckless health cuts and restore these --

The Speaker: Order. Thank you.

Hon Mr McGuinty: Suddenly we have a newly converted member here with respect to championing health care. Let me tell you about the position

that he held as a proponent of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and their pre-budget submission, just so we know what it is that the members opposite would have had us do with respect to preparing

our first budget. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said that we should cut health care funding by almost $1 billion; we should cut education spending by $431 million; we should cut the Ministry of

the Environment by 25%; we should cut municipalities by 25% --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will be starting to name members, especially members in the front row of the government who have been shouting across and also

the member for Nepean-Carleton. We have to proceed during question period in an orderly manner.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, I asked you yesterday why, under your budget, sewer pipes were now being counted as a health

care service. At the time, you said, "The member opposite may not believe that safe and clean drinking water is a prerequisite to good health in Ontario, but I want to commit to him and to his

constituents that we will not apologize for doing" this. In other words, you defended your actions. Then this morning, when confronted by the press, you changed your story.

Premier, instead of changing your story from day to day, why don't you just admit that you made a mistake with your budget? You made a mistake in terms of

cutting optometry and chiropractors and physiotherapists, and you made a mistake in terms of trying to include sewer pipes as a health care service. You made a mistake. Withdraw it and start over

with something that is fair and actually does the job for health care.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Again, the $1.6-billion health care premium will be invested entirely in

the new $2.2-billion by way of expenditures in the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The balance, of course, will be coming. We put $1.6 billion into the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

Our total investment is $2.2 billion. We are short $600 million; we get that from the federal government. They are also giving us an additional $200 million and we are investing that in a way which

we think is appropriate and entirely proper on behalf of the people of Ontario. For example, we are spending $25 million on children's mental health services. We think that's related to health. We

are spending $42 million from the federal money on the Ontario drug benefit plan. We think that is connected to health. We are investing some $50 million in total in the Ministry of Training,

Colleges and Universities to train more doctors and more nurses. We think that is connected with health. Those are the things that we are doing on behalf of the people of Ontario through the

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care with our premiums and through the other money that we're receiving through the federal government.

Mr Hampton: You've still got a big problem, in that you are trying to count things like installing sewer pipes and water pipes and ads by the

Ministry of Tourism as health care services. Because when you go to page 70 of the budget, which lists your revenue, what is very clear is that you are getting $726 million in health transfers from

the federal government. Then you tack on the $1.635 billion you are taking from modest- and middle-income families through the health tax, and it works out to $2.361 billion, which you don't have,

$2.361 billion of actual health care spending, so you bring in $200 million of sewer and water pipe, and you try to call that health care spending, health care services. How many times do we have

to show it to you? Will you admit that you were wrong to cut chiropractic care, wrong to cut optometrist care, wrong to cut physiotherapy care and then include sewer pipes as part of health

care?

Hon Mr McGuinty: It's always a pleasure witnessing the vigour with which the member puts the question. Again, $1.6 billion generated by way of

the new health care premium will be invested through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

But I want to quote something that I know the honourable member will be interested in hearing, and that's a

section from Public Power: Practical Solutions for

Ontario, put out by Howard Hampton and the NDP. Practical solution number 12: "Get back to the job of helping people maintain their health in the first place, not just treating the sick." Our plan

includes protecting the quality of drinking water at source.

Mr Hampton: What the Premier doesn't understand is there's wide agreement that protecting water is important, but no one ever before has tried

to say that this is a health care service. No one is trying to say that this should come out of the health premium.

Here's your choice: Either you're taking $200 million that the federal government gave you for health care services and spending it on sewer and water pipe, or

you're taking $200 million out of the new health tax and spending it on sewer and water pipe. Either way, it's not a health care service now and not a health care service then. When are you going

to be clear with people?

It's wrong to cut the services of chiropractors, physiotherapists and optometrists, and then try to spruce up your budget by including almost $200 million of

sewer and water pipe and trying to call it a health care service.

Hon Mr McGuinty: The member finds himself hoist with his own petard. He's been found out. During the course of the election, he maintained

that a plan that included protecting the quality of drinking water at its source was integral to delivering good-quality health care.

And if he now doesn't remember his own platform, then I'll quote from Mr Justice Dennis O'Connor. Subsequent to the travesty that unfolded in the community of

Walkerton where seven died and 2,000 were made ill, he prepared a report that said the following: "Protecting source waters by introducing sewage treatment is one of the most important public

health measures ever devised."

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Stop the clock.

I'm going to ask the members again that they conduct themselves in a manner so we can have good decorum in the House. The fact is, the next time I'm going to

start naming people, because we don't seem to be proceeding in a manner that the House should be conducted.

I'm going to ask now to start the clock. New question from the third party.

ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier: Next week the Premier will be telling us that when he fixes some potholes it's a

health care expense because the ambulance happens to go down the road.

I want to ask you now about your fascination with Mike Harris's hydro privatization. You spent the election campaign telling people that you believed in public

power, that the market was dead, and what do we find out today? We find out today why all the lawyers, fee-takers and commission-takers on Bay Street are so happy: because what you've introduced or

reintroduced today is a full-scale program of privatized hydroelectricity. Can you tell me, Premier, when did public power and "The market is dead" during the election campaign become full-scale

privatization for Ontario Liberals?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Energy.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The member seems intent on hoisting himself on his petard yet again with this

question.

This is not about full-scale privatization. This is about undoing Bill 35, which left the people of this province and electricity consumers to the vagaries

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The member from Nepean-Carleton, I'm going to warn you. The next time I'll be naming you.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Duncan: It was a full-scale --

The Speaker: I would also warn the member from Simcoe-Grey.

Hon Mr Duncan: The members opposite don't want to face reality: no new supply; inadequate creation; inadequate going forward for the people of

Ontario. This government is moving in a prudent way to provide regulated power, to get in new supply, to address the crisis that was left for 14 years by that party and by that party. We're moving

prudently and decisively to ensure that Ontarians have a secure and affordable supply of electricity going forward.

