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

June 18, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Jun-18 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 18 June 2003 Mercredi 18 juin 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS' DAY

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

KINDERGARTEN

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

NORTH BAY RELAY FOR LIFE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(MOTORCYCLE HELMETS), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DE LA ROUTE (CASQUES

DE MOTOCYCLISTES)

JUNE 30, 2003 STATUTORY

HOLIDAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 DÉSIGNANT

JOUR FÉRIÉ LE 30 JUIN 2003

INTERNATIONAL DAY

FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL

DISCRIMINATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA JOURNÉE

INTERNATIONALE POUR L'ÉLIMINATION

DE LA DISCRIMINATION RACIALE

SIR ADAM BECK MEMORIAL ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 À LA MÉMOIRE

DE SIR ADAM BECK

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT

(NOISE REMEDIATION), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES

PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS

EN COMMUN (RÉDUCTION DU BRUIT)

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION

CONTRE L'INCENDIE

AUTO-DIALER CRIME ALERT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LES APPELS

AUTOMATIQUES D'AVERTISSEMENT

D'ACTES CRIMINELS

REGISTERED PLAN (RETIREMENT

INCOME) EXEMPTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 PORTANT INSAISISSABILITÉ

DES RÉGIMES ENREGISTRÉS

(REVENU DE RETRAITE)

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY GUARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES ENQUÊTEURS PRIVÉS

ET LES GARDIENS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(APPROPRIATE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

IN SCHOOLS), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION (UTILISATION

APPROPRIÉE DE LA TECHNOLOGIE

DANS LES ÉCOLES)

VISITORS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

PROTECTION FOR

HEALTH CARE WORKS

HYDRO ONE

WEST NILE VIRUS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

PUBLIC SAFETY

ENERGY CONTRACTS

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

SARS

PROPERTY TAXATION

TENANT PROTECTION

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

VISITORS

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOME CARE

WASTE MANAGEMENT

SERVICE DE DIALYSE

TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE

AND ACUPUNCTURE

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

ITER

VISITORS

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

DIALYSIS

HIGHWAY 407

HYDRO RATES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD

CONSUMER PROTECTION

AND GOVERNANCE ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS ET LA RÉGIE

DE LA COMMISSION DE L'ÉNERGIE

DE L'ONTARIO

ONTARIO HOME PROPERTY

TAX RELIEF FOR SENIORS ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'ALLÉGEMENT

DE L'IMPÔT FONCIER RÉSIDENTIEL

POUR LES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

DE L'ONTARIO

THE RIGHT CHOICES FOR

EQUITY IN EDUCATION ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LES BONS CHOIX POUR L'ÉQUITÉ

EN MATIÈRE D'ÉDUCATION

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Wednesday 18 June 2003 Mercredi 18 juin 2003

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Last Friday at the Lester B. Pearson Centre in Elliot Lake, Mayor George Farkouh, my federal colleague

Brent St Denis, MP, and I met with a large group of interested persons who have been working very hard in the community to establish a community health centre. Bob Campbell, co-chair Louis Ratthe

and public relations chair Bob Whitehead introduced a number of speakers who outlined the advantages of community health centres. The group has put together a comprehensive primary care proposal

that will serve not only francophones but the broader community. The proposal would see physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses and other health professionals providing patients with the

appropriate professional for the appropriate need.

Over two years ago I directly presented this proposal to Minister Clement. Since that time, we've been waiting for answer.

On Friday, young people from the Clair Dimock and All Star children's daycare centres presented me with over 2,000 cards asking the government to approve a

community health centre for Elliot Lake. Today, on behalf of all of those in Elliot Lake who support this proposal, I present these cards to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS' DAY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): It was six years ago that this government passed a bill proclaiming United Empire Loyalists' Day.

Tomorrow, June 19 -- United Empire Loyalists' Day -- we will once again commemorate the sacrifice and contributions made by thousands of United Empire Loyalists who fled persecution south of the

border to make their mark in Canada. It's my honour tomorrow to host a flag-raising ceremony outside this Legislature to mark the occasion.

