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

June 5, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Jun-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 5 June 2002 Mercredi 5 juin 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ALEX MCCAULEY

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

PUBLIC SPEAKING CONTEST

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

CAMBRIDGE WORLD SENIOR WOMEN'S CURLING TEAM

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

OPSEU HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS

CANOE THE NONQUON

EDUCATION FUNDING

EVENTS IN NIPISSING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WORLD YOUTH DAY /

JOURNÉE MONDIALE DE LA JEUNESSE

GOLDEN JUBILEE OF

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

OTTAWA CONGRESS CENTRE

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

ONTARIO EXPORT INDUSTRY

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

AIR QUALITY

SPECIAL-NEEDS STUDENTS

LOGGING INDUSTRY

HEALTH AND SAFETY

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

VISITORS

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

LONG-TERM CARE

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

HYDRO ONE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

HYDRO ONE

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 135

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Wednesday 5 June 2002 Mercredi 5 juin 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ALEX MCCAULEY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): After 33 years of policing, our Sudbury police chief, Alex McCauley, is retiring. Alex started his career in

Copper Cliff in 1969 and joined our regional force in 1973.

Alex is a cop's cop. He learned his profession by living his profession. He worked in the uniform division, the criminal intelligence division, the traffic

division and the criminal investigations division. He learned his trade well. He became chief of the Sudbury Regional Police Service in 1994.

Chief McCauley does not shy away from tough stances. He seriously questions public safety issues that aren't in the best interests of the community he loves so

dearly. For example, he's not afraid to say he's opposed to the quota system instituted by the Correctional Service of Canada. He's a strong supporter of the JOEMAC committee, which is trying to

get Constable Joe MacDonald's killers back in maximum-security facilities.

Alex has immersed himself in our community over the years. He's the past chair of the Northern Cancer Research Foundation, a member of the board of directors of

Cambrian College and of the Sudbury Food Bank, and is honorary chair of the Countdown for Kids campaign in Sudbury.

At a retirement party we're going to have for him on Saturday, my community of Sudbury will be expressing its thanks to Chief McCauley for all his dedicated

service. The people I represent want to wish Alex and his wife, Piirko, well, and good health in their retirement. May his new challenges be marked with success as he continues in his quest to

serve the people of his community.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

PUBLIC SPEAKING CONTEST

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I rise today to acknowledge the hard work and achievement of two young fellows on garnering

provincial honours at the Royal Canadian Legion poster, literary and public speaking contests. These two boys, 10-year-old Adrian D'Alimonte and grade 8 student Reid Karges, may be small in stature

and young in age, but they're on their way to becoming literary giants.

Adrian D'Alimonte's poem, reflecting on the importance of Remembrance Day and acknowledging the sacrifices made by Canadian soldiers, captured the imagination of

judges at local, regional and provincial levels. D'Alimonte placed first in three successive divisional contests before taking home top honours at the province-wide competition. The Seneca Central

student says he thought of his great-grandfather, a former soldier, as he spent a week composing and editing his first-place poem.

As I mentioned, our area was lucky to have not one but two provincial winners. Reid Karges of Walsh public school spoke on the complications and peculiarities of

The road to victory is often a long and arduous one. The trail to the province-wide speaking championships was no different for Karges. He began his march to

victory in December. By practising his material he was successful, and by early January he achieved his goal.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): The low priority with which the Ontario government treats the provision of mental health

services to children across this province is truly appalling. Last month, the Lakehead Regional Family Centre in Thunder Bay called an emergency media conference to announce that for the first time

ever they were forced to post a deficit in their annual budget.

After years of provincial underfunding, coupled with an increased caseload of 150% since 1995, as well as a continual struggle to recruit staff at salaries far

below those which are available in other health care institutions, the LRFC had no more rabbits to pull out of their hat.

The ministry's response to this call for help was stunningly bureaucratic and of absolutely no comfort to the desperate children and families in dire need of

immediate help. Rather than provide the clearly justified funds to at least eliminate the deficit, the ministry said they would instead put the agency through a time-consuming program review, a

program review which would only confirm the clear need for additional funds, a review that will only confirm that there are now 260 families on the waiting list for help -- help that may not be

available for six months.

Minister Elliott, this cold-hearted, bureaucratic approach is nothing less than the sanctioned abandonment of children and families in desperate need of help.

Why do you believe that mental health services for children are any less important than their other health care needs? I am incensed at the casual manner with which children's mental health is

regarded by this government. Minister, you must do the right thing. You must provide the funding now to help the Lakehead Regional Family Centre do the important work they so very much want to

do.

CAMBRIDGE WORLD SENIOR WOMEN'S CURLING TEAM

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): More good news from Cambridge. I rise to acknowledge and applaud five noteworthy Cambridge women: Anne Dunn,

skip; Lindy Marchuk, vice; Gloria Campbell, second; Carol Thompson, lead; and Fran Todd, alternate; who with excellence, pride and skill successfully represented Cambridge and Canada at the world

senior women's curling championship held in Bismarck, North Dakota, on April 15, 2002. Mr Joe Todd of Cambridge coached this world-class team. This team is champion of the world.

Anne, Lindy, Gloria, Carol and Fran are also two-time Canada champions, winning this prestigious title this year and last. The team calls the 96-year-old Galt

Country Club its home, and on May 26, I, along with club members and many other Cambridge residents, had the opportunity of recognizing their excellence and accomplishments. Many Cambridge athletes

represent Canada around the world and we are honoured that so many leave and return as the best.

On behalf of the province of Ontario, I offer sincere congratulations to the team, as well as the Galt Country Club that has produced so many fine curlers. May I

extend my best wishes to the team in their future endeavours.

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Timothy Shaver is 25 years old. Eight years ago, when he was 15, he sustained a traumatic brain injury as

a result of a skiing accident. Timothy was sent to Texas for rehabilitation before being repatriated to a group home in the Niagara region. Unfortunately, because Timothy's injury has left him

explosive and potentially violent, he needs more care than can be provided in a group home setting. He was moved home to Thunder Bay, but without the support that the Brain Injured Services of

Northern Ontario required to meet his needs.

Last year, Timothy started a fire in his apartment in an attempt to commit suicide. He was put in jail because a psychiatric hospital was not equipped to deal

with a brain-injured individual. Last fall, as he was about to be released on to the street, the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital agreed to take Timothy on what was to be a temporary basis until a

suitable placement could be found. That was seven months ago.

There is, in fact, a suitable placement available, through Dale Brain Injury Services in London, for Timothy and for two other individuals with severe brain

injuries. But the Ministry of Health says the cost of care for these severely disabled individuals is too high. And it is high: it is $300,000 per year, exactly the same amount that the Minister of

Health was prepared to pay as an annual salary to his spin doctor. Surely it's more important to provide safe care for Timothy and for other severely disabled individuals than to pay for a public

relations person.

While the ministry balks at costs, Timothy Shaver is about to be discharged again, once again likely to be put on to the streets. What will it cost to jail

Timothy again, I wonder. What price will someone pay should Timothy become violent? What value do we put on Timothy Shaver's life?

OPSEU HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): It takes a team to keep Ontario healthy. That's the theme of the campaign now underway by 10,000 OPSEU hospital

professionals, to convince the Conservative government of the need to financially support a decent contract for these workers. They include X-ray and medical laboratory technologists, respiratory

therapists, radiation and ultrasound technologists and physio- and occupational therapists, to name but a few. They are the people who run the heart pump during heart surgeries, process the biopsy

to determine if it's malignant or test a kidney to be transplanted to ensure the recipient doesn't get hepatitis.

Ontario hospitals can't work without therapeutic, diagnostic and rehabilitative services. Professionals delivering these critical services must have their

valuable contribution recognized. That means paying them decent wages to keep them in the hospital system instead of driving them out.

Without a commitment to pay allied health care professionals properly, it will be even more difficult for Ontario hospitals to recruit and retain the staff

needed to provide doctors and nurses with the information they need to correctly diagnose and treat patients. A shortage of these professionals does negatively impact on health care, and we must

recognize that.

Central bargaining between OPSEU and the Ontario Hospital Association has broken off, with no more bargaining dates scheduled. The Minister of Health could

positively influence the situation by publicly indicating that proper funding for hospital professionals will be given to the OHA to bargain a decent contract.

We need these health care professionals to keep Ontario healthy. Let's pay them what they deserve.

CANOE THE NONQUON

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the 34th annual Canoe the Nonquon, a fundraiser on behalf of the Scugog

Shores Museum. The event was held last Saturday in Port Perry.

It was in 1969 that the first Canoe the Nonquon race was held. At that time the organizers included Charles Labanovich, Charles Pavlik, Joan and John Scott,

Allan Wakeford, Robert Merchant, and Bill and Claudette Brock. The funds raised that year were used to move the first building, the log cabin, to the site of the current museum on Scugog

Island.

Since 1969, canoeists from across Ontario have been marking their calendars for the first Saturday in June. Indeed Canoe the Nonquon has become the largest and

oldest race of its type in Ontario. In addition to the recreational and competitive canoeists, this event is sponsored by close to 100 local businesses and by the entire community.

I'd like to congratulate Lake Scugog Historical Society president Paul Arculus and race coordinator Bruce Aikins, along with the many dedicated volunteers who

make Canoe the Nonquon such a great success. Just a few of the volunteers include Ralph Giannini, who made the medallions for the winning canoeists, secretary Susan Dutton, treasurer Vilma Giannini

and Albert Putsey, who drove the shuttle vehicle for the participants.

This year's event attracted 250 canoeists, along with hundreds of visitors, to the exhibits at the Latcham Centre. It is estimated they raised $6,000.

I invite all members to visit Scugog Shores Museum as well as the community of Port Perry for an enjoyable weekend.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Today I hold in my hand another most depressing statistic, due to the Conservative government's one-size-fits-all

education funding formula. Therefore, today we are ringing the school bells loud and clear as a signal that we are in serious decline, especially in the elementary school system.

According to a survey conducted by People for Education, we have already lost dozens of physical education teachers, librarians, guidance teachers and music

teachers, and our students are forced to share textbooks. What a shame.

get a part-time job.

The conclusion of all the experts is simply this: you are marginalizing these children. You are creating an underclass.

This is a wake-up call. We know you're good with a knife to cut the heart out of education, but what we need now is a healer. We want you to heal this grievous

wound. Who will it be on your side to stand up and give us back our ESL teachers? Who will it be on your side to stand up and say, "Yes, we'll give you back the money we need to have these classes

back in order"?

EVENTS IN NIPISSING

Mr Al McDonald (Nipissing): It is my pleasure today to speak about my riding of Nipissing and individuals who make it a great place to live,

work and raise a family.

On May 31 of this year, Dominic Repaci and Giovanni Caruso, two downtown barbers for the past 40 years, hung up their scissors for the last time. First-, second-

and third-generation customers were regulars at the D&J barbershop, although both Dominic and Giovanni will tell you they were more than just customers, but friends.