Mr Hampton: Minister, let me take you back to the summer of 2002. You must remember that you voted for hydro privatization then. In the summer

of 2002 the spot market opens and people's hydro bills go through the roof. The only change you've made is that the Ontario Power Authority is going to be out there buying in the privatized market;

otherwise it's a completely privatized market. That much is clear. When the spot market takes off again, people's hydro bills, small business hydro bills and industrial hydro bills will skyrocket

once again.

Tell us, when did Liberal policy for hydroelectricity become the Mike Harris Conservative policy for hydroelectricity, which forced people's hydro bills

through the roof?

Hon Mr Duncan: The fact is, it never did. This is undoing the Harris-Eves policy. The member forgot to mention conservation. No wonder,

because his party cancelled all conservation measures when it was in power. This plan will provide price stability. Again that's something he ignored, because when his party was in power,

electricity prices went up 40% in three years.

Just last fall, the member said this government's initiatives would lead to a 20% to 30% increase in price. Do you know what has happened since our last bill?

The price has come down. You were wrong about that. That member, his party, his book, were wrong.

Our party is moving to protect consumers with a blended, regulated price that protects consumers large and small, will provide security to the sector and will

encourage new generation in Ontario, something that never happened under his government or the previous government. This policy will work.

Mr Hampton: I'm sure that as people open their hydro bill and see that it's higher than ever, they'll be happy to know that the Minister of

Energy for the Liberal government is telling them that the price is actually coming down. People can read their hydro bill, and the hydro bill is going up, Minister, no matter how much bombast you

bring to the House.

Here is the reality. Electricity is an essential service. It's something people need every day, and we all need it. What we saw from the spot market was that

it turns this essential service into a casino game, and you're adopting that casino game. Yes, you may put some bureaucracy around the edges, but this is hydro privatization.

You were the people who promised you were going to keep the hydro freeze. Now we see you adopting, lock, stock and barrel, the Conservative privatization

strategy. Can you tell us why you have broken yet another promise? Why are people going to continue to see their hydro bill go up, go up and go up?

Hon Mr Duncan: Their hydro bills went up 40% under the NDP. That's one thing we know for certain.

Talk about consistency. We found an advertisement for a book called Public Power: The Fight for Publicly Owned Electricity -- $21.95 at the time; I found it in

the dollar bin last week. In any event, what does the advertisement say?

"Hampton concludes this illuminating history with his own vision of a 21st century public power system that gradually reduces our dependence on coal and

nuclear power...." What does it go on to say? " ... and embraces private power initiatives that contribute to the public good." That member's all over the board.

What did he say in his book? "There will be important roles for the private sector to play in the future of our electricity sector." "I am not ideologically

opposed to private power any more than I'm opposed to private restaurants...." "Not sending consumers clear price signals discourages conservation." You raised prices 40%; you cancelled

conservation. You have a shameless record. We're going to fix your mess, and their mess.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for Premier McGuinty. The member you appointed as the Minister of Community Safety and

Correctional Services yesterday unfortunately told the media that the life of a Scarborough man fatally shot by police would probably have been spared if the police had instead used a Taser gun.

Minister Kwinter said, "It's unfortunate that the particular officers that were there were not equipped with Tasers, (because) that would have without question resulted in a different outcome."

With this comment, your honourable minister has jeopardized a criminal investigation. He has jeopardized the current special investigations unit investigation.

He has jeopardized potential civil action by the family. If that isn't enough, he has also second-guessed police, the very people he is supposed to be protecting as minister. And of course, he was

not there at the scene of the incident. Premier, in light of these examples of inexcusable interference by Minister Kwinter, should the minister continue in his job?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Yes, he should. Let me tell you that we have no stronger champion in

this Legislature, when it comes to our Ontario police and the sacrifices they make and the work they do day in and day out on behalf of the people of Ontario, than is to be found in our Minister of

Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Mr Dunlop: I'd like to refresh the Premier's memory on something. Back in 1998 you asked --

Interjection.

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I

am compelled as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to ask the member behind John Baird, Jim Wilson, to retract that statement.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I'm very pleased members are trying to get some decorum in here. If there was an unparliamentary word

the member said, I ask him to withdraw. I did not hear the word.

Member from Simcoe North.

Mr Dunlop: I think this is a very serious issue. I'd like to refresh the Premier's memory. Back in 1998 you asked for Bob Runciman's

resignation when the name of a mother of a young offender was mentioned in a throne speech. The mother had even consented to her name being used in that throne speech. Here's what you said about

this in the Ottawa Citizen on April 25, 1998: "This has turned from a question of competence to a question of integrity."

Bob Runciman did the honourable thing. He showed integrity and he stepped aside until his name was actually cleared. In light of the fact that Minister Kwinter

has commented on a case that is before the province's special investigations unit, will you ask Minister Kwinter to do what is honourable, to show integrity and resign?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Minister Kwinter has my full support.

ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question, of course, is also about hydroelectricity. I simply want to ask this question: Given

that hydro privatization was such a disaster under Mike Harris, that privatization and deregulation in California was such a disaster, why do you think that by simply taking the Conservative policy

and wrapping some red ribbons around it, hydro privatization and deregulation will suddenly be a success for you?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Energy.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The member opposite just doesn't get it. We are regulating the price of

electricity. We are using the base assets to manage that. We do need private investment in new supply to help us meet the demand we'll have for approximately 25,000 new megawatts of power in the

next 16 years. We have to have that.

The other thing the member wants to do is prevent the development of renewable electricity. All of that is happening in the private sector. It's happening on

small farms with biomass; it's happening on larger farms with wind; it's happening all over the world. This model not only rejects the California model, it makes sure it will never happen here in

Ontario. Unlike the member opposite, this party understands what went wrong there, and when you look at this legislation, you'll see that we reject the California model. We adopt an Ontario model

that will prevent a 40% increase in the price of electricity like we had under Mr Hampton's NDP government in the early 1990s.

Mr Hampton: This government obviously wants to try to take the debate anywhere but the debate on privatization. Public power does not rule out

energy efficiency; in fact, it accommodates it. It does not rule out alternative energy; in fact, it accommodates it.