Last year in Norfolk county we welcomed close to 100 proud descendants of United Empire Loyalists for their national conference. Meeting with the many proud

descendants of the Loyalist legacy gave me a chance to reflect on my own Loyalist heritage. Officially, I am UE through the Bowlby family on my mom's side. I will mention as well that my middle

name is Butler.

We are all benefactors of the Loyalist vision that founded our province and our Dominion. Evidence of their hard work and significant contributions to the

Ontario we know today can be found throughout this great province. I urge all MPPs to pay tribute to our Loyalist heritage tomorrow morning. We're getting together at 10:45.

I wish to end by quoting the very motto of this province, "Loyal in the beginning, loyal remaining," a constant reminder of our Loyalist values. God save the

Queen.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): It is more than two years since the Minister of Health established nine regional task forces to determine

the needs in the area of community mental health. The task forces were made up of mental health advocates who have worked hard, in good faith, to make recommendations to this government. They

believe, or at least they believed, that this government actually intended to act on their recommendations.

These reports have been sitting on the minister's desk since December. The people who know what these reports contain are bound by a commitment to

confidentiality that they were made to sign when they became members of the task forces, but they are getting increasingly frustrated by the complete lack of response from the minister.

In the absence of public access to the reports, we can be sure of two things: one is that the reports document the desperate need for community mental health

services; the other is the fact that the release of the reports will embarrass a government that has refused even to acknowledge the real needs of community mental health.

No wonder they want to bury the truth of what's in these reports: an indictment of this government's failure to keep its promises on mental health.

This is the government that repeatedly promised that their law, Brian's Law, would be backed up with community support and treatment for those coping with mental

illness. But community mental health agencies have had no increase in their base budgets for a decade; waiting lists of people needing help urgently are getting unmanageable; agencies find it

impossible to deal even with crisis situations. Waiting lists can be as long as five years. One agency, for example, that was designed to serve 12 clients now serves, as best they can, 250

people.

While community agencies struggle to meet the most critical needs, we know that people are being discharged from hospitals with no support, and that more and

more people are being put in jail for their own protection because there is no place where they can get support and care.

It is past time for this government to release the reports that document these needs. It is time for this government to keep its promises to those with mental

illness.

KINDERGARTEN

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Currently, most children attend kindergarten for half-days every day or for full days every second day

and it varies across the province. But an Alberta study found that full-time JK and full-time SK had a dramatic impact on children's mastery of key learning skills, particularly reading, and that

it may be an important influence on their ability to succeed in the first years of school.

The study raises the question of whether it may be a mistake for schools to hold back on kindergarten time, as they may end up eventually paying the costs for

students lagging behind.

Dr Jose da Costa, an education professor at the University of Alberta and one of the authors of the study, said the evidence should compel educational

authorities to implement full-day, five-day-a-week kindergarten immediately, particularly for schools in low-income neighbourhoods. Yet Mr Christie, the marionette controlled by the Conservative

government, through

an act of malfeasance got rid of nine full-time senior kindergartens in the inner-city school area of Toronto.

New Democrats have a proposal. We've been talking about this for quite some time. We argue that full-time junior kindergarten and full-time senior kindergarten

would restore equity to so many children who desperately need it in those early years. That study confirms it. Many have spoken about it; New Democrats would do it, and it's in our platform.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I'm pleased to support our government's proposed initiative to permit Ontario homeowners to deduct up to $5,000

of their yearly income interest costs from their Ontario taxable income, phased in over five years. This deduction will make home ownership more affordable, encourage new purchasers and create more

jobs.

I am pleased to support our government's proposed initiative to prohibit strikes, lockouts and work-to-rule actions during the school year in the public and

Catholic school systems in Ontario. The education of our children is too important to be disrupted by labour strife.