They will be missed, not only by the downtown, but by the whole community. I want to wish both Dominic and Giovanni all the best in their retirement. They

deserve it after serving their community so well.

The Air Base Property Corp was formed a few short years ago, headed by a community leader by the name of Vic Fedeli. This corporation was set up when the local

Canadian Forces base was downsized by the federal government, and its mandate was job creation. With Mr Fedeli's hard work, dedication and vision was born a new aerospace industry in North Bay,

with companies such as Voyageur Airways, Bombardier, Wood Group, Lemex Aviation and others employing more than 300 people. I'd like to personally thank Vic Fedeli and the board of ABPC, who are all

volunteers, for their success in building this new industry in the north.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice and social policy and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 86,

An Act to rescue children trapped in the misery of prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation and to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de

loi 86, Loi visant à délivrer les enfants prisonniers de la prostitution et d'autres formes d'exploitation sexuelle et modifiant le Code de la route.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I beg leave to present the final report of the select committee on alternative fuel sources and move the adoption

of its recommendations.

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

Mr Galt: This report is an example of what we can accomplish when partisan affiliations are set aside. It is a consensus report that reflects

the wishes of all three political parties in Ontario. It contains 141 recommendations, and I'm so pleased that we were able to arrive at 141 recommendations without a single vote. In fact, it's

important to note that no dissenting report has been brought forward by either of the opposition parties. That's very encouraging and gratifying to me as chair of the committee.

But perhaps more importantly, the select committee report reflects the tremendous input we've had from energy stakeholders from around the country and

internationally. Without their participation, we could not have explored all the renewable energy options in such a thorough manner. The result is a report that is comprehensive in its nature and

far-reaching in its recommendations. I thank the Premier and the cabinet for giving us such incredible latitude in our mandate. If there's an alternative energy source out there that we haven't

explored, I don't think it's been discovered yet.

As Chair of the committee I'm pleased to offer my thanks to all those who worked so diligently on this report, including Vice-Chair Dr Marie Bountrogianni, Jim

Bradley, Marilyn Churley, Steve Gilchrist, John Hastings, John O'Toole, Jerry Ouellette and Ernie Parsons.

As well, a very, very special thank you to the clerk of the committee, Tonia Grannum, and to the researchers, Jerry Richmond and Jennifer McKay.

Without their support, the task of preparing this report would have been daunting indeed.

The committee believes that the recommendations contained in the report can form the basis for an innovative and progressive new fuel and energy policy for

Ontario [inaudable].

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Galt has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): I move that the following amendments be made to the

membership of certain committees: Mr Stewart replaces Mr Chudleigh on the standing committee on general government.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WORLD YOUTH DAY /

JOURNÉE MONDIALE DE LA JEUNESSE

Hon Tina R. Molinari (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I wish to begin by extending a warm greeting to two very special

visitors in the gallery today, His Eminence Cardinal James Francis Stafford, president of the Pontifical Council for the Laity of the Vatican; and Father Thomas Rosica, national director for World

Youth Day 2002.

Cardinal Stafford has come to Ontario in his role as a major supporter of World Youth Day, which will be the biggest international event ever staged in Canada.

He has also come in support of the opening of the Vatican art exhibit, Images of Salvation, at the ROM.

As you may know, international World Youth Day programs are held every two years. They were launched by Pope John Paul II in 1984 to encourage Catholic youth

from around the world to celebrate their faith. While it is an event staged by the Catholic church, people of all faiths and backgrounds are welcome to take

part in the celebrations.

Two years ago Pope John Paul II announced that Toronto would host the next World Youth Day in July 2002. The Ontario government became involved in the project

in 1998 when we, along with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the city of Toronto and the federal government bid for the event. Our partnership has continued over the past two years

working closely to ensure a successful event.

As the largest conference that we have ever hosted, this is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that Ontario can host large-scale international events.

Hundreds of thousands of visitors from 150 countries, including some 3,500 media representatives, will come to Ontario to experience the celebrations. A Tourism Toronto study indicates that the

economic spinoffs in this province could reach $300 million, as well as support thousands of jobs.

World Youth Day is not just a Toronto event. International delegates will come from all over the world to take

part in Days in the Dioceses, visiting local

parishes across Canada and throughout Ontario from July 18 to July 21, 2002. The main program will unfold in Toronto from July 22 to July 28, concluding with a papal mass at Downsview Park on

Sunday, July 28.

In addition to the events with the Pope, while in Toronto the delegates will also volunteer with social service organizations throughout the city. Many of

these projects will have a lasting legacy, like the building of a home with Habitat for Humanity at Downsview Park. These projects will benefit our social service organizations by providing

well-needed volunteers as well as promoting the importance of volunteerism to the youth of our province.

World Youth Day is less than two months away and there are still many things to be done. I wish to urge all the members to spread the word in their communities

that 35,000 volunteers are needed to help organize World Youth Day and to host our international guests. I have agreed to host two pilgrims in my home and I encourage other members of the

Legislature to do the same.

Ontarians have always been extremely generous in serving as volunteers to build better communities and I hope that we can demonstrate our generosity to all the

pilgrims so that at the end of the event they will go back and talk about the wonderful hospitality they have received here in Ontario.

Ontario is already seeing the benefits of hosting World Youth Day this July. In three days the Vatican art exhibit Images of Salvation will open at the ROM.

This major exhibit of religious art will include more than 140 artifacts from the Vatican Museums, the Italian Ecclesiastical Museums and other private Italian collections. The paintings,

sculptures and liturgical objects include works by some of the western world's greatest artists, many of which have never been seen outside of the Vatican or outside of Italy. The exhibition will

be open to the public from June 8 to August 11. Tonight the province will be hosting a special reception with Cardinal Stafford at the ROM, which will include a preview of the exhibit. All MPPs are

invited to attend and I encourage you to go.

We have before us an excellent opportunity to showcase all that Ontario has to offer. I know that we will come to the assistance of the young people who will

be arriving from around the world. The spirit of community and volunteerism that World Youth Day promotes is now, more than ever, needed since the events of September 11.

I am confident that together Ontarians and global visitors will benefit from this opportunity to share in this international celebration of faith right here in

this province.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus, I too want to welcome His Eminence Cardinal James Francis

Stafford and Father Thomas Rosica. Certainly their mission here today is a very important one. It is to promote an idea that should be a lesson to us all. They, and we as a community, are going to

encourage Catholic youth from around the world to celebrate their faith. But the reality is that this is so much more than a faith celebration. It's a celebration of embracing people. It is, in

fact, an ecumenical celebration where we welcome people from all faiths and beliefs to come and join us, to share experiences with us and, at the end, to grow with each other. One of the lessons

that we will learn during this time is that it is important to be thy brother's keeper. It is a lesson for governments of all stripes to learn and to live.

We will be having youth from around the world come and visit us. The different dioceses of Ontario, from Kenora straight through to Windsor, are preparing. I

think in my own diocese of Sault Ste Marie and in my parish of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church -- and I have to give my parish priest a plug, otherwise on Sunday I'll be in trouble during the

homily -- Father Caswell is working very hard with our youth representative, Paula Butcher, who is planning activities already for the youth who will be visiting our community. I think of Mike and

Josie MacLaughlin, who are parent volunteers, who are going to be hosts as well to youth and the exciting things they are planning for the youth who will be visiting the diocese of Sault Ste Marie

and Sudbury.

Mrs Molinari didn't talk too much about the World Youth Day cross, but I think His Eminence Cardinal Stafford and Father Rosica would like us to mention that

because it is a significant part of World Youth Day. The World Youth Day cross is a simple wooden cross that stands four metres and weighs approximately 31 kilograms. Often compared to the Olympic

torch, it has been criss-crossing Canada to prepare the country for World Youth Day here in Toronto. Since the World Youth Day cross arrived in Ottawa on April 11, 2001, it has travelled by

commercial airline, by flight of light aircraft, by dogsled, by pickup truck, by tractor, by sailboat and by fishing boat. That is significant, because what we have done is cover the corners of the

universe in reality when we think of World Youth Day reflecting the values and the needs of the people who will be gathering here in Toronto.

Indeed this is a significant community, provincial, national and international event. It is a time to embrace each other. It is a time to pray. It is a time to

reflect. It is a time to learn. It is a time for us to gather and say, "We must make this world a more caring place. We must help those who are less fortunate. We must involve ourselves in social

justice issues that are important not only to the Catholic Church but to all faiths, to all beliefs, to all governments." World Youth Day is a time for us to gather, to care, to share and to say,

at the end, "I am richer because of our shared experiences."

I know it is the prayer of every member of this caucus and I know it is the prayer of all members of the dioceses across Ontario that our Pope will be strong

enough to make the visit to Toronto. The people of our province will welcome him warmly. Even in his absence, though, World Youth Day will accomplish the things that Pope John Paul wanted it to

accomplish.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I'm pleased, as one of the representatives of the New Democratic Party who will speak today, to welcome our

special guests here today, Father Thomas Rosica and His Eminence Cardinal Stafford, particularly Cardinal Stafford, who has come such a long way to join us in Toronto over these next few days.

We want to acknowledge our support for World Youth Day, both for the celebrations and obviously for the most important event, which will occur with the arrival

of the Pope and the mass that will be celebrated. This of course will all occur in this city in July.

This is an extraordinary event, and we in this province and we in this city are very privileged and very honoured to be in a position to host it. The purpose

of World Youth Day is, as has already been described, to encourage Catholic youth from around the world to celebrate their faith, and in that respect this city will see one million Catholic youth

come from 150 countries to learn about how Canadians celebrate their faith. What is also important is that those same youth will also be teaching Ontarians, Ontario youth in particular, about how

they live their faith in the countries from which they come. That will be a very important experience, to have that dialogue, to have that exchange and indeed to have that bond among so many youth

who are Catholic but who would practise that faith so differently in their own homelands.

What's also important is that not only is it a celebration of faith, Catholic faith, youth in that faith specifically; it is also a celebration of youth.

Frankly, for me, that's as important as is a celebration of my own faith. These youth who will come here will be our world's future leaders. They have much to teach us and teach each other. They

will have much to share, they will have much to experience, and they have much in common. Many who will come will have in common that they have experienced war and famine and devastation and

perhaps the death of many in their family, but I also think that they will have in common a hope for peace, and I think that will be reflected and reinforced during the celebrations, especially

during the visit from the Pope.

On a very personal level, I was in my own parish on Sunday, Our Lady of Peace parish in Capreol, where there were many banners acknowledging that this is

occurring and encouraging youth from our own parish to participate, and I hope they do.