I just want to point out to you: After California got in trouble with the privatization and deregulation move, what did they do? They created the California

Power Authority, but it hasn't brought power rates down. California is going to continue to pay those very high rates for many years.

So I ask the minister again, since you've adopted Mike Harris's hydro privatization scheme lock, stock and barrel -- yes, you've put a few red ribbons around

the side -- how do you think you can make this any more affordable than it was under the Conservatives when people's hydro bills skyrocketed? How do you plan to make hydro privatization look

different now?

Hon Mr Duncan: I'll try to explain it as simply as I can to the member opposite. Unlike California, we're regulating price and we're using our

hydroelectric and nuclear assets to do that. I would say to the member opposite, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance has endorsed our plan, the Consumers Council of Canada has endorsed our plan, and

Constellation NewEnergy has endorsed our plan. We have had letters of support from the Dominion Bond Rating Service Ltd. What do you have against them?

I'd also say to the member opposite, somebody who opposes our plan was Tom Adams. He was a full supporter of the previous government's plan.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): No, he wasn't.

Hon Mr Duncan: Oh, yes, he was. Let me tell you what he said. Here's what he said to the standing committee on resources development: "We are

strongly in favour" of Bill 35. "In our view, there is no serious alternative to Bill 35 as it applies to electricity."

I know that you're onside with him. He's opposed to our bill, because we're undoing Bill 35 and we're undoing the mess you left when you had the chance to fix

it.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): My question is for the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet. Minister, today the Information

and Privacy Commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, tabled her annual report. In the past, the Information and Privacy Commissioner has sharply criticized governments for failing to protect privacy and for

deliberately interfering with access to information. In fact, in one instance, the former government was found to have committed a prima facie contempt of the Legislature for impeding the work of

the commissioner. Protecting citizens' privacy as well as ensuring government's transparency are important issues to all Ontarians, and I would ask the minister what judgment has been borne with

respect to the conduct of our government by the Information and Privacy Commissioner over the last eight months.

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I might begin, on behalf of the Legislature, by thanking the commissioner for

her work. She's an officer of this Legislature, and she and her staff do fine work on our behalf in an important area.

I was pleased that the commissioner and her staff recognized some of the moves we've made as a new government to improve transparency and accountability while

protecting personal privacy. In her report, she points out, "The first throne speech from the new government brought a renewed commitment to open and accessible government with the creation of a

Democratic Renewal Secretariat." She goes on to point out, "One of the most important actions was the new Ontario government's introduction of the Health Information Protection Act." She also

points out that the government "acted quickly to return Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation to the list of institutions covered by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."

I was pleased that the commissioner recognized the initial moves we've made, and we will continue to improve the access to information and protection of

privacy.

Ms Broten: In the commissioner's report Privacy and Access: A Blueprint for Change, she raises a number of important privacy issues left

unresolved by the previous government and which need to be addressed by our government. For example, she calls for private sector privacy legislation, open meetings and reformation of the issues

management process. Minister, what is our government doing to address these important and outstanding privacy issues?

Hon Mr Phillips: Thank you again to the member from Etobicoke-Lakeshore. We, like everyone else, received this report just today. Obviously,

we'll want a chance to review her recommendations. I will say, though, that we are acting on a number of the areas. One of her recommendations is protection of privacy for private companies.

Minister Watson is looking at that and monitoring the performance in BC and Alberta.

As you know, we made some amendments to the Municipal Act to ensure that more open meetings take place in municipalities. We have established a Democratic

Renewal Secretariat. One of its key functions is to make sure that our government is transparent, accountable and open. The minister will continue to pursue that.

On behalf of the Legislature, we take seriously the recommendations she's made. We've already made some very significant steps, as she points out on page 1 of

her recommendations, and we will be following up on the recommendations she's got in this report.

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. You've tried to explain away the largest agricultural budget cut in

the history of the province of Ontario by saying the drop is due to the end of a few special programs, one being the funding to farmers affected by BSE, or mad cow disease. The money you promised

to the industry has yet to flow, and now the possibility of any future funds going directly to farmers has been written off.

Today, Alberta cattle farmers are complaining that the government funds allocated went to the processors rather than to front-line producers, one American

company reportedly receiving $33 million. Minister, will the Ontario farmers suffer the same as their Alberta counterparts and see the only money you allocate to BSE go to big industry? And how can

you accept the cut to your budget when you know the borders are still closed and the farmers are still in need of assistance?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I've never heard a question so much all over the board. Let's just deal with BSE. In

Ontario --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Does the member for Oxford need an answer?

Mr Hardeman: Yes, Speaker.

The Speaker: Then you should let me listen to the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon Steve Peters: I'd encourage the member, for starters, to sit down and review the detailed estimates that have been tabled today, because

some of the figures he's using are not accurate.

It's important to demonstrate as well that we have flowed over $92 million of Ontario money toward assisting the farmers of this province. As well, we signed

the agricultural policy framework in December 2003, about which your previous minister couldn't come to an agreement with the federal government. We were able to come to an agreement with the feds

and we have an agreement in place that has benefited farmers all across Canada, because with the signing on of Newfoundland and Labrador two weeks ago negative margins are now being covered. You

weren't able to achieve that. This government, because of a new spirit of co-operation with the federal government, was able to achieve that.

As well, we're going to be announcing funding in the very near future for the mature animal program, which is going to help increase slaughter capacity in this

province.

Mr Hardeman: Minister, you also stated that the agriculture budget cut is a result of the signing of the agricultural policy framework and the

money it will save the provincial government. Well, some farmers still have an issue with the way the CAIS program pays out safety net funding in their commodities. Farmers who grow grains and

oilseeds are concerned they will no longer have the market revenue program when it runs out. Fruit and vegetable growers worry about the self-directed risk management.

Minister, your election platform stated that these safety net companion programs would continue until new programs were developed, tested and proven. Will you,

in the face of this massive budget cut -- incidentally, 20% of your budget -- tell the farmers of Ontario that you will continue to fund these programs, as you promised? Would you make it a

straight answer -- it's not a convoluted question -- yes or no? Will you support Ontario farmers with the Ontario safety net programs that you promised?