I am pleased to support our government's proposed initiative to create 8,000 new positions for nurses over the next three years and the hiring of 1,000 new nurse

practitioners over the next five years. The nursing profession is one of the pillars of our health care system.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Yesterday, I reintroduced for the third time my private member's bill,

An Act to require open meetings

for provincial and municipal boards, commissions and other public bodies. This bill, along with Dalton McGuinty's commitment to good government, is the most marked difference between the provincial

Liberal standards of more open and honest government versus the lower standards of Premier Ernie Eves.

In the 2002 report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, she calls for the need for an open meeting act with penalties and oversight -- a

much-needed law, such as the one that I tabled yesterday. This bill raises the bar of accountability and will ensure transparency in decisions made by public bodies who spend taxpayers' dollars. It

adds a penalty to those who conduct meetings inappropriately behind closed doors. The Conservatives voted against this bill in 2002 after second reading.

Ann Cavoukian, Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner, states that people expect and demand greater levels of transparency in decision-making processes

of government. Unfortunately, it seems that the provincial Conservatives have lost their way and have actually conducted themselves with less transparency, less accountability, and they accept

lower standards of conduct across the board. This is yet another reason that it's time for a change in the province of Ontario.

NORTH BAY RELAY FOR LIFE

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): Last Friday, I had the opportunity to attend the Relay for Life in the city of North Bay. It was held up at the air

force base. I had the opportunity of speaking from the stage, and when I looked out over the crowd, it was something to see, the crowd that was there. There were 138 teams participating in the

Relay for Life, and they raised $280,000 for cancer research. I'm very proud of this group because they raised more per capita than any city in the province.

The first lap was a lap of survivors. They read their names out. It was one way for us to stand there and applaud them for their courage and to support them in

their battle. It was an incredible event. We have to thank the volunteers and the participants who made it what it was.

The Relay for Life is our way of remembering those we've lost to this terrible disease, to support and encourage those who are in the battle of this important

disease, and to celebrate those who have survived. I have to tell you that I was very proud just to be at the event. There was a young woman who had invited me to walk with her on Friday night.

Unfortunately, her disease came back, and she wasn't able to be there with us that night, but I just want to extend our thoughts to her.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): The people of Ontario are taking a pounding from skyrocketing insurance rates. Sadly, the Conservatives just sit there

and make excuses for doing nothing while honest, hard-working people live in fear of their next insurance rate hike.

But the real tragedy is the NDP. Every time I look to their benches, it's like a time warp. It's almost as though I were peering back to 1989 and listening to

Peter Kormos call over and over again for public auto insurance.

Now, the NDP promised public auto insurance. They pledged it with their heart and said it was the cure to all the woes of the world. Right there in their 1990

platform it said, "New Democrats for many years have proposed that Ontario have a driver-owned system of car insurance." They promised "a driver-owned car insurance plan that's fair, affordable and

accessible."

Did they do that? No, they broke their promise. Where was Howard Hampton when the NDP broke that promise? Sitting at the cabinet table. Where was Shelley Martel

when they broke that promise? Sitting at the cabinet table. Where was Marilyn Churley when they broke that promise? Sitting at the cabinet table. Where was Rosario Marchese when they broke that

promise? Sitting around the cabinet table.

Where is their credibility an auto insurance? Nowhere.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): On June 12, I raised concerns in this House with the Minister of Transportation about the government's plan to

proceed with the environmental assessment for the mid-peninsula highway.

As you know, on Monday, June 16, the city of Burlington and Halton region filed a notice of application for a judicial review with the Ontario Superior Court. I

have read this 30-page application. My community and I continue to hold to the belief that the province hasn't sufficiently examined the environmental impacts of building a new highway along the

escarpment. We aren't sure the proposed route will solve all our transit issues, and we argue that the province is breaking environmental law by moving forward with this EA.

Yesterday in Divisional Court, a ruling found that sections of the Environmental Assessment Act amendments in 1996 limited the scope of an EA and they were

struck down. In short, the government's EA process literally only asks the question, "Where will the pavement be put?" However, with yesterday's Divisional Court ruling, the Ministry of the

Environment has no jurisdiction to approve a scoped or pared-down environmental assessment whose terms of reference eliminate the question of a need for a proposed highway or consideration for

alternatives to building this highway.