As I said, I'm very pleased to welcome our guests here, and we look forward to the celebrations that will occur in this city this summer.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Very briefly, I would also like to rise and commend this wonderful group. It was my privilege, while I

was a member of the city of Toronto council, to serve on the committee for World Youth Day, which was chaired by Councillor Mihevc, and to work alongside Father Rosica to develop the city of

Toronto's policies and to develop all of the logistics, and the logistics here are enormous. Just so people understand, this is having to have food for hundreds of thousands of people, this is

having to find water for them, this is having to find washrooms, accommodation and transportation. This is an enormous undertaking that the city of Toronto has embraced and I think has done, along

with Father Rosica, an amazing job in getting prepared. We are going to be very proud in this city and in this province of how well it is going to be carried off.

We are also very proud that there are going to be a number of good works done in our city, everything from helping the homeless to Habitat for Humanity, by the

youth who gather here.

The youth are coming from all over the world. Earlier this year I had the privilege of being on vacation in South America, and I can attest to the fact that

there were posters in the many cathedrals and churches that I visited inviting people to come to Toronto. I hope that when the people come here, they will see this very rich multicultural,

multi-faith, multilingual city, where we get along so well, and take that back to their own homes as well, because not only will we learn from them, but they will learn from us.

I turn it over to my colleague Mr Bisson for the last few seconds.

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): Comme on sait, il y a beaucoup de monde à travers notre province qui s'organise pour venir ici cet

été pour la Journée mondiale de la jeunesse -- à travers le monde, mais particulièrement le monde de la région d'Ottawa, de Timmins, de Kapuskasing, de Hearst, et

cette journée, comme on sait, est importante non seulement sur la question de foi mais aussi sur la question humanitaire. On veut avoir un bon sommet cet été, et on dit à tous

ceux qui se préparent, venez à la ville de Toronto. Ça va être quelque chose d'excellent pour nous et pour notre communauté.

GOLDEN JUBILEE OF

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

Hon John R. Baird (Associate Minister of Francophone Affairs): On a point of order, Speaker: I think there is unanimous consent for each party

to speak for approximately five minutes on the occasion of Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Baird: I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

The occasion affords all of us, in Ontario and throughout the Commonwealth, to both acknowledge and thank Her Majesty and Prince Philip for their tireless

energy and half-century of service to all of us.

At a young age, the then Princess Elizabeth, 21, vowed, "I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your

service." And for more than 50 years, Queen Elizabeth II has honoured that personal commitment.

Her strongest attribute is undoubtedly her sense of duty. Since her accession to the throne, the Queen has given royal assent to more than 3,135 acts of

Parliament. Her Majesty is currently patron of 620 charities and organizations, 433 of which she has held since her accession to the throne in 1952. And, in 50 years, the Queen has undertaken more

than 251 official overseas visits to 128 different countries.

This fall, the Queen will make her 20th visit to Canada. Toward the conclusion of a visit to the United States in the early 1980s, the Queen remarked to

then-President Ronald Reagan in her departing speech, "We're going home to Canada tomorrow." When Her Majesty comes to Ontario this October, it is not really a royal visit but rather a

homecoming.

Her Majesty has lived longer than most Canadians who are alive today. She has visited more communities in Canada than most Canadians have ever done or ever

will. She regards us in the same special, familial way as did her late mother.

In a turbulent time and in a changing world, the Queen has been a beacon of stability and of tradition in Ontario, in Canada and throughout the Commonwealth.

Yesterday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair summed it up well when he described her reign as a remarkable achievement, in which she had adapted the monarchy successfully to the modern world, had

been stoic in the face of adversity and had been a unifying force in the midst of immense constitutional and cultural change.

Her Majesty, speaking in 1990 in Ottawa, my home town, stated, "The constitutional monarchy ... is a system in which those who represent the community come

together and remain together, rather than dwelling on differences which might further divide them."

The jubilee is a time for unity, for learning about our institutions and their importance to the civil society, which together we have built under the stable

framework of the crown.

Earlier this week, His Royal Highness Prince Charles summed up the feeling of many when he said to his mother, "We feel proud of you, proud and grateful for

everything you have done for your country and the Commonwealth over 50 extraordinary years."

Long live the Queen.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I rise in this House today on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and Her Majesty's loyal opposition as we pay

tribute to the Golden Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II.

Ontario -- Loyal she began, loyal she remains.

After the Second World War, as after the First, there was a concerted royal effort to undertake empire tours again. In 1951 Princess Elizabeth, who was chosen

to represent the King, gave Canada and Ontario an opportunity for another royal tour.

This was the first major royal tour in which the airplane played a major part, the journey from London and several internal connections being made by air.

It was the first time in which televised outside broadcasts allowed those Canadians fortunate enough to own TVs the chance to see the progress of the

visit.

In Toronto, more than 40,000 people lined the streets to greet our royal visitors.

The Prince Arthur Hotel in Port Arthur, where the royal party rested overnight, spent several thousand dollars renovating one suite. Furniture, china, a chef

and an elevator operator were flown in, and a window was raised three feet to keep out the public gaze.

In Kapuskasing, a chef made tea every 15 minutes between 7 and 9:30 am, so that whenever the royal couple awoke the tea could be sent fresh to their room.

While in Ontario during this visit, the royal visitors met the Dionne quintuplets, 17 years old at the time, in North Bay.

The Duke discovered that one of his valets shared his love of practical jokes and borrowed several gadgets that the valet had bought from a local joke shop to

try out on his wife, the future Queen. Stories spread that the heiress to the throne had opened a small desk box to find a snake inside and had been chased along the corridors by the Duke, wearing

a pair of monstrous false teeth, and she was forever wary of devices that might pass on an electric shock when touched.

When she returned to London, the princess said she hoped that the people from the United Kingdom would go out and make their lives beside the fine men and

women who formed the nation of Canada. She described Canada as a country "on its way to becoming one of the greatest in the world" and for which "its people have placed in our hearts a love which

will never grow old and which will always draw us back to her shores." Canada had become a second home to Princess Elizabeth.

After her accession to the throne, the Queen visited Canada in 1957 and became the first reigning sovereign to open the Canadian Parliament in person.

In 1959, the royal family visited many outlying districts never before visited by royalty, taking a cruise through the islands of Ontario's Georgian Bay on

Lake Huron and touring nickel mines near Sudbury.

In the summer of 1973, the Queen reminded 1,400 guests at an official dinner given by this great province of Ontario that, "The crown is an idea more than a

person, and I would like the crown to represent everything that is best and most admired in the Canadian ideal."

During the Queen's visit of 1982, there was much celebration of the long-awaited totality of independence after 115 years of diminishing reliance on England

for foreign-policy decisions. It was during her five-day stay that the Queen faced national matters squarely when she spoke at the ceremony. She referred to differences and rivalries that existed

in Canada and would likely always exist in such a "vast and vigorous land." The Queen continued, "Although we regret the absence of the Premier, it is right to associate the people of Quebec with

this celebration, because without them Canada would not be what she is today."

By the 1980s the Queen and Prince Philip were truly old hands at visiting Canada. When the Queen and Prince Philip visited in 1984 to celebrate the province's

bicentennial and sesquicentennial of the city of Toronto, there was great public enthusiasm. There were grand ceremonial salutes and presentations as the royal party arrived here at Queen's Park in

a state landau: bagpipe tributes from Ontario police; a flypast of modern and heritage aircraft at the air force memorial down on University Avenue; a rousing, strident welcome for "La Regina" from

the Italian community, where grape-crushing displays and the singing of ballads provided an eclectic variety of entertainment. After the official welcome, the Queen and Prince Philip planted two

white pines, Ontario's arboreal emblem, here on the grounds of Queen's Park. And they did the traditional walkabout through the crowds at Queen's Park.

In the evening there was a superb military spectacle at the old Exhibition Stadium. As the Queen arrived that night, the noise of the 21-gun salute startled

the two leading horses. They shied, panicked and turned about face, to bring an otherwise flawless process to an embarrassing halt. Grooms and Horse Guards were quick to untangle the tack, but by

then other horses had become fretful. So the firing of the cannon was wisely brought to an end. Toronto could rightly lay claim to being the only Canadian city to have given the Queen an eight-gun

salute.

Also that year, the Queen saw a new, more multicultural Canada. In Brantford, she touched base with the Six Nations, who reminded her of the pact of loyalty

they made with her great-great-great-great-grandfather, King George III, back in 1784. Enthusiastic flag-waving crowds bearing flowers and notes, young and old, from United Empire Loyalists to

newly arrived immigrants have warmly welcomed her to every Ontario community she has visited, each of those visits inscribed in the history books with fond memories.

In 1997, the Queen visited London, Ontario, and I'll never forget that moment when she stopped to speak to me. During that visit, the Queen and Prince Philip

stayed at the Red Tail Golf Course, the only time a reigning monarch has visited Elgin county.

Long may she reign. May she defend our laws and ever give us cause to sing, with heart and voice, God Save the Queen.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It is indeed my honour to rise today and to salute the Queen on this her Golden Jubilee.

The world of Queen Elizabeth has changed very much since that time, 50 years ago, where a grieving daughter was thrust into the royal limelight. With it so has

she changed, so have we all changed. The Queen's reign, as I said, began unexpectedly in 1952 when the reigning monarch, King George VI, the Queen's father, died suddenly at Sandringham after

several years of ill health. News of his death reached the princess that afternoon in Kenya, where she was on Commonwealth duty. She immediately flew back with her husband to England. She flew back

to London and was met there by Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Following the funeral and a 16-week period of court mourning, she was crowned Queen on June 2, 1953.

Her political duties began immediately and she has never shrunk from those duties -- not one day in 50 years. She has always taken her role as Queen seriously

and presided over important reforms that have made royalty more accessible to the public than ever before. During the first few years of her reign she travelled to all parts of the Commonwealth

never before visited by her predecessors. She introduced innovations, such as the royal walkabout, to allow the royals to meet as many people as possible. She allowed increased access into the

lives of the royal family like we have never seen before. In 1969, the first television filming of regular family life among the royals was allowed and, as they say, the rest is history.

Her dedication to an accessible, public monarchy had its price, but she was prepared to pay it. She has gone on to fulfill an astonishing number of duties,

been involved with the works of hundreds of organizations and met more people in the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, Canada and overseas than any other monarch, I believe, in the history of the

world. Since 1952, she has conferred 380,630 honours and awards, received around 3 million items of correspondence and send almost 100,000 telegrams to centenarians.

With her commitment to a more accessible public monarchy came intense interest and scrutiny. Our connection with the Queen has been no less emotional. Upon her

coronation, Canadians took to the streets to rejoice. Here was a young woman full of hope and promise, with the allure of royal life that captivates millions to this very day.

Like Queen Victoria, it was assumed Queen Elizabeth II's reign would usher in Britain's rise to world power status. History deemed otherwise, but the Queen and

her Royal Family left their mark on the Commonwealth nonetheless.

Through the years, news of the births of her children, their weddings and the births of her grandchildren have all been celebrated here, and the deaths in the

Royal Family of the Queen Mum, Margaret and Diana have all been mourned here.