Hon Mr Peters: Again, I encourage the member to review the detailed estimates because, for the first time in years in this province, we're

actually going to be putting capital dollars into assisting agricultural operations across Ontario, something your government didn't follow through on. We're going to come to the table with

nutrient management money.

As well, I'd encourage the honourable member to have a look at what Agricorp is doing right now. They have a working discussion document out there that is

looking at a price insurance model modelled on the Alberta program. Have a look at that. We'd very much welcome your comments on that. As well, I'd encourage the member to talk to the Ontario

Agricultural Commodity Council because we have been working and we are looking at trying to develop a replacement program for the market revenue program. We are looking toward developing a new

program for SDRM.

I would encourage the member to get out of his high seat here in the House, get out and start talking to farmers and realize how we are consulting, we are

working. We're going to make sure --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Health. You have stood in this House on several occasions and talked

about the need for accrediting foreign-trained doctors. You have written letters to me stating the same thing, that we need to accredit them, and you have said, quite rightly, that it is the

fastest, easiest way that we can get the 4,000 doctors we need in this province, because there are 4,000 of them here.

On May 26, Brad Sinclair from the Ontario International Medical Graduate Clearinghouse -- that's a mouthful -- was quoted in the Toronto Sun as stating, "Could

we do more? I suspect we could, but it's a question of resources and the actual capacity to assess these people." My question to you, Mr Minister, is, when are they going to get the resources so we

can get the doctors we need?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I find it interesting to hear questions about doctors from a representative of

the New Democratic Party, since the fact of the matter is that the biggest reason we have a doctor shortage in this province is the decision they made while they were in government to shut down the

production line for doctors.

But on the matter the member raises, which is about the assessment and training of international medical graduates, I first mention to the member that there

will be an announcement from our government next week. We have firmly committed to a further enhancement of our capacity to assess and train foreign-trained doctors. I think it's important to note

that doctors come to our land -- there's an estimate of 1,400 foreign-trained doctors in our province, not 4,000 -- from 1,500 different medical schools around the world. There is, across the

world, no common assessment that tells us, frankly, whether a doctor who has been produced at this school meets a standard that we would consider to be appropriate for Ontario.

But on the key point, I agree with the member that we need to enhance our capacity to assess and train foreign-trained doctors, and that's why we've committed

to do that in our government's budget, increasing the number to 200.

Mr Prue: On Saturday, June 12, just a couple of days ago, Jan Wong in the Globe and Mail wrote quite a brilliant little article, and I'd like

to quote some parts of it.

Number one: "Canada encourages people such as Dr. Zafar to immigrate. But then it erects licensing barriers that take years to overcome, if ever. Incredibly,

top scorers on the written exam aren't even guaranteed a spot in the subsequent round of clinical tests."

She goes on to say, "The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, once an obstacle to foreign doctors, is now urging expanded accreditation," and then goes

on to talk about how these people are so frustrated that they are taking the unusual step of a class action suit with a lawyer living in my riding, Ms Doobay, and says, "She thinks she'll win too.

In 2001, five foreign doctors, including two who staged hunger strikes, brought a similar complaint before the BC Council of Human Rights. In 2002, the council awarded compensation ranging from

$7,500 to more than $60,000."

My question is, is this the unusual step these doctors have to take to be accredited? Do they have to go to court, or are you going to change the laws?

Hon Mr Smitherman: The member opposite obviously has no understanding of the issue at hand. Change the laws? What would you wish me to do: in

the sweep of a hand say that anyone who presents and says, "Hey, I'm a foreign-trained doctor. Where do I get to practise in Ontario?" -- that's not the way it works. Regrettably, it's a complex

situation, because we have an obligation to ensure that these foreign-trained doctors are trained to a standard that all of us in Ontario would wish to see in our communities. So it is a little

more complex than the member presents.

The fact of the matter is that as a government, we're enormously committed to this because, like all members, we know people in our communities who have skills

and abilities that they want to put to work on behalf of Ontarians, and we want them to do that too. That's why we're moving forward, doubling the number of spots that are available for training

for international medical graduates to 200. This expansion is significant. This expansion comes at a significant fiscal cost, but on this file we know that we have more to do. That's why next week

we'll make an announcement at the Ontario International Medical Graduate Clearinghouse, which for the first time brings together all of those doctors in one place so that we can assess them against

one another and have the capacity to produce more of them in communities all across the province of Ontario.

QUALITY OF LIFE

Mr Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): My question is for the Minister of Finance. My Thornhill constituents have many concerns about the future of

our province. They are particularly concerned about their future quality of life for themselves and their children. Canada has always prided itself on the high quality of life that its citizens

have, something recognized by the United Nations. Our quality of life is determined by many things, including health, education, economic development and transportation. Mr Minister, what public

investments are we making to improve a family's quality of life in Ontario?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): Perhaps the best way to answer that is to make specific reference to my friend's riding, the riding of

Thornhill. I know it fairly well because I represented part of that area from 1987 to 1990.

Specifically in the community of Thornhill, as a result of the initiatives we've taken in the budget, I think my friend is going to see, immediately,

improvement in what goes on with the children who are in schools in that area. I think he knows the need for health care facilities right across York region and certainly in the city of Vaughan,

and that family health teams and perhaps a community health care centre may be located in that area.

Perhaps one of the biggest issues, the one that affects people every day, is that as we start to fund a new generation of public transit, the gridlock that

grips his community, my communities and so many of the GTA communities is going to start being relieved by very high-quality public transit.

Mr Racco: I agree that we must have good services to maintain a high quality of life in the province. However, we must also work toward

lowering our accumulated deficit, a debt left to us by the previous NDP and PC governments. It is my understanding that the interest alone is costing taxpayers approximately $11 billion, and if we

would use that $11 billion, we would build all the subways we need in the GTA. But we can't.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Just impose more health taxes.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The member from Niagara Centre, would you come to order, please.