I have consistently supported the concerns of my community and the concerns of COPE and CONE. I again ask the minister to reconsider proceeding with this

mid-peninsula EA and to get back to the table with the city of Burlington and the region of Halton.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Transportation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With all respect, I would ask the member from Burlington to read

the needs assessment. He may get some information he didn't have before.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That's not a point of order. I usually look to the other side to do that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I note that everybody is good-natured, which is very helpful on the issue.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated June 18, 2003, of

the standing committee on government agencies.

You all stopped and thought I was going to read something very important here, didn't you?

Pursuant to standing order 106(e)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

I'm sure you didn't stop because I was saying so. It's coming toward the end of the session, and I won't be around here much longer. So it's what matters.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its

adoption:

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

Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting the County of Haliburton.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(MOTORCYCLE HELMETS), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DE LA ROUTE (CASQUES

DE MOTOCYCLISTES)

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 109,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to motorcycle helmets / Projet de loi 109, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne

les casques de motocyclistes.

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

All in favour will please say "aye."

All opposed will please say "nay."

The ayes have it. Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The police of the province of Ontario have asked me to introduce this bill. It amends the Highway Traffic Act to

require motorcyclists to surrender their helmets for police inspection on request. This will save police forces across Ontario numerous hours that they have to wait in the courts processing these

types of violations.

JUNE 30, 2003 STATUTORY

HOLIDAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 DÉSIGNANT

JOUR FÉRIÉ LE 30 JUIN 2003

Mr Kormos moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 110,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 / Projet de loi 110, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Ontario's workers are working harder, working longer, 12-hour workdays, 60-hour workweeks, in the Mike

Harris-Ernie Eves Conservative Ontario. This amends the Employment Standards Act to provide that June 30, 2003, is a public holiday. That will permit hardworking people to have a long weekend, come

the July 1st weekend, as compared to the regular two-day weekend that they would otherwise have. It's part of the NDP commitment to create two new statutory holidays for workers here in Ontario so

that we have 10 stat holidays, in comparison to the United Kingdom and France, both of which have 13.

INTERNATIONAL DAY

FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL

DISCRIMINATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA JOURNÉE

INTERNATIONALE POUR L'ÉLIMINATION

DE LA DISCRIMINATION RACIALE

Mr Duncan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 111,

An Act to proclaim March 21 as International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination / Projet de loi 111, Loi proclamant le 21 mars

Journée internationale pour l'élimination de la discrimination raciale.

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

The member for short statement?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): The United Nations commemorates International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on March

21 of each year. That day commences the week of solidarity with people struggling against racism and racial discrimination. The people of Ontario abhor racial discrimination in all its forms, and

therefore we believe this bill should be passed. It also reflects how much we abhor the fact that immigration would be part of the Tory's crime and punishment

section of their campaign

document.

SIR ADAM BECK MEMORIAL ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 À LA MÉMOIRE

DE SIR ADAM BECK

Mr Hampton moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 112,

An Act, in memory of Sir Adam Beck, to prevent the privatization of Hydro One Inc. / Projet de loi 112, Loi à la mémoire de Sir Adam Beck

visant à empêcher la privatisation de Hydro One Inc.

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

The member for short statement?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): This is

an act in memory of Sir Adam Beck, the creator of Ontario's publicly owned hydroelectric

system. It is to prevent the privatization of Hydro One Inc, which the government says it doesn't want to privatize.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT

(NOISE REMEDIATION), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT DES VOIES

PUBLIQUES ET DES TRANSPORTS

EN COMMUN (RÉDUCTION DU BRUIT)

Mr Caplan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act with respect to noise remediation / Projet de loi 113, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur

l'aménagement des voies publiques et des transports en commun afin de réduire le bruit.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): This bill amends the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act to require the Minister of

Transportation to assess noise levels on highways after their construction, extension or alteration. When the noise level exceeds acceptable levels by five decibels or more, the minister is obliged

to take all necessary steps to reduce the noise to an acceptable level within three years. This bill also requires the minister to establish and publish standards for acceptable noise levels for

the operation of highways.