Royal visits have been a thing of pomp, pageantry and legend. We as Canadians dug in our heels in a debate in the early 1950s about whether the Queen should

reside here for part of the year. Although most Canadians at that time did not agree with it and it never came to pass, we still have our ties to the monarchy. The majority of Canadians remain

committed and maintain the institution the Queen represents as an important part of Canada's unique identity.

Much has changed in the world. We all have television sets now and watch the royal news and the gossip about what's happening in the Royal Family. Interest in

the Monarch remains very much alive. Watching the Royal Family reveals as much about us as it does about them.

Her influence has been as constant as her Christmas television addresses, moments when she came into our living rooms to espouse opportunities for women in the

1960s, messages of unity for our own country in those troubling times of the 1970s, and more recently the virtues of fairness, justice, tolerance and understanding.

In many ways she has been a pragmatic Queen who understood her people do not live in a fairy tale world, yet yearn for peace, love and stability. That is in

fact what makes her so endearing. The Queen has had her share of personal grief and sadness. I remember watching her describe her year of annus horribilis on the television, but she has never

relinquished her political or personal duties.

While her life has always proven to fascinate, it has been a very public life marked by sacrifice, loyalty to her people and commitment to tradition. Her voice

has always been one of unity. She has tried in her unique way to build bridges to the future. She has worked tirelessly. Only four earlier monarchs have achieved this milestone of a Golden Jubilee.

In the course of her 50-year reign she has undertaken more official duties and met more of her subjects than any of her predecessors. She has been faithful to this country; she has been faithful to

the Commonwealth. She has served the people of this nation to the best of her ability through dramatically changing times and that is something to celebrate.

I leave the final words to the Queen herself, and she described these just in the last few days in her jubilee message to the Commonwealth:

"This anniversary is for us an occasion to acknowledge with gratitude the loyalty and support which we have received from so many people since I came to the

Throne in 1952. It is especially an opportunity to thank all those of you who help others in your own local communities through public or voluntary service.

"I hope also that this time of celebration in the United Kingdom and across the Commonwealth will not simply be an occasion to be nostalgic about the past. I

believe that, young or old, we have as much to look forward to with confidence and hope as we have to look back on with pride."

A toast to the Queen.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today we are truly blessed, honouring the Pope and the Queen. I would like to

ask the House for one moment of meditation and to pass a congratulatory message on the birthday of our member for Prince Edward-Hastings.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. It's his birthday. I didn't understand the first part.

Mr Sergio: I think it's a blessed day. We've been honouring the Pope and we've been congratulating the Queen. I thought it would be very

appropriate to have one moment -- not one minute, but one moment -- to meditate and congratulate the member for Prince Edward-Hastings. Happy Birthday.

The Speaker: Happy Birthday. I've got it now. It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Ontario citizens will be very troubled today to hear

from a number of board members at Hydro One, that successor company to Ontario Hydro entirely owned by the Ontario government. Board members like the chairman, Sir Graham Day, and Dona Harvey, a

board member of some years' service, have both made plain today that from their perspective as board members at Hydro One, the government of Ontario knew from the beginning, in 1999, all aspects of

the executive compensation issues that have so aroused the interest of this Legislature and the Ontario public.

My question to the Minister of Energy is: will you table in this Legislature, at the earliest point, all communication that the Ontario government provided to

the board of Hydro One, and particularly any and all written direction to the board of Hydro One around matters of your concern in respect of executive compensation?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): I suppose the member opposite is speaking about the minutes

that were forwarded from the meetings of the board of directors to the Deputy Minister of Energy and to the ministry staff.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Hold on, guys.

I have in my hand some examples of those minutes that we received with respect to the packages. I'll be happy to share these with the member opposite if he

chooses.

Let me just say there are examples of benefits and so on. The minutes are in such a way as, "They reported on the discussion of this item, and the committee

indicated that the committee supported the recommendation." That's the kind of information we got with respect to minutes.

Mr Conway: Three and a half or four years ago, the Harris-Eves government appointed Graham Day and Dona Harvey and the entire board. Mike

Harris and Ernie Eves and Jim Wilson were very proud of their appointments. You appointed these people. Presumably, you gave them some specific direction as to how you expected your company, Hydro

One, to be operated, and direction around issues of executive compensation, particularly in the last while when, according to former Minister Wilson, things started to go sour.

Minister, my supplementary question is: will you table any and all written direction from the Ontario government in the last three and half years that you

provided as a government to the board at Hydro One? In particular, will you table any and all information that would make it clear that in the last 18 months, while you were apparently unhappy, you

were providing some specific written direction around these contentious issues of executive compensation that apparently you're now saying the board did not respond to?

Hon Mr Stockwell: It's kind of interesting -- I've heard this kind of line of questioning for the last few weeks. The member opposite has an

opportunity to pick the taxpayers' side or Sir Graham Day's side by giving us unanimous consent to support the bill I introduced in this House yesterday.

It seems to me that what would be prudent at this time would be to pass the bill by unanimous consent today. I will give full warning to the members opposite

that I will be asking for unanimous consent once again to pass Bill 80, the bill I introduced yesterday to deal with the board of directors.

With respect to correspondence, we have received, as you outlined earlier, the correspondence that was given from the Hydro One board of directors by way of

minutes. I'll be happy to provide these minutes. I know of no other information provided to the board at Hydro One other than the fact that they were asked to perform their fiduciary duties in the

proper and acceptable fashion, as any board of directors would do, and respect the shareholders' wishes. Those are the things I know.

Mr Conway: I say with all due respect that I'm concerned, because as a member of this Legislature, I believe that I am not being told the

truth.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): You're going to have to withdraw that. You can't say that.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw myself, because my problem as an honourable member is that I have two versions of reality, both of

which cannot be true. Somebody is not telling me the truth, and that lack of truth is going to cost the Ontario electricity consumer and the Ontario taxpayer millions of dollars.

I want to know, in the public interest, what the truth of this situation is, because I have in my hand today two clear statements, one by the former chairman

of Hydro One and the other by Ms Dona Harvey, not only a board member but a member of the compensation committee of the Hydro board. Sir Graham Day, chairman of the Hydro One board, and Ms Dona

Harvey are both saying that since the beginning of Hydro One's operation as a commercial company in 1999, the board told the government everything they were doing around issues like executive

compensation. That is the evidence of both Sir Graham Day and Ms Dona Harvey.

The crown, as represented by the minister, is giving a very --

The Speaker: Order. The member's time is up.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Just before the minister gets up, I didn't hear the withdrawal that I talked about in the beginning.

Mr Conway: I can't withdraw, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: That's fine. It's your last warning.

Mr Conway: I'll save you the bother. This is a multi-billion dollar cover-up, and I'm going to find out who's lying.

The Speaker: I name the member and ask him to leave the chamber.

Mr Conway left the chamber.

The Speaker: Just so we are clear, the member was named, and he is going to have to withdraw for the entire afternoon.

I don't believe a question actually came through there. It was more of a statement. Minister.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Speaker, let's be clear. What he was quoting from --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I'm trying my best to talk over the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. I appreciate he's very exercised about this.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Answer the question.

Hon Mr Stockwell: The truth of the matter is simply this --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor. Sorry for the interruption. Minister.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Let's get this thing straight. Everybody knew the compensation package. It was filed at the OSC on May 17, 2001. Dalton

McGuinty talked about the compensation package in this House. Everybody knew the compensation package. There was no cover-up. There was nothing to hide. She spoke about the minutes. I have the

minutes with me. I offered the minutes to the member. He doesn't want the truth. He wants to grandstand. He wants the rhetoric. He doesn't want the truth. He can't handle the truth.

The Speaker: It is now time for a new question.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Minister of Energy. I'm not talking about post-prospectus. I'm not talking about

post-OSC filing. We're talking about the revelation from one of the deposed, resigned board members of Hydro One. This is what they said -- not that the government knew post-OSC filing, but that

the government has known all along. She said, "From the beginning, we have made the government aware of all of our decisions ... and they ... were well aware of the compensation package. I don't

think it came as a surprise." That's Dona Harvey.

Then she got more specific. She said, "The government has known about the compensation packages since 1999. Every year, on a regular basis, they get briefed."

The government is saying they didn't know. I say to the minister, we need to know the truth. What I'm hearing today --

Interjection: You can't handle the truth.

Mr Bryant: You can't handle the truth, because the truth would involve this minister standing up and taking responsibility for what this

government was supposed to do as a shareholder instead of running Hydro One into the ground. Let's get the truth on Hydro One. How long have you known about the compensation packages?

Hon Mr Stockwell: No one has denied knowing the compensation packages. No one has denied it.

Interjection.

The Speaker: This is the last warning for the member for Kingston and the Islands. You're not going to continue to shout across like that or

you're going to be gone for the afternoon as well.

Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Stockwell: No one has denied they filed at the OSC in 1999. They filed at the OSC in 2000. They filed at the OSC in 2001. They did the

prospectus. Everybody in this room knew the truth. They knew what they were being paid. You knew in 1999, you knew in 2000 and you knew in 2001; in fact, your leader quoted in May 2001 about what

the compensation packages were for these people. Everyone knew it. We never denied knowing it. All you had to do was have the capacity to be able to read to know what the compensation was. We've

never said anything different. What are you going after here? The truth is clear: we all knew. Hallelujah.

Mr Bryant: So why the hell haven't you done something about it?

The Speaker: Order. You're not going to be able to use language like that. I ask you to withdraw it.

Mr Bryant: Withdrawn.

Hon Mr Stockwell: When I got into the Ministry of Energy and they briefed me on these salaries, I went on the consultations, spoke to the

Premier, said, "We have to deal with this. These are excessive."

So we did what we did. Why didn't we do anything about it? As of yesterday, we did something --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's too noisy. The House leader for the official opposition, this is his last warning as well. I'm not going to continue

to get up. Does anybody else want to be included on the list? I'm not going to continue to get up like this. We're just going to start throwing people out.

Minister?

Hon Mr Stockwell: So the decision the board took on May 17, to gerrymander the pay packages, that was it, that was the last straw, as Minister

of Energy. I then moved forward and sent the letter. I sent the letter and introduced legislation. Now, where are you guys on the legislation? Where are you guys? Where are the strong-minded, tough

Liberals and NDP? You're gutless. You're gutless. You've got a chance to protect the taxpayers. You're gutless --

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to make the Minister of Energy withdraw that as well.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Withdrawn.

The Speaker: In the last few days, personal accusations have been flying regardless of the circumstances, all sides have been flying with

personal accusations, and it's not helpful. I would ask all members to refrain from personal attacks against other members. We know it's a very controversial issue, but it isn't helpful when people

use language like the minister and the member for St Paul's did. It doesn't help the debate, and quite frankly we're not going to be able to proceed. One side does it, the other side does it, and

all we end up with in here is chaos. The people of the province expect answers. That's what question period is for, not to have both sides yell at each other like a bunch of schoolchildren.