Mr Racco: That $11 billion could have been spent to build subways all over the province of Ontario. Tell my constituents of Thornhill,

Minister, what we are doing to turn around our fiscal deficit that those two governments left us.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I'd be pleased to do that because I think it probably is the most significant theme in the budget that we presented a month

ago today in this House.

Given our financial circumstances, we have had to bring in a new revenue mechanism called the Ontario health premium. But equally important, we are putting

into place a constraint on expenditures which will permit us only to raise expenditures at a rate of 1.9%, on average, over the course of the next four years. The fact is that as our revenues and

as our economy strengthen, and we keep those tight controls on expenditures, we will get this province out of the deficit we inherited, we will end the deficit spiral and we will put Ontario back

into good, strong financial health.

That is the main message in the budget that we presented, and I thank my friend for the question.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. On March 31, 77 days ago

in this House in response to a question on the double-hatter firefighter issue, the minister said, "I have met with the professional firefighters and have told them that I would like to have

mediation. If we can't do that, then I'm going to bring forward legislation."

Apparently, the minister has been unable to successfully establish a mediation process which would protect double-hatters' right to volunteer in their home

communities. That being the case, why hasn't the minister introduced legislation, as he said he would 77 days ago?

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I thank the member for his question. I'm sure he knows that

municipalities have responsibility to provide an effective fire service for their citizens. We're also very mindful of the very valuable service that volunteers provide. Having said all of that, we

think it's important that municipalities work through the collective bargaining process, that they do it in conjunction with their fire chiefs, with the professional firefighters and with the

municipalities to come up with a resolution that will serve the people of Ontario in the most effective way.

Mr Arnott: In this House, on March 31, the minister led us to believe that he was sympathetic and somewhat supportive of double-hatter

firefighters. Now he has washed his hands of the issue. Action on this issue is needed immediately, before the House rises this summer. The minister must introduce legislation to protect

double-hatters. I continue to receive calls from fire chiefs and firefighters across the province, asking for protection for double-hatters. The fire marshal of Ontario has recently reconfirmed his

position, in a letter to me, that there needs to be legislation brought in to protect double-hatters. The minister's own policy adviser has written recently "that the number of two-hatters

currently being utilized throughout the province is continuing to decline at a significant rate."

My question is very simple. How many more double-hatters will be forced to resign because of union threats, and how many more rural communities will be made

less safe, before this government takes action to protect them?

Hon Mr Kwinter: The member has put forward two propositions. On the one hand he's saying, "How many double-hatters do we have to have before

it's an issue?" The other one is, "How can we keep communities safe?" They're not necessarily the same. I'm saying to you that my preference is that we work this out with the firefighters, with the

fire chiefs and with the municipalities. In the meantime, the fire marshal is there in his responsibility to make sure that no citizen in Ontario is put at risk because of the lack of fire

facilities.

TORONTO POLICE SERVICE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Premier. Premier, I continue to be very worried about what's happening on the

Toronto Police Services Board. I've asked you repeatedly, and your minister repeatedly, to bring in special legislation to have Norm Gardner removed from the Toronto Police Services Board. As you

know, it's in a crisis now, at a very critical time. Gardner cannot perform his duties because he has been suspended, yet he still refuses to resign. Now it appears that he spent taxpayers' money

in a lavish fashion. So I've decided, because your minister won't move on it, to introduce a Fire Norm Gardner Act. It will be special legislation allowing you to remove this obstacle to better

policing in this city. Premier, will you at least support my bill?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): No, I will not support the bill. The minister himself has spoken to this

time and time again. I agree entirely with the minister. We have a responsibility to respect due process. It is unfolding before us. It may not be as quickly as we desire, we may wish we had other

options, but the fact of the matter is, due process counts for something in this province and in this country, and we will wait for it to unfold.

Ms Churley: I have to remind you, Premier, that when you were sitting in the opposition benches, you didn't worry about due process when you

were calling on the then government to fire Eleanor Clitheroe from Hydro. Remember that? You can do the same thing here. It is your responsibility to be concerned about what's happening to the

people of Ontario and the Toronto Police Services Board at this time. You've simply got to stop washing your hands of this problem. The provincial government appointed Norm Gardner and you can

therefore pass legislation to fire him.

Premier, I can't tell you again how important this is right now, given what's going on in the Toronto Police Services Board. I know everybody's asking him to

resign, but he won't do it. It's a big problem. His appointment is not up until December. Members of the board walked out because they couldn't get their way. Remember that? They broke quorum. I'm

asking you again, will you support my bill to get rid of Norm Gardner so we can get the police services board in Toronto on track again?

Hon Mr McGuinty: It's really the kind of thing that the Attorney General should address, but there's something important about due process and

the law. If we decide that we're going to set it aside in this particular instance for this particular individual, where do we draw the line? I think it's important in this case, and each and every

case, that we respect due process and the law. That's what we're going to do.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday and today in this House, the leader of the

third party questioned why, in the 2004 budget paper on page 44, water and waste water projects are considered to be programs contributing to healthier Ontarians. The leader of the third party does

not seem to understand that programs and services that support healthier Ontarians are delivered through many ministries. Minister, can you please clarify for the benefit of the leader of the third

party why municipal water and waste water projects are considered to be part of the programs contributing to healthier Ontarians?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): It's a very important question and I'm happy to have this opportunity to share with the

members of this Legislature, the leader of the third party and the people of Ontario and to make very clear that I believe the Premier pointed out earlier today that keeping water safe to drink is

a broader determinant of health. The Premier's words are backed up time and again throughout this very important document that this government is committed to implementing: the recommendations from

Mr Justice O'Connor. Clearly --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order, the member for Toronto-Danforth.

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: Justice O'Connor made it very clear in his document that the distribution system is the final barrier before delivery to

the consumer's tap. Even when the water leaving the treatment plant is of the highest quality, if precautions are not taken, its quality can seriously deteriorate. In extreme cases, dangerous

contamination can occur. A well-maintained distribution system is a critical component of a safe drinking water system, and that is what we are committed to investing in for the people of

Ontario.