This bill is done to complement the extensive work and lobbying that residents of the community of Don Valley East have been doing to remediate the noise

increases that have resulted from road repairs and other work on Highways 401 and 404 and the Don Valley Parkway that intersect in the heart of Don Valley East. They've been frustrated by the

Ministry of Transportation, who have thrown up their hands when presented with their concerns, saying they have no mandate to solve these problems. With this bill, residents of Don Valley East can

rest easier.

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION

CONTRE L'INCENDIE

Mr Levac moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 114,

An Act to amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 114, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la prévention et la

protection contre l'incendie.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Given the results of several serious inquiries across the province, the bill requires that any proposals to reduce or

restructure fire protection services in communities be approved by the fire marshal before being implemented. The fire marshal would then be required to do an annual report to the minister on any

of these proposals that were reviewed.

AUTO-DIALER CRIME ALERT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LES APPELS

AUTOMATIQUES D'AVERTISSEMENT

D'ACTES CRIMINELS

Mr Colle moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 115,

An Act to enhance community safety and crime prevention by supporting existing auto-dialer crime alert programs and encouraging the establishment of

new auto-dialer crime alert programs in communities across Ontario / Projet de loi 115, Loi visant à améliorer la sécurité publique et la prévention du crime en aidant les

programmes d'appels automatiques d'avertissement d'actes criminels et en encourageant la mise en place de nouveaux programmes semblables au sein des collectivités en Ontario.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): The bill proposes measures to enhance and support auto-dialer crime alert programs operating in Ontario

communities and to encourage the establishment and operation of such programs throughout the province. Auto-dialer crime alert programs permit the transmission of voice and e-mail messages related

to criminal activity and public safety to members of the public who wish to receive them.

REGISTERED PLAN (RETIREMENT

INCOME) EXEMPTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 PORTANT INSAISISSABILITÉ

DES RÉGIMES ENREGISTRÉS

(REVENU DE RETRAITE)

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 116,

An Act exempting registered retirement plans from certain enforcement processes / Projet de loi 116, Loi portant exemption des régimes de

retraite enregistrés de certaines mesures d'exécution forcée.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This bill provides that registered retirement savings plans, registered retirement income funds and deferred

profit-sharing plans of plan holders are exempt from certain enforcement processes brought to them by their creditors.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill 100,

An Act respecting the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Park.

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

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY GUARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES ENQUÊTEURS PRIVÉS

ET LES GARDIENS

Mr Levac moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 117,

An Act to amend the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act to require a minimum level of training for licensees and to require that uniforms

and vehicles of security guards be readily distinguishable from those of the police / Projet de loi 117, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les enquêteurs privés et les gardiens en vue d'exiger un

niveau de formation minimum pour les titulaires de licences et d'exiger que les uniformes et les véhicules des gardiens se distinguent facilement de ceux de la police.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This is a bill that is a duplicate of a previous bill that died on the order paper, and it is requested by all police

services in the province of Ontario. The bill requires that applicants for licensing as private investigators and security guards have a minimum level of training before being licensed. The bill

also requires that uniforms worn by security guards and the vehicles they use as security guards in the course of their employment can readily be distinguishable from those that we have in our

police services today.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hampton, asked for unanimous consent on Bill 100.

I'm wondering if it was the member from Eglinton-Lawrence who declined to --

The Speaker: That is not a point of order. Just to correct the record, the member is not the leader of the official opposition.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(APPROPRIATE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

IN SCHOOLS), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION (UTILISATION

APPROPRIÉE DE LA TECHNOLOGIE

DANS LES ÉCOLES)

Mr Caplan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Education Act to provide for the appropriate use of communications technology in schools by requiring boards to establish

policies and guidelines governing the use of wireless communications devices by pupils on school premises / Projet de loi 118, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation afin de prévoir

l'utilisation appropriée de la technologie de communication dans les écoles en exigeant que les conseils établissent des politiques et des lignes directrices régissant

l'utilisation par les élèves de dispositifs de communication sans fil dans les lieux scolaires.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): This bill was created in response to the many parents and educators who have real concerns about the use of

wireless technology in our schools. Whether it's ringing cellphones, beeping pagers or instant messaging between students, I believe we need to ensure that all boards have rules governing their

use.