It is now, I believe, time for --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Sorry. I apologize. Supplementary, the member for St Paul's.

Mr Bryant: Look, I think everybody would agree that a government that does not hold itself to account to this Legislature and to the people is

a government that has run amok. We all know that power corrupts and all power corrupts absolutely.

I have heard nothing from this government in terms of having the courage to hold themselves to account and say what mistakes this government committed with

respect to the handling of executive compensation packages around Hydro One from 1999 to the present.

If this government had courage, it would have done something -- not now through this last-minute hatchet job, however necessary; it would have done something

when Minister Wilson said, in his own words, that there were abhorrent compensation packages underway. They would have done something earlier this year, they would have done something last year or

they would have done something the year before, but they didn't.

My question for the government is quite simple: are you saying that when it comes to this government's handling of executive compensation packages of Hydro One

from 1999 to the present, you guys did nothing wrong?

Hon Mr Stockwell: The year 1999 and the year 2000, as they were filed, were probably defendable remuneration packages. They were in line with

industry standards. When they got out of line was 2001. After 2001 they became extravagant and overly generous. What I can say is that all those packages were filed.

The question you ask is -- when I became Minister of Energy did I act quickly, swiftly and decisively. The question has to be put back to you as the critic. If

this was such a burning and concerning issue to you and your leadership, why didn't you talk about this to anybody else in the province of Ontario? Why didn't you ask a question? Why didn't you

bring this forward as an issue?

I'm not really sure. It was all public information. All you had to do was read it. You never, ever brought it forward. Furthermore, your leader, on December

12, told us he's in favour of privatization of Hydro One, as well as the generation side -- except he thought too quickly, so when he thinks too quickly, we're not sure whether we take his word for

it.

Let's ask the question and reverse it. If this was a burning issue, was all public, were you asleep at the switch?

The Speaker: It is time for a new question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, you want the people of Ontario to believe that

your government knew nothing about the ridiculous salaries at Hydro One until a couple of weeks ago. But again I'll quote from Dona Harvey. She said, "From the beginning, we have made the

government aware of all of our decisions. They got our minutes. They are regularly briefed and they certainly were well aware of the compensation package" -- your government. As to your personal

awareness, I really don't care. I want to know about your government over the last three years. Are you saying that Dona Harvey is not telling the truth?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I'm saying that Dona Harvey may have provided us with the minutes. I have the minutes. I'm asking you to listen to what the

minutes say.

"D. Harvey reported on the discussion in the items committee and indicated the committee supported the recommendation" -- that's the information we got.

"That the board of directors grant approval to proceed with development in place of long-term incentive plan with design frameworks contained in the memorandum

of the board dated December 16." That's the information she's talking about.

"That the retainer for serving on Hydro One Inc board for the directors be $25,000 per annum." That's what she's talking about.

"Ms D. Harvey reported on the human resources and policy committee discussions on the annual performance of the president and the base salary adjustment be

made as recommended by the committee."

Those are the minutes Dona Harvey is talking about. If you're trying to peddle a theory that somehow we had up-to-date daily briefing minutes from this

operation that somehow outlined exact compensation levels, it's patently absurd.

Dona Harvey said she gave us the minutes. Yes, these are the minutes. They tell you no more and significantly less than what you and I knew from the OSC

application files. So, yes, she gave us the minutes, but there's nothing in the minutes. Just look up the files and you know how much they get paid.

Mr Hampton: Minister, your answer might be more credible if Ms Harvey were all alone, but she's not all alone. Sir Graham Day, the person you

handpicked to be chair of Hydro One, said, "The Ontario government has been aware of the changing compensation packages since the company was established in 1999." A member of your own cabinet, Jim

Wilson, said he knew about the pay packages all along. Are you saying that Dona Harvey, Sir Graham Day and Jim Wilson aren't telling the truth?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I've said, yes, we all knew. We knew in 1999, we knew in 2000, we knew in 2001. When they filed at the OSC, you knew, I

knew, everybody here knew. When I became Minister of Energy, we saw the compensation levels, which skyrocketed at that point in time. We made a decision that we had to deal with because it was

overly generous.

I am not suggesting to you that we didn't know. Of course we knew. Everybody in the province knew. All you had to do was tap into the Web site and look up

their pay packages.

Let me just give this straight: we all knew what their pay packages were. You knew, they knew, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt knew, although he now

claims he didn't. We all knew what their pay packages were. We've never denied that. What's the point of your question?

Mr Hampton: Minister, if Wilson knew that the pay packages were out of line -- because that's what he's quoted as saying in the press -- and

your hand-picked chair of Hydro One says you knew and Dona Harvey, who was chair of the compensation committee, tells you that your government knew, can you tell us why your government did nothing

in 2000 and 2001, and you've only done something now, ie, blame the board when it's become public?

Hon Mr Stockwell: It's been public forever. It's been public every time they filed. What are you talking about, "since it's become public"?

Whose team are you on: Sir Graham Day's or the taxpayers'? Whose team are you on: the board of directors', who think this is a reasonable payment, or the taxpayers' and ratepayers'? Whose team are

you on: the Hydro One board's or the taxpayers'? We're on the taxpayers' team, and if you're on the taxpayers' team, give us unanimous consent and support the bill.

The Speaker: New question?

Mr Hampton: I was raising these issues six months ago, and your former Minister of Energy was saying it was just fine.

I want to address this question to the Deputy Premier. It was your board; you appointed the chair, and you appointed all the board members. They say that your

government knew full well everything that was happening, but now your government is trying to say, "Oh, no. It's all the board's fault."

Very recently, the federal government appointed a legislative committee to look into misleading statements made by the former Minister of Defence. I'm asking

you today, since your government is saying it's all the board's fault, and the board is saying your government knew all along, let's get this to a legislative committee so we can find out the

truth. Will you do that?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I will refer that to the very capable Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Chris Stockwell: I say to the leader of the third party that this phantom letter you dreamed about has still not arrived at my office. You

said to me yesterday that you'd give me a copy. I still haven't received it, so I don't know what you're talking about with respect to this letter.

Secondly, there's a disagreement. You're saying we need to call an inquiry or some process to determine the truth because we're saying we didn't know and the

Hydro board is saying we did know. Let's be clear: we're saying we knew, OK? OSC filed in 1999 and 2000. They had defensible pay packages at that point. In 2001 they were not defensible and we

acted on it. There's no need for a commission to determine whether we knew. I'm telling you as clearly as I can: we knew, you knew, they knew. There's no disruption here. We all knew the pay

packages. I don't need an inquiry to determine that we're admitting we all knew what the pay packages were.

Mr Hampton: To the Deputy Premier: if your government is saying that you knew all along and you did nothing, then I am suggesting that this go

to a legislative committee so that we can determine once and for all -- we can see the minutes, we can see the directions from your government to this board. What's happening here is that the hydro

ratepayers of this province are going to be hit with millions of dollars to pay your government's bumbling and bungling, and they don't deserve to be forced to pay that without knowing who is

responsible. You want to hold the Hydro One board responsible; they're saying you knew all along. Let's put it before a legislative committee and find out who is really responsible. If you want to

get to the truth, it seems to me that's what you have to do. Will you do that, Deputy Premier?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Oh, my goodness. We knew. We don't need a committee to determine if we knew or we didn't. We said we knew, we said you knew,

we said they knew.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I've just quoted the minutes. Come on over and have a look. You see, those are the minutes. I've read you the minutes. Do

you want to have a look at them? Come on over and I'll show them to you.

The only committee we're going to have to establish, the only group that's going to have to convene to determine what's going on in this place will be to

determine where your letter is that you claim to have sent six months ago.

The Speaker: New question. The member for St Paul's.

Mr Bryant: Minister, you're making it sound like you, the shareholder -- and you're the shareholder, you're the minister -- are some passive

observer in all this, like you were maybe a commentator or a pundit. The difference between the folks who sit up there and cover the news and the fellow who's sitting over there in that chair is

that you're ultimately responsible for those pay packages. Not only did you know about them, you approved them. You approved the $180,000 car allowance. You approved the $6-million golden

parachute. You could have stopped it. You had an option. You were the shareholder and you did nothing. Now what I'm asking you to do is stand up and say you made a mistake. You were asleep at the

switch and the taxpayers are going to pay the price.

Hon Mr Stockwell: First, the taxpayers are not paying one red cent, nothing.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: No. I understand the member across is a lawyer and I appreciate it. I've got so many third party statements about the fact

that we insulated with this legislation and that we won't pay one red cent.

Second, we have dealt with this issue very clearly. We have acted with new dispatch. We introduced a bill yesterday. We're asking the board of directors to

step down. They did that. We want to freeze the compensation.

All we're asking you to do is to give us unanimous consent for this bill. I will be asking again later today for unanimous consent, which you refuse to do. Why

do you refuse to do that? Why do you not want to protect the taxpayers? Why do you want to play politics with such a very important issue? Why, I say to you? Whose team are you on, the Hydro One

board team or the taxpayers' team? We're on the taxpayers' team. Why aren't you on that team?

Mr Bryant: Well, I say to the Hydro executioner, let's see what you think about the other $2-million executive in an Ontario Hydro successor

company. As we said yesterday, and has been confirmed today by officials from Ontario Power Generation, president Ron Osborne on his T4 is going to be getting more than $2 million from the OPG.

Let's be clear. It's been confirmed. We were right and you were wrong. You were wrong and we were right. Now let's see you stand up and act with due dispatch.

You said before that the $2 million man Ron Osborne's pay package was unacceptable. It is unacceptable. What are you going to do about it?

Hon Mr Stockwell: There is Liberal revisionism at its best. That's not what you said yesterday, my friend. That's not what your leader said

yesterday. Here we've got Andy of Mayberry coming in to bail out Opie because Opie stepped in it yesterday and all the good people of Mayberry are cheering in the background.

That's not what Opie said yesterday, Andy. What he said was that at Hydro One, we're paying the president annually $2.2 million, and you know that's not true.

You know it was accrued over three years and you know Ron Osborne's done interviews and said he's getting nothing this year. Something's gone smelly in Mayberry. We've got Andy up trying to clean

up the smell that Opie left yesterday.

OTTAWA CONGRESS CENTRE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Mr Speaker, you'll be pleased to know I have a new topic. My question is for the Minister of Tourism and

Recreation. Last week in the Ottawa Sun, Deputy Prime Minister John Manley said the federal government is not committing funds to the expansion of the Ottawa Congress Centre. I find this rather

confusing because it's my understanding that the Liberal government has a generous surplus.

You might wonder where that surplus came from. I believe it came from the economic policies of the province of Ontario brought in by our Premier when he was

the Minister of Finance. Those policies were later copied by the Honourable Paul Martin, who, by the way, is probably the best politician the Liberal Party has ever seen, but he got fired.