Mrs Mitchell: It is interesting that the Minister of the Environment has pointed us to Commissioner O'Connor's reference to the importance of

maintaining and upgrading water and waste water infrastructure to ensure our public's health. Does Commissioner O'Connor --

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'm going to warn the member for Toronto-Danforth. The next time I'll be naming you.

Mrs Mitchell: Minister, does Commissioner O'Connor make any reference to the province's responsibility to protect public health by funding

water and waste water projects?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: Justice O'Connor provided the government of Ontario and the people of Ontario with an excellent framework that I'm very

proud to say we are committed to implementing. In the O'Connor document, Commissioner O'Connor clearly indicates in recommendation 78 that, "The provincial government should ensure that programs

relating to the safety of drinking water are adequately funded." When we came to government, what we sadly came to understand was that the infrastructure in this province was in serious condition.

So obviously this government, because of our priority in ensuring that we provide safe water for the people in the province, wants to ensure that they have the resources they need to make sure that

happens.

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Yesterday in response to a question

from my colleague, you said you would be giving a 3% increase to the base funding of children's treatment centres. Certainly this is most welcome and appreciated. However, there is a need for

multi-year funding in order to allow the centres to better respond to the needs of the children with cerebral palsy, spina bifida and other disorders. Furthermore, KidsAbility in Waterloo has a

rapidly growing waiting list of children. It's presently at 900 children and will continue to grow. I'm asking you today, Minister, will you commit to multi-year funding and will you commit to

providing KidsAbility with the funding to meet the unique needs of a growing community with a waiting list of more than 900 children?

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I'd like to thank the member

opposite for the question, and all the members from the Kitchener-Waterloo area for bringing this issue to my attention. This 3% annual funding will be multi-year funding. We know the needs out

there for the treatment centres across the province.

As well, we will be giving $24 million in capital funding for treatment centres across the province. The specific centres that will be receiving this money,

that information, will come out in the weeks ahead.

PETITIONS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I have a petition, signed by several thousand residents of Burlington, to the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario.

"Whereas,

"Elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic will no longer be able to access the health care they

need;

"Those with reduced ability to pay -- including seniors, low-income families and the working poor -- will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family

physician offices and emergency departments" in hospitals;

"Elimination of OHIP coverage is expected to save $93 million in expenditures on chiropractic treatment at a cost to government of over $200 million in other

health care costs" as a result; and

"There was no consultation with the public on the decision to delist chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP

coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

This petition has my signature of support.

OPTOMETRISTS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the last funding agreement between the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ontario Association of Optometrists expired March 31, 2000;

and

"Whereas the optometric fees for OHIP-insured services remain unchanged since 1989; and

"Whereas the lack of any fee increase for 15 years has created a crisis situation for optometrists; and

"Whereas fees for OHIP services do not provide for fair or reasonable compensation for the professional services of optometrists in that they no longer cover

the costs of providing eye examinations; and

"Whereas it is in the best interests of patients and the government to have a new funding agreement for insured services that will ensure the most vulnerable

members of society are able to receive the eye care they need;

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

"That the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care resume negotiations immediately with the OAO and appoint a mediator to help with the negotiation process in

order to ensure that the optometrists can continue to provide quality eye care services to patients in Ontario."

This was sent to me by the Ontario Association of Optometrists. I agree with the petition, and I have affixed my signature to it.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition here that says:

"Whereas the citizens of Kent county and Chatham had no direct say in the creation of the municipality of Chatham-Kent in 1997; and

"Whereas the Ontario government, by regulation and legislation, forced the amalgamation in accordance with the Meyboom report against the will of the elected

local and county officials; and

"Whereas the municipality has not delivered the promised streamlined, more efficient and accountable local government, nor the provision of improved services

at reduced costs;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind the forced amalgamation order and

return our local municipal government to the citizens in a two-tier model of government to be approved by referendum by the electorate...."

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of the campground recreational vehicles coalition: Al Robinson, Roger

Faulkner, Gary Bruno, Melissa Cline and Brad Campkin. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas recreational trailers kept at parks and campgrounds in Ontario are being assessed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corp (MPAC) and are subject to

property taxes; and

"Whereas owners of these trailers are seasonal and occasional residents who contribute to the local" tourist "economy ... without requiring significant

municipal services; and

"Whereas the added burden of this taxation will make it impossible for many families of modest income to afford their holiday sites at parks and

campgrounds;

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

"That these seasonal trailers not be subject to retroactive taxation for the year 2003; and that the tax not be imposed in 2004; and that no such tax be

introduced without consultation with owners of the trailers, trailer parks, municipal governments, businesses, the tourism sector and other stakeholders."

I'm pleased to sign and endorse this on behalf of the thousands of people looking forward to summer holidays.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to table this petition on behalf of my constituents and residents who have asked me to do so. It

contains 1,700 signatures and is asking the government to consider supporting chiropractic services under the OHIP plan.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I have a petition here for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Re: support for chiropractic services in Ontario health insurance plan

"Whereas,

"Elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic will no longer be able to access the health care they

need;

"Those with reduced ability to pay -- including seniors, low-income families and the working poor -- will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family

physician offices and emergency departments;

"Elimination of OHIP coverage is expected to save $93 million in expenditures on chiropractic treatment at a cost to government of over $200 million in other

health care costs; and

"There was no consultation with the public on the decision to delist chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP

coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

I affix my signature here as well.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Because social assistance rates were slashed by 21.6% in 1995, and with the increase in the cost of living, that cut is worth about 34.4% today; and

"Because current social assistance rates do not allow recipients to meet their cost of living; and

"Because the people of Ontario deserve an adequate standard of living and are guaranteed such by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights; and

"Because the jury at the inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers recommended that social assistance rates be reviewed so that they reflect the actual costs

of living;

"We demand that the Ontario government immediately increase the shelter portion of Ontario Works and Ontario disability support program benefits to the average

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp rent levels and index social assistance to the cost of living."