This bill, if passed, will amend the Education Act to require boards of education to establish policies and guidelines governing the use of cellphones, pagers

and similar devices by pupils on school premises and will ensure that these policies and guidelines provide disciplinary consequences for non-compliance.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, for my friend from Stoney Creek: I would like to ask unanimous consent

of the House to hear Mr Jackson's statement again when he comes back, because I couldn't hear it for all the government ministers shouting at him while he was trying to speak. Do we have unanimous

consent for that?

The Speaker: I'm afraid I heard some noes.

VISITORS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Speaker, I'd like you and the members to join with me in welcoming, in the west members' gallery, a long-time friend

and long-serving member of the Essex South and Essex Liberal association, my friend Jake deJong.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the members.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Je souhaite la bienvenue à Guilaine et Michel Potvin, visiteurs

dans la galerie ouest ici. Michelle and Guilane Potrin are interested in French education, and in support of a French school. They were fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to win a lunch with me here

at the Legislature today. They're here, and I'm sure everyone joins me in welcoming them to the Legislature today.

The Speaker: We welcome our guests.

Just before we continue, in case we've missed anybody, I'll say it again: introduction of bills? I didn't think there was anybody left.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to

move a motion without notice, debate or amendment respecting today's sitting.

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

Hon Mr Baird: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 9 or any other order of the House, the House may continue to meet beyond 6 pm today

in order that order numbers G43 and G53 may be called, and that immediately following consideration of those orders, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until Thursday, June 19, at 10 am.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is actually for the Minister of Finance, but I don't think she's here as yet. I'd been

led to believe she would be here. Since the finance minister is not here, I'll go to the Premier.

Actually, the minister is just arriving, and I'll begin my question now.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): If we could put the clock back and start again. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: Minister, from the statements we've seen from you in the media it seems that you believe Ontario's fiscal situation is getting

worse. The budget assumed a 3% real growth, and I gather the indications now are that it may be lower or substantially lower. In the budget, there were some major risks -- I think $2.2 billion of

asset sales that you planned -- I believe about $770 million from the federal government that assumed a $6-billion surplus of the federal government. If growth indeed is 1% lower, I gather that we

lose revenue of $600 million.

Recognizing that Ontario appears to be facing a significant fiscal situation -- the rating agencies indicate as much as a $2-billion deficit -- will you

provide Ontario with an updated economic and fiscal outlook indicating how you plan to deal with these growing problems?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): We've balanced the budget in this province four times, we are going to do it for a fifth and, as the

honourable member knows, we report regularly on the finances of Ontario. We will continue to do that as we have in the past.

Mr Phillips: You've indicated, Minister, that you may have to take some fairly dramatic action. There are two areas that you can take the

action in. One is to cut planned spending and the second is to delay the tax cuts.

It was exactly a year ago that you presented your budget of 2002 here in the Legislature. There you said, "Because of the temporary fiscal situation, the

Ontario government has made the decision to reschedule certain major planned tax cuts." That was a year ago.

We face again, I gather, based on your comments, another significant fiscal situation. The question is this: recognizing that the problems are similar to last

year, is the delay of promised tax cuts one of the options you're considering?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The situation is not similar to what it was last year. This year we are facing two significant problems. One of them is the

impact of SARS on this province and the second is Ottawa's totally inadequate response to dealing with that. I think the honourable member could have been helpful if, instead of standing here in

your place and asking this question, you would join with us in the work that we're trying to do on behalf of Ontario residents to get our fair share of support for SARS. Our health community needs

that, our business community here needs that and Ottawa needs to be at the table to help us in that regard.