Minister, what is this government's response to Manley's comment that expansion of the Ottawa Congress Centre does not qualify for federal funding because it's

owned by the province?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I'm a little concerned about the comments by Minister Manley, because our provincial

government nominated the expansion of the Ottawa Congress Centre under the Canada-Ontario infrastructure partnership program, run by Minister Allan Rock. We think this is a good project for the

citizens of Ottawa, so much so that three years ago when I sat down with Mayor Chiarelli, who is a member of the Ottawa Congress Centre board, I asked him to lobby the federal government to ensure

that convention facilities were included in the infrastructure program.

In January this year we committed $127 million from this fund, new SuperBuild funding for Ottawa, including $25 million for the Ottawa Congress Centre.

Minister Manley has said there's no federal money, but we have yet to hear from Minister Rock. We still think he's in charge of the program. We have yet to hear if he and the federal government are

going to support the Ottawa Congress Centre.

Mr Galt: Minister, indeed it is hard to know who is in charge in Ottawa -- you referred to Minister Rock -- but I'm sure the people of Ottawa

are pleased to know that the provincial government is committed to the much-needed expansion of their convention centre.

The mayor of Ottawa, Bob Chiarelli, said last week in the Ottawa Sun that he "absolutely empathizes" with John Manley that the provincial government should

cover the cost of expanding the Ottawa convention centre. To me, it sounds like a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal; they're all in the same mess. But I'm wondering if the federal government is

signalling that since they own Fort Henry in Kingston, the federal government should cover the total cost of the fort.

Minister, what is the city of Ottawa's level of commitment to the Ottawa Congress Centre's expansion?

Hon Mr Jackson: We're getting a mixed signal from the mayor of Ottawa. It would appear that he may have convinced Minister Manley that the

city of Ottawa has no leasehold interest in the Ottawa Congress Centre.

This is a significant piece of infrastructure to the economy of Ottawa. In fact, the Ottawa Congress Centre projects that the economic impact of lost business

waiting for the expansion is about $26 million. To the extended community of Ottawa, with restaurants and hotel space and everything else, it's about $132 million. By not getting the support, and

the support of the city of Ottawa, we've had 340,000 hotel room nights lost as a result of the lack of expansion.

We are concerned that the federal government is a 20% tenant at the Ottawa Congress Centre, and we know they need additional space. Our concern is that the

real agenda is that the federal government is thinking of building a convention centre in Hull, Quebec, instead of putting the money in Ontario and supporting the city of Ottawa.

We need to hear from the city of Ottawa, if this is a priority.

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): The question is for the Minister of Energy. Is the total compensation package for President Osborne for 2002

satisfactory? Is it satisfactory or not?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): The satisfactory compensation he receives -- I believe it's

$1.6 million in salary and a bonus accrued over three years -- is within industry standards. It's in the 50th percentile of people who hold similar positions. He also came over from Bell Canada at

a very similar salary. He's done a good job at OPG. OPG is running well. They've done a good job of privatizing. They've done a good job setting up the open market. They are divesting themselves

and creating competition. I think Mr Osborne has done a good job, and at $1.6 million or $1.7 million a year, it's within the 50th percentile. I suppose that's reasonable.

Now, if we go back to periods of time when others were paid at this level of private sector compensation, you'll find that under the NDP and others the

salaries get high. There's no doubt about it.

Mr Bryant: Wait a minute. There's a bit of a double standard here. Over in Hydro One, Eleanor Clitheroe's salary of $2 million-plus was said

to be unacceptable. I heard that from you and from the Premier many times. I heard from you yesterday and from the Premier that $2.3 million was unacceptable. Where between $2.3 million

and $1.7 million do you have a problem? Are you trying to tell me that it's not OK for Eleanor Clitheroe to be making, in total, over $2 million, but it is OK for President Osborne with salary,

bonus and other compensation, which has been confirmed to be over $2 million? Why is it not OK for Captain Clitheroe but it is OK for President Osborne?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I'll try again. That compensation package, with a long-term bonus, is over three years. Let's work slowly here. It's

obviously a two-day question; it's been very complicated for them. Three years, OK? That's not one year, that's not two years, that's three years. So when they divide that number by three, that

makes the compensation $1.7 million or $1.8 million. When someone makes $2.2 million and someone makes $1.7 million or $1.8 million, that's significantly less. One is the private market; one is in

the regulated market. One doesn't get the pension; the other gets $1 million a year. One gets a $6-million buyout; the other one doesn't. So it seems to me -- and I've tried to be very slow,

very clear -- that it's significantly less than what Eleanor Clitheroe was making. If you'd like the note, I'll write it down in big letters for you to let you know the benefit is over three years,

not one year.

ONTARIO EXPORT INDUSTRY

Mr Al McDonald (Nipissing): My question is for the Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation. Minister, export industries

support over 1.6 million jobs in Ontario, representing the equivalent of approximately 50% of the GDP. According to Standard and Poor's, each additional $1 billion of Ontario exports translates

into approximately 10,000 new jobs. Clearly more exports mean more jobs. What is the Ontario government doing to encourage companies to export the very best that Ontario has to offer the world?

Hon David Turnbull (Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): I thank the most excellent new member for Nipissing for his

question. Our government is continuing to foster a competitive economic business environment for Ontario. We've lowered corporate taxes, we've lowered personal taxes. We've eliminated red tape.

We're investing massively in infrastructure. The result of this is almost 900,000 net new jobs since 1995. Ontario exported $230 billion worth of goods and services in 2000, but there's more work

to be done.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Well, whoop-dee-doo.

Hon Mr Turnbull: Apparently the member for St Catharines isn't interested in our success. Success creates jobs -- do you understand? -- jobs

for people who work. Well, there's more work to be done.

It's estimated that there are 15,000 small and medium-sized enterprises that have the potential to export.

Mr McDonald: Minister, could you tell us more about Ontario Exports Inc and how it assists Ontario-based producers of goods and services?

Hon Mr Turnbull: As I was saying, there are some 15,000 small and medium-sized enterprises that have the potential to export, but only 15% are

currently exporting. Ontario Exports Inc is staffed by a very talented group of professionals who are committed to increasing global exports, and their mandate is to expand trade around the

world.

Currently OEI is working with some 4,000 clients to expand sales worldwide by developing export opportunities and assisting foreign buyers to find Ontario

suppliers. In fiscal 2001-02, OEI assisted 396 firms and generated $119 million in export sales. Our government will continue to aggressively work with the market to improve our business and

investment climate.

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question again is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, earlier today when I asked you, you said

that your government always knew about the bloated salaries at Hydro One. Yet last Thursday I asked you when the government first become aware and you replied, "When the government first became

aware? I can't answer that question. I don't know. I can't speak for the entire government. You'll have to ask somebody else." Between Thursday and now you've changed your story an awful lot. Can

you tell us why last Thursday your answer was, "I don't know if the government knew. I don't know if the government knew anything," and suddenly today your answer is, "Oh, yeah, the government knew

about the salaries over there. The government knew about the excessive salaries"? How can you change your story so completely in six days?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): You only got one applause from that caucus over there. I

can understand. This duck isn't flying, Howie. Be serious. When did the government know? There are 50,000 employees in the government. You're asking me to tell you when one of 50,000 employees

potentially knew about a salary component for people at Hydro One. I can't answer that question. I did say to you at the time, when you asked me about the increased amount of money to Eleanor

Clitheroe, that I was briefed a week to 10 days after, and that's when the ministry staff informed me. But your question was when did anybody in the government know. I can't answer for 50,000

people. My God, you can't even answer for nine; how do you expect me to answer for 50,000?

Mr Hampton: This gets to the root of this matter. This is a government that wants to govern but doesn't want to be accountable for anything.

As soon as something goes wrong, "Oh, it's the fault of the Hydro board," or "Oh, it's the fault of somebody else over here." You put the Hydro board in place; you chose the chair of the Hydro

board; you told them to behave like a private sector corporation. You knew about the excessive salaries and you did nothing. Instead of saying that all these people out here who are now pointing

out that you knew it and that you did nothing are not telling the truth, why don't you come right out and admit you knew about the salaries, you knew how excessive the salaries were, you did

nothing about the salaries and now you're looking for someone to blame? Why don't you admit that?

Hon Mr Stockwell: OK, we knew about the salaries. We knew when they were filed with the OSC in 1999, 2000 and 2001. When I was made Minister

of Energy, I was briefed on the salaries and I began a process to review the salaries. The straw that broke the camel's back was May 17. We decided at that point that we had to take distinct and

dramatic action, because the board was not listening to us or the taxpayers. There's your answer.

Now, will you do the right thing? Will you do the honourable thing? Will you protect the taxpayers? Will you and the Liberals do the thing the people want you

to do and give this government unanimous consent on one of the best bills that's ever been brought in this House -- protecting taxpayers' money, protecting taxpayers and ratepayers out there -- and

stop siding with the Hydro One board, who you've been ragging on for three weeks? Figure out what team you're one. Get on the taxpayers' side and endorse this bill by unanimous consent.

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. On May 27 in this Legislature, Premier Eves

said, "We will be committing to implement every one of Mr Justice O'Connor's 93 recommendations in the second report." Let's talk about the truth and commitments. I would like you to publicly

address recommendation number 11: "The Ministry of the Environment should take the lead role in regulating the potential impacts of farm activities on drinking water sources." It goes on to say,

"It is essential that a single ministry" -- your ministry -- " ... be responsible for developing and enforcing regulations."

The report is crystal clear. During clause-by-clause for nutrient management, the Minister of Agriculture's PA led the Tory pack to turn down amendments to

define your ministry, as in the bill, as the Minister of Environment. It's incumbent on you to clarify your position. Will you commit that as the Minister of Environment you will be the lead

minister on nutrient management?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): If you pick up Topical, the May 24, 2002, edition, we are

advertising for a manager of implementation for resources planning and management,

schedule 6, an 18-month job, to enforce the Nutrient Management Act. Not only is that our position, we're

advertising for the job.

I'll send it over to you. The job is in Topical. We're looking for people. We're implementing the act, as we should. Without being in contempt, we're planning

to proceed. The advertisement is in Topical. The ministry involved is the Ministry of Environment. We're moving forward on that bill and I don't know why you people are holding up that bill either.

You've got some good legislation in this House. You're obstructionist. Do you know why? Because you don't respect the taxpayers like we respect the taxpayers.

Mr Peters: It would have been nice if the minister had answered the question and explained why the government turned down the amendment to

make your ministry the lead ministry and put it in the legislation where it should be. You didn't do that.

Let's look at another of Justice O'Connor's recommendations, recommendation 16. It recommends the province "establish a system of cost-share incentives for

water protection projects on farms." We know that society as a whole benefits from both environmental protection and inexpensive food. But once again, at committee this week, where your ministry

was not present even though it should be the lead, OMAF's PA led the newly trained seals to turn down an amendment that would have put into law the requirement that the minister consider the

desirability of using economic incentives to encourage compliance.