I agree with the petitioners and I have signed the petition as well.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas recreational trailers kept at parks and campgrounds in Ontario are being assessed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corp (MPAC) and are subject to

property taxes; and

"Whereas owners of these trailers are seasonal and occasional residents who contribute to the local tourism economy without requiring significant municipal

services; and

"Whereas the added burden of this taxation will make it impossible for many families of modest income to afford their holiday sites at parks and

campgrounds;

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

"That these seasonal trailers not be subject to retroactive taxation for the year 2003; and that the tax not be imposed in 2004; and that no such tax be

introduced without consultation with owners of the trailers and trailer parks, municipal governments, businesses, the tourism sector and other stakeholders."

I'll affix my signature to this petition.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Re: support for chiropractic services in Ontario health insurance plan:

"Whereas,

"Elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic will no longer be able to access the health care they

need;

"Those with reduced ability to pay -- including seniors, low-income families and the working poor -- will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family

physician offices and emergency departments;

"Elimination of OHIP coverage is expected to save $93 million in expenditures on chiropractic treatment at a cost to government of over $200 million in other

health care costs; and

"There was no consultation with the public on the decision to delist chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP

coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

I agree and I've signed this petition.

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I have a petition I'd like to table today from some constituents in the riding of Oakville, where they call

upon the provincial government to not delist chiropractic services.

There are 220 signatures affixed.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Liberal government has announced in their budget that they are delisting key health services such as routine eye exams, chiropractic and

physiotherapy services,

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

"To reverse the delisting of eye exams, chiropractic and physiotherapy services and restore funding for these important and necessary services."

I sign my name in full support.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition from my constituents in Parry Sound-Muskoka and it reads:

"Taxpayer protection:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty government's 2004 budget will break the taxpayer protection law by not conducting a referendum on tax increases; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty signed an election pledge on September 11, 2003, not to raise taxes without the explicit consent of voters through a referendum;

and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty promised in TV ads not to raise taxes by one penny on working families; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty pledged in writing to obey the taxpayer protection law, which requires a referendum before increasing taxes;

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

"To ensure that all of the McGuinty government's tax increases are put before the people of Ontario in a referendum."

I support this petition and affix my signature to it.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I too have a petition supporting chiropractic services in Ontario.

"Whereas,

"Elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic will no longer be able to access the health care they

need;

"Those with reduced ability to pay -- including seniors, low-income families and the working poor -- will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family

physician offices and emergency departments;

"Elimination of OHIP coverage is expected to save $93 million in expenditures on chiropractic treatment at a cost to government of over $200 million in other

health care costs; and

"There was no consultation with the public on the decision to delist chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP

coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

I support this petition, and I've signed my name to it.

FISH HATCHERY PROGRAM

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources' provincial fish hatchery program annually stocks over 10 million fish into 1,200 water bodies within the province

of Ontario; and

"Whereas provincial fish hatcheries contain unique genetic strains of indigenous fish species; and

"Whereas recreational fishing is a multi-billion-dollar industry and a huge contributor to tourism and the economy throughout the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the world-class Great Lakes salmon fishery, as well as many local fisheries throughout the province, are dependent on the Ministry of Natural

Resources' fish stocking program;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario and the Minister of Natural Resources to refrain from any

cutbacks or cancellations to this provincially significant program."

I affix my name in support.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have received thousands of petitions to do with chiropractic services from my constituents in Parry

Sound-Muskoka. This reads:

"To: Legislative Assembly of Ontario

"Re: support for chiropractic services in Ontario health insurance plan:

"Whereas,

"Elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic will no longer be able to access the health care they

need;

"Those with reduced ability to pay -- including seniors, low-income families and the working poor -- will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family

physician offices and emergency departments;

"Elimination of OHIP coverage is expected to save $93 million in expenditures on chiropractic treatment at a cost to government of over $200 million in other

health care costs; and

"There was no consultation with the public on the decision to delist chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP

coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

I support this petition and sign it.

WATER QUALITY

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I have a petition concerning the new Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, Ontario regulation

170/03.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government is implementing regulation 170/03, and in doing so will affect town halls, churches and private property owners including small

businesses, local community centres and campgrounds; and

"Whereas meeting the requirements of regulation 170/03 has meant and will mean excessive costs and financial burdens for all drinking water system owners;

and

"Whereas there is no demonstrated proof that this new regulation will improve drinking water that has been and continues to be safe in rural municipalities;

and

"Whereas Ontario regulation 170/03 was passed without adequate consultation with stakeholders throughout Ontario; and

"Whereas stakeholders should have been consulted concerning the necessity, efficacy, economic, environmental and health impacts on rural Ontario;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario abandon the implementation of and immediately repeal regulation 170/03, as well as amending

the pertinent enabling legislation."

I support this petition, and I affix my name to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADAMS MINE LAKE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE LAC DE LA MINE ADAMS

Mrs Dombrowsky moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 49,

An Act to prevent the disposal of waste at the Adams Mine site and to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the disposal of waste in

lakes / Projet de loi 49, Loi visant à empêcher l'élimination de déchets à la mine Adams et à modifier la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement en ce qui

concerne l'élimination de déchets dans des lacs.

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'm delighted to have the opportunity to open third reading debate on what I consider to

be a very important piece of legislation. I would like to say at the beginning that I will be sharing this hour with my colleagues the member from Brampton Centre, the member from Etobicoke North,

the member from Prince Edward-Hastings and the member from Perth-Middlesex.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the progress of what I believe is an important piece of legislation. Bill 49, the Adams Mine Lake Act, will protect and

improve upon the high standard of living enjoyed by Ontarians. The Adams Mine Lake Act shows that the McGuinty government is serious in its commitment to protecting health and the quality of life

in our great province.

All Ontario residents deserve to live in safe, clean, livable communities. The Adams Mine Lake Act, which puts an end to the Adams mine landfill proposal, is

long overdue. Local residents have long voiced concerns about the project and its potential effects on their communities. They need to be able to get on with their lives, secure in the knowledge

that the proposed landfill has been stopped once and for all. We have listened to their concerns, and we have acted.