Minister, the agricultural community is under massive economic strain from a host of factors beyond its control. Don't tell the province's farmers to trust

that maybe some day in the future you'll be there for them. We've heard that before with made-in-Ontario safety nets.

I'd like you to stand in your place today to commit that you as the Minister of Environment will implement Justice O'Connor's recommendation. Take the lead on

nutrient management and ensure that there is financial assistance to help our farmers protect the drinking water in this province, as laid out in recommendation 16.

Hon Mr Stockwell: You can't be selective in reading Justice O'Connor's report.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Thank you. Bluster.

It talks about the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture working together. Bill 81 is one of those bills. It was carried forward with us

working with the Ministry of Agriculture to put in a complementary bill that can be efficiently worked on and produced.

Let me say that it was stated by the Premier that recommendations would be implemented. One of those recommendations is the one you're talking about. The

Premier of Ontario said that we're going to implement all of the recommendations, so all I'm going to tell you is that we are going to implement them. It matters not what's in the bill; it's what

the government decides to do. We're implementing the recommendations and we'll go ahead and do it.

AIR QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): Surprise, surprise, my question today is for the Minister of Environment. Today is not only World

Environment Day but it's also Clean Air Day in Canada. My constituents of Scarborough Centre are particularly concerned about air quality, especially with the summer fast approaching. I'm wondering

if you can inform this Legislature what you are doing to improve the air we breathe.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): What an excellent question, too, from the member for

Scarborough Centre. I know that she works and worries and is very diligent when it comes to this issue. I appreciate the question and I appreciate her hard work.

Air quality is a top priority of the Minister of Environment. Clean air and a well-protected environment are essential for the health and prosperity of all

Ontarians. Today -- I want to be very clear and say to the member for St Catharines because he will be excited about this -- we launched a new initiative to increase awareness about air quality and

the state of the environment. It's called OnAir. OnAir is an on-line emissions reporting registry. OnAir makes emissions information available via the Internet. Everyone has the right to know what

is being emitted in the air, especially in and around their communities.

For the first time, people will access immediate, reliable information. The registry will make polluters more accountable to the public by providing timely

information about airborne emissions. It will help consumers make decisions about their lifestyle and consumer choices. I know I have the full support of the member for St Catharines. He, I know,

thinks this is a good idea, as do we, and I can only hope that he has enough clout in that caucus to talk those other folks into agreeing with this as well.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you, Minister, for that response. We know that just goes to enhance the goal of Clean Air Day, which is particularly to

increase public awareness and action. I am particularly interested, because I know, Minister, you are a man of action, in what specific actions you are taking to improve air quality in this

province.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Awareness and action are the keys to our success. OnAir is just one of the many actions we're taking. I outlined some of the

actions the other day, when I got a question from the member for St Catharines. I know he was very satisfied with my answer, because he was shouting platitudes as I was speaking.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: You'll be impressed by this, Jim. We placed stringent caps on emissions from fossil fuel power plants. We fully implemented

the caps, which will reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by 53% and sulphur dioxides by 25%. Also, we're moving ahead with consultation on tough emission limits for other major industries. Our new

emissions trading program will make polluters pay and reward companies that reduce emissions.

Next month -- and this is good -- Drive Clean will cover all of the southern Ontario smog zone, from Windsor to Quebec. This is the government that introduced

Drive Clean -- the green government, the environmentalists, the Conservatives. Drive Clean works. Smog-causing emissions dropped by 11.5% in two years in Toronto. We recognize there's more work to

do. I'll tell you, the green people are happy --

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

SPECIAL-NEEDS STUDENTS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education. I want to ask you about some of the kids who need

help right now. They need your attention. They're kids like Natalie Druklec in Windsor. Natalie Druklec is a special-needs child. In years past, starting in JK, kindergarten and grades 1 and 2, she

got assistance and did fine.

At the beginning of this year, at her school now, like emergency rooms in this province, they do triage. They had six children who needed assistance and only

three EAs. Natalie gets very little, if any, assistance with her daily learning, and she's not doing well. Like thousands of other kids under your system, which requires paperwork to be done -- her

mother spent all summer collecting paperwork and assessments from rare specialists and so on to qualify, only to find out that her daughter was not going to get any support.

Minister, you know this is happening all around the province. You're diverting precious resources away from kids like Natalie into paperwork that you want.

Will you pay up to boards like Windsor Catholic and make sure that there is help available for kids like Natalie? Will you do it in this next budget?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): The reason we're making changes to the system is in order to ensure that

special-needs children in the province get the support that they need. As I indicated the other day, we are presently funding special needs and special education in the amount of $1.37 billion. We

have kept our commitment. We are moving forward to provide the services and finances that those children with special needs need, and we will continue to do so.

Mr Kennedy: Here are printing samples. This is Natalie in grade 1. The printing is very clean and clear; it's almost adult-like. In grade 3,

here's her printing.

Interjection.

Mr Kennedy: I hear the member for Durham heckling. Minister, her mother, teachers and board would like this not to be the case.

In grade 3, her printing is barely legible because she's regressing. She is in a board that has told you that their teachers and specialists are spending

thousands of hours filling in your piles of paperwork at Natalie's expense. She is regressing. Not only her printing, but her comprehension and behaviour are all regressing because your government

is too busy trying to find ways to justify not funding the assistance she needed.

Hon Mrs Witmer: This member of the opposition is making the same types of allegations that have been made in the past. Our government recently

announced an additional $350 million for students in this province. In fact, there is an extra $100 per student for flexible funding that could be used by boards as they saw fit to respond to the

needs of students in this province. That was a very significant announcement. We are committed and that's why we're going to be reviewing the funding formula.

Mr Kennedy: None of it was for special education, not one dime. How dare you?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again I would say to the member opposite, we have been increasing special education funding on a regular and significant

basis. I would suggest to you that you take a look at the facts and stop with the fiction.

LOGGING INDUSTRY

HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question today is for the Minister of Labour. According to injury statistics from the

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, logging is one of the most dangerous occupations in the province. What part does the Ministry of Labour play in the health and safety of Ontario workers in the

logging industry?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): I thank the honourable member for the question. The Ministry of Labour enforces the health and safety

regulations which apply to the logging industry. This includes regular enforcement of requirements for mandatory safety training and focusing on high-hazard operations. The ministry works with the

WSIB, the Ontario Forestry Safe Workplace Association, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and labour leaders to promote and communicate safe logging practices.

We've had tremendous success. According to the WSIB data, between 1997 and 2001, lost-time injuries in logging operations decreased by 18%, making Ontario

logging operations among the safest in Canada. At the same time, the Ontario Forestry Safe Workplace Association is sponsoring a safety group with 142 firms. The result of this means the WSIB group

rebate is about $1.3 million, shared by 45 firms. Tremendous success. We're very pleased.

Mr Gill: Thank you for that answer. However, given the potentially dangerous nature of work in the logging industry, does the government have

any plans on the horizon to improve safety in this industry?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I bet they do.

Hon Mr Clark: The member for St Catharines says, "I bet they do," and most certainly we do.

I am pleased to announce that on June 1 of this year amendments to the logging sections of the regulations for industrial establishments under the Occupational

Health and Safety Act came into effect. With these amendments, employers must provide all mechanical harvesting equipment operators and supervisors with mandatory orientation training before they

begin work, and operators must complete all the on-job training requirements within one year.

We're proud that Ontario is leading other Canadian provinces in ensuring that forestry workers are trained in health and safety. I know this is important for

the members of the third party because they're keenly interested. Ontario is the first jurisdiction to mandate training for cutter and skidder operators, and now for mechanical harvesting operators

and their supervisors. We're committed to making our workplaces the safest in the world.

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Six months ago, I asked your Minister of Energy if your

government approved of the new million-dollar-club salaries over at Ontario Power Generation. Your Minister of Energy on November 21 said that the "compensation package ... was set by the board and

the board members, and we have great confidence in that board." And, "I ... stand behind our board."

Deputy Premier, the executive salaries at OPG now total over $6.5 million a year and climbing. Does your government still find the executive salaries at OPG

acceptable?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I think the Minister of Energy has been addressing the entire issue of salaries,

whether it's Hydro One or OPG. I think all the actions that have been taken by our government indicate we take the issue of compensation and salaries very seriously. We are here to protect the

taxpayers in the province of Ontario. As the member knows full well, yesterday we introduced legislation order to ensure we could deal with the issue.

If you are really concerned about the taxpayers in Ontario, if you are concerned about excessive compensation, then I would recommend to you that you pass the

legislation that was introduced yesterday in order to deal with the compensation at Hydro One.

Mr Hampton: The question you tried to stay away from is this: your Minister of Energy said that you found those executive salaries acceptable.

Well, those executive salaries at OPG have now climbed to $6.5 million a year. I assume by your answer that you can only find them acceptable. If that's the case, then explain to the people of

Ontario how million-dollar salaries and bonuses can be acceptable at OPG if million-dollar salaries and bonuses are unacceptable at Hydro One.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The leader of the third party has an opportunity to actually do what is right and what's appropriate. If he is so concerned

about compensation and salaries, why does he not pass the bill that was introduced yesterday by the Minister of Energy and deal with the issue of compensation at Hydro One? Let's get on and get the

job done. Why are you stalling? Don't you care about the taxpayers?

VISITORS

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd just like to welcome to the legislature Mr Morrison's OAC class

from St Pat's. They're in the gallery.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to put a motion that reads as follows:

1. That this House move into committee of the whole this afternoon for the purpose of considering Bill 80, and that this House will allow an introduction to

that bill that would provide for amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to restore the successor companies of Ontario Hydro to its purview and to the Public Sector

Salary Disclosure Act to disclose all compensation for all employees of the successor companies of Ontario Hydro who earn more than $100,000 a year; and

2. In exchange for passing this motion and Bill 80 today, the government agrees to introduce and pass a motion directing the standing committee on public

accounts --

The Speaker: Order. You can't read the whole thing. They've got the gist of it; you can't read it out. We'll ask for unanimous consent.

Mr Duncan: I have a motion.

The Speaker: Yes, and you read the whole thing and then it might not -- you give us the gist of it; we've got the gist of it. We're going to

ask for unanimous consent, and I bet I know what the answer is going to be.

Is there unanimous consent? No.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask unanimous consent to introduce a motion that would, again, allow the passage of Bill 80 this

afternoon, subject to the bill going to committee, and that the government agree to introduce and pass a motion directing the committee on public accounts to conduct an immediate inquiry into

executive compensation of the successor companies of Ontario Hydro, reporting back to the Legislative Assembly by June 20, and we will pass the bill.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are over 525 long-term-care facilities across the province of Ontario housing over 60,000 Ontarians;

"Whereas over 60% of individuals living in long-term-care facilities suffer from dementia, 90% need assistance to eat and get dressed, and 56% have circulatory

disease;

"Whereas government funding of long-term-care facilities by the government of Ontario has failed to keep pace with the growing needs of individuals in

long-term-care facilities;

"Whereas government funding currently allows for only four minutes per day of assistance in washing and dressing long-term-care facility residents;

"Whereas government funding currently allows for only 10 minutes of assistance with eating per day and 15 minutes of programming per week;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide additional funding to Ontario's 525 long-term-care facilities to

ensure adequate staffing and service for long-term-care facility residents and appropriate levels of care such that Ontario's thousands of long-term-care users can enjoy their later years in

comfort and contentment."

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

LONG-TERM CARE

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

"Whereas the Ontario government abandoned the minimum requirement for 2.25 hours per day of nursing care for seniors in nursing homes; and

"Whereas the Ontario government's own study in January 2001 showed Ontario's long-term-care residents receive less nursing, bathing and general care than

elderly people in comparable jurisdictions in Canada, the United States and Europe; and

"Whereas poor management of residents leads to excessive acute care hospital stays and added strain on staffing levels in long-term-care facilities; and

"Whereas Ontario long-term-care residents now receive an average of only 2.04 hours of care per day, well below the level of 4.2 hours even the state of

Mississippi provides; and

"Whereas US studies have indicated that total nursing care hours for long-term-care residents should be in the range of 4.55 total hours of care per resident

per day;

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

"We call on the Ontario government to regulate a minimum requirement of at least 3.5 hours of care per resident per day."

This petition was sent to me by John Van Beek of SEIU. I have affixed my signature to it and I agree with the petitioners.

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Mr Morrison and the OAC students from St Pat's will be very interested in this petition as it deals with their

future. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's from the College Student Alliance, who are partners in learning. It says:

"Whereas by eliminating the fifth year of high school, the government of Ontario has created a double cohort of students; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised that there will be a space at a university or college for every willing and qualified student; and

"Whereas Ontario's universities and colleges have not received sufficient funding from the government of Ontario to accommodate these double cohort students;

and

"Whereas the quality of education at Ontario's universities and colleges has been declining in recent years; and

"Whereas the double cohort students will add an additional strain on an already fragile university and college system;

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

"To provide full funding for every new student entering Ontario's universities and colleges; and to provide additional funding to increase quality at Ontario's

universities and colleges; and to provide targeted funding to colleges for skills and innovation; and finally, to increase the per student funding to the national average over the next five

years."

I know the students at St Pat's and I certainly support this petition and I'll affix my signature to it.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

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

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised to institute patient-based budgeting for health care services in the 1995 Common Sense Revolution; and

"Whereas community care access centres now face a collective shortfall of $175 million due to a funding freeze by the provincial government; and

"Whereas due to this funding shortfall, CCACs have cut back on home care services affecting many sick and elderly Ontarians; and

"Whereas these cuts in services are mostly in homemaking services, forcing Ontarians into more expensive long-term-care facilities or back into hospital;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately institute real patient-based budgeting for health care services, including

home care, so as to ensure that working families in Ontario can access the health services they need."

I affix my signature in complete agreement with the concerns of my constituents.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): Emmett Fraser is the page from the wonderful riding of

Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, the riding with the longest name, because our people have the biggest hearts and hopes and dreams.

I want to submit the last 2,000 names on my audiology petition from some 42 new Ontario communities. As you know, there have been over 12,000 names already

presented from 251 Ontario communities. It reads as follows:

"Whereas services delisted by the Harris government now exceed $100 million in total; and

"Whereas Ontarians depend on audiologists for the provision of qualified hearing assessments and hearing aid prescriptions; and

"Whereas the new government policy has virtually eliminated access to publicly funded audiology assessments across vast regions of Ontario; and

"Whereas the new government policy has made it virtually impossible to implement programs in underserviced areas across Ontario; and

"Whereas this policy has lengthened waiting lists for patients and therefore has a most detrimental effect on the health of these Ontarians;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Conservative government move immediately to permanently

fund audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to present the first petition of this session on this side of the House, I think.

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario are alarmed and disappointed with the `golden parachute' severance packages available to senior executives at Hydro One;

and

"Whereas the top five executives at Hydro One are not only making large salaries, but are also being given packages that would provide more than $12 million if

they leave, even of their own accord; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario consider this compensation to be clearly excessive;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario instruct the board and senior management of Hydro One to roll back the salaries and severance packages, with the goal of

ensuring remuneration is in keeping with expectations of the citizens of Ontario, and

"Further, that the Parliament of Ontario take action to dismiss members of the board and/or senior management if they refuse to reduce the pay and severance

packages for Hydro's top executives."

I am pleased to report that Minister Stockwell has moved such a bill and I am going to support this legislation because I am confident that we, with the

support of the opposition, will pass it.

HYDRO ONE

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition that says, "Stop the Sale of Hydro One.

"To the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas Ernie Eves and the Conservative government plan to sell off Hydro One and Ontario's electricity transmission grid -- the central nervous system of

Ontario's economy;

"Whereas the government never campaigned on selling off this vital $5-billion public asset and never consulted the people of Ontario on this plan;

"Whereas Ontario families want affordable, reliable electricity -- they know that the sale of the grid that carries electricity to their homes is a disaster

for" all of our communities;

"Whereas selling the grid will not benefit consumers -- the only Ontarians who will benefit are Bay Street brokers and Hydro One executives;

"Whereas selling Hydro One and the grid is like selling every 400-series highway in the province to private interests -- selling the grid means the public

sector will no longer be responsible for its security and protection;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature as follows:

"To demand that Ernie Eves and the Conservative government halt the sale of Hydro One until the government has a clear mandate from the owners of Hydro One --

the people of Ontario."

I agree wholeheartedly with this petition and I have affixed my signature to it.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I have received a fairly long petition from Mr Nnaumbua Farrell. I'm going to submit it and I want to read it

first as it is a request by the person I have supplied the petition to to have me read it in the House. It's a petition concerning the future of electricity in Ontario, addressed to the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in the province of Ontario is fundamental to nearly every aspect of our lives and has

been and is crucial to its economic vitality and competitiveness, and is effectively an essential service;

"That this service, despite any shortcomings, has in the last three years generated more than $1.6 billion in net income for the province of Ontario (this

after contributing taxes to the province), in addition to providing reliable and affordable electricity to the businesses, industries and residents of Ontario;

"That the privatization of this service will most likely result in higher electricity rates as most recently evidenced by the cases of Alberta and California,

statements by numerous experts and officials, and reports submitted to the Legislatures of several American states; and

"When considering the broad and serious nature of this issue, and that a public mandate was never received by this government to initiate any privatization

measures in the first place, that recent public consultations were woefully inadequate in their timing (just before deregulation), subject matter (only one Hydro One), and time allotted;

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

"That all current decontrol negotiations concerning the sale of Ontario's power plants by Ontario Power Generation be suspended and, if possible, that recent

sales, such as the four Mississauga hydroelectric stations to Great Lakes Hydro Income Fund on May 17, be reversed;

"That all plants concerned with achieving the sale or lease of Hydro One be suspended;

"That, as soon as possible, a comprehensive province-wide public debate be held which clearly outlines the pros and cons of both privatization and remaining

public;

"That, at the very least, following the previously stated measures, a public referendum, as opposed to a general election, be held to ascertain the true desire

of Ontarians to have their electricity system privatized or public, especially as this would have been the case prior to 1995 with the passing of Bill 26;

"That then, and only then, any government measures, whether for or against privatization, that may be implemented be consistent with the wishes expressed by

the aforementioned referendum, again whether for or against privatization; and

"That, after this, if it is decided that electricity is to remain in the public domain, practical measures be taken to ensure better management of the

electricity system so that any deficiency found in the previous Ontario Hydro may be corrected. In other words, have it run like a business (not the Enron type), but keep the business and its

benefits ours.

"Thank you for your time and your consideration.

"Respectfully,

"Nnaumbua Farrell."

I concur, by the way, with the address in the petition, and I'm delighted to affix my signature to it.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the Conservative government plans to sell off Hydro One and Ontario's electricity transmission grid -- the central nervous system of Ontario's

economy;

"Whereas the government never campaigned on selling off this vital $5-billion public asset and never consulted the people of Ontario on this plan;

"Whereas Ontario families want affordable, reliable electricity -- they know that the sale of the grid that carries electricity to their homes is a disaster

for consumers;

"Whereas selling the grid will not benefit consumers -- the only Ontarians who will benefit are Bay Street brokers and Hydro One executives;

"Whereas selling Hydro One and the grid is like selling every 400-series highway in the province to private interests -- selling the grid means the public

sector will no longer be responsible for its security and protection;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature as follows:

"To demand the Conservative government halt the sale of Hydro One until the government has a clear mandate from the owners of Hydro One -- the people of

Ontario."

This petition is signed by a number of residents of Chatham and Blenheim, and I too sign this petition.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 135

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise today on a point of order relating to government notice of

motion number 9, which is just about to be called here in the Legislature. My understanding is that it will be called for debate in the House this afternoon. There are two orders and notices

motions coming forward, both of which don't allow for any committee time whatsoever to be able to introduce amendments. My point of order is around this particular issue. The motion, as you know,

Speaker, is a time allocation motion. I respectfully submit that this motion is out of order, and let me explain why.

First, I want to remind the House of

section 533 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which reads, "Time allocation is a device for planning the use

of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing the debate to an immediate conclusion." I'm citing the reference with approval, because it reflects a

well-established principle of parliamentary procedure.

The reason behind it finds its genesis in Erskine May, who writes that, "The purpose of many of the rules is to safeguard the rights of a minority in the

House" -- meaning us in this case -- "to guard against the development of an `elective dictatorship,' which some have predicted," and that's the point here. "Above all, the balance between the

right of governments to obtain their business and the right of the House as a whole to examine it ... is maintained through the discretionary powers given to the Speaker."

I call upon you now, Speaker, to use that discretion in ruling government notice of motion number 9 out of order. As you know, the time allocation motion in

question allows no time for debate at third-reading stage in one instance, one hour in the other, and no time for committee whatsoever, so we have no ability to bring in amendments to the bill.

Past Speakers of this House have ruled such motions in order, but this motion is different from those that were the subject of previous rulings in one

significant respect. If this motion is deemed to be in order, it allows the government to pass legislation after only allowing debate on its principles rather than on its details. In all of the

previous rulings on the order list of time allocation motions, the question arose after the bill had already had extensive committee consideration -- in this case, we've not gone to committee --

either in a standing committee of the Legislature or in the committee of the whole House. The motion before us today skips that stage entirely. We go from second reading over to third reading, with

no time for committee.

Let me just address briefly what the implication would be if you were to rule government notice of motion number 9 in order. Second reading is a stage where a

bill's principles -- I repeat, principles -- are at issue. It is either affirmed or denied by a vote in the House. As Beauchesne correctly points out, it's not regular on this occasion to discuss

in detail the clauses of the bill.