In just a few moments, I will speak about the actions we have taken. I will also update the Legislature on the contents of Bill 49 by outlining three

amendments that were made following the clause-by-clause review conducted by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly on June 3, 2004. But first, I want to remind honourable members of

the context for Bill 49.

On April 5, I announced a new waste diversion strategy for Ontario. The strategy included a commitment to release a discussion paper this spring that would

serve as the basis for public discussion of options to achieve Ontario's 60% diversion target. The strategy also promised the appointment of an expert panel to make recommendations on ways to

improve the environmental assessment process.

Ontario must improve upon its current 28% waste diversion rate. While we have made good progress, we are still sending more than nine million tonnes of waste

for disposal each year. This is material that is not being managed but is simply being deposited in our precious lands or in landfills beyond our jurisdiction. This is clearly an unacceptable

situation.

Earlier this month, I released a discussion paper on waste diversion. It will serve as the basis for a series of public forums we are holding across the

province, and the first one will be in Kingston on Friday. We want to hear from Ontarians about how we can meet the new waste diversion target.

One of our top priorities is improving diversion rates for organic materials. Organics are now a large part of the waste stream. Organics account for 38% of

municipal waste and 11% of industrial, commercial and institutional waste.

Clearly, any successful waste management strategy must include effective management of organics. Getting a handle on organics will take us a long way toward

meeting our diversion goals. We are seeking input on a number of questions related to organics, including a phased-in ban on these and other recyclable materials that find their way to landfills,

new means and technologies for collecting and processing organic material, and sustainable markets for products made from processed organic material.

The discussion paper also examines how to get a renewed commitment to waste diversion from the industrial, commercial and institutional sector. While we have

regulations in place that require source separation in some industrial and commercial sectors, there has been much more emphasis on the residential blue box program. We are proposing to review the

regulations that apply to the industrial and commercial sectors and enforce them more consistently. We also propose that the largest waste generators be required to publicly report their waste

diversion rates and to phase in public reporting of waste diversion rates by other waste generators on a sector-by-sector basis. We are consulting on the best ways of providing training to small

businesses to enable them to increase the amount of waste they divert.

New waste diversion technologies clearly must be a part of the solution. In the discussion paper, we raise the issue of streamlining the approvals process

under the Environmental Protection Act for such technologies. Reducing packaging and increasing the recycled content in products and packaging is another important opportunity. This is an important

opportunity to explore in those areas. We want to hear about how we can improve programs in this area by working with other levels of government.

Finally, as with all efforts aimed at protecting our land, air and water, we need strong public co-operation and participation if we are to succeed. I believe

that the people of the province of Ontario very much want that leadership. They want to participate, to protect our environment for future generations. The discussion paper outlines the need to

work with stakeholders to deliver effective public education on reducing, reusing and recycling.

Our approach to waste management also addresses some of the underlying issues that have been a source of uncertainty in Ontario's environmental assessment

process. I will shortly announce the membership of an expert advisory panel to identify ways to improve the environmental assessment process. We want to provide greater certainty and timeliness

while maintaining or enhancing environmental protection. As well, we have entered into a draft framework agreement with the federal government to coordinate the environmental assessments of

projects that are subject to both the provincial and federal processes.

The Adams Mine Lake Act gives us an opportunity to put an end to a project that is symbolic of the larger problems with waste management in Ontario. The

proposed legislation amends the Environmental Protection Act to prevent the use of lakes as landfills. For the purposes of Bill 49, a lake includes a body of surface water that results from human

activities, that directly influences or is influenced by groundwater, and that includes land that is covered by water on the date the proposed legislation comes into effect.

Bill 49 will revoke any approvals and permits related to the Adams mine project that were issued by the Ministry of the Environment prior to the effective date

of the legislation. It will also nullify any applications for permits under consideration by the ministry as of the date the legislation comes into effect. The legislation will extinguish any

agreements of purchase or any sale of the adjacent crown land that may have been entered into between the Ministry of Natural Resources and the owner of the Adams mine.

Any related legal action against the crown that may exist on the effective date of the legislation is extinguished by the legislation. It will also prevent any

further legal action being taken against the crown as a result of the legislation.

Bill 49 also outlines a plan to provide reasonable compensation for the owner of the Adams mine proposal. The bill also makes it clear that the Adams mine

property is not being expropriated. I believe this bill protects the environment and people of Ontario, while being fair to the owner of the Adams mine.

The health and well-being of the people of Ontario is our overriding concern. The local community has voiced concerns that they believe the Adams mine landfill

would contaminate their ground and surface water supplies.

For this government, the protection of our water resources is paramount. At the end of the day, we remain unconvinced that the Adams mine proposal can be

operated safely to protect the environment. We promised to address the situation, and we did. I believe Bill 49 gives Ontarians the confidence that their environment is being protected and that

their interests are being addressed by the government.

I would now like to bring the honourable members up to date on Bill 49's progress. Hearings on Bill 49 were held by the standing committee on the Legislative

Assembly on May 20 in Windsor and May 21 in Milton. A total of 18 presentations were made to the committee over those two days. I was happy to participate in that process. I spoke to the committee

in Windsor and participated in the clause-by-clause review on June 3.

As part of the review, I recommended three amendments to the Adams Mine Lake Act.

The first amendment allows Notre Development Corp to share in any compensation. Notre Development was the original owner of the Adams mine site. The amendment

also provides limited compensation for expenses incurred, but not paid, prior to first reading of Bill 49.

The second amendment simply rearranges material already in the bill for ease of understanding; the material is related to reasonable expenses for which

compensation will be paid.

The third amendment makes it clear that the primary focus of Bill 49 is the placement of waste in a lake. Without this change, the bill would have prohibited

the use of waste disposal sites on which there was a large pond for the management of storm water, or on which there was a lake that was in no way related to the waste management operation.

These amendments were accepted by the committee.

I think it's also important to note, for the members of this assembly, that there were no additional motions for amendments mad