Mr Phillips: I gather, Minister, you're saying the situation may be in fact worse than last year. I simply want to say to you that last year

when you faced a "fiscal situation," as you called it -- and I gather you're saying the situation may be worse -- you made the decision to cancel scheduled tax cuts. You have indicated that you

have to make some big decisions on behalf of the Eves government. You are, I gather, planning to make some substantial cuts in services. The people of Ontario at least want to be assured that as

part of your plan to balance the budget you will do the same thing that you did last year: that you will make certain that one of the decisions that you will look at, and frankly we recommend, in

dealing with this situation is to once again delay scheduled tax cuts. Is that one of the options -- delaying scheduled tax cuts -- you are looking at, or have you ruled that out?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, last year we did not cancel tax cuts; as a matter of fact, our budget had additional tax cuts in it. This

spring's budget had tax cuts in it.

I know the Liberal Party across the way has voted against every tax cut, every piece of tax relief we have given hard-working citizens in Ontario, including

what is on the table right now: additional tax relief for seniors. They have voted against it every single time.

On this side of the House, we believe that tax relief is part of the economic plan that has allowed this province to grow as strongly as it has, that has

allowed this province to have over a million new jobs, that allowed this province to rebound from what happened to us with the events of 9/11, and it is the same economic plan that will allow this

province to continue to grow -- not their plan, our plan.

PROTECTION FOR

HEALTH CARE WORKS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, all of us in this Legislature have applauded the

heroic efforts of our health care workers as they care for patients afflicted with SARS, often at risk to their own health and even their own lives. Our health care workers in turn have expected of

both their government and their employers a commitment to provide the maximum possible protection for them.

As you know, one of the keys to proper protection for nurses and health care workers working in hospitals is to have properly fitted masks. It was in

relationship to that, at the request of nurses, that the Ministry of Labour undertook a little over a week ago to issue orders regarding protective equipment in hospitals and to undertake to

proactively investigate high-risk hospitals and, indeed, committed to continue to visit all Toronto-area hospitals to ensure that our health care workers would be properly protected.

Minister, today the nurses' association of Ontario wrote a letter to your Premier indicating that the Ministry of Labour has ordered a halt to all proactive

inspections for Toronto-area hospitals. The nurses want to know why the proactive inspections to protect our nurses have been halted.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I think the best way to answer that is to refer it to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): I thank the honourable member for the question. It gives me an opportunity to clarify exactly what's been

happening. There were two hospitals, actually, where the Ministry of Labour was called in specifically to deal with the fitting of masks. And with the greatest respect, they're respirators. They're

N95 respirators; they're not masks.

The process is very simple. We provided to the Ministry of Health how the fitting should occur and the employers are responsible for doing it with their

nurses. That's the way the law works. The Ministry of Labour does not go out and do fit-testing for all of the employers in the province of Ontario.

There have been complaints. The member is correct in that. As a matter of fact, from March 27 to June 16, there have been 21 SARS-related work refusals in the

Ontario public service and there have been 31 SARS-related work refusals in various sectors, including the health care sector. Of these, 10 were related to the issue of wearing masks and gloves and

one of these 10 was from nurses and physicians. We are enforcing the laws.

Mrs McLeod: The nurses' association considers it "completely unacceptable" that proactive inspections are only going to proceed now for

categories 3 and 2 hospitals, where SARS has actually occurred.

My supplementary question should be redirected to the Minister of Health, because the nurses were even more disappointed and more concerned when they learned

that the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care had replaced its original May 31 directives with revised directives that were issued just this past Monday, June 16, which in their view reduced the

protection for the majority of health care workers. They believe it is premature to reduce the protection of these workers, and we would have to agree, given the fact that as of Monday when the

protection was reduced, there were still 44 probable cases of SARS in the GTA.

I have to return with my supplemental question to the Minister of Health. Why was your ministry in fact working with the chief executive officer of Sunnybrook

and Women's College Hospital, without consultation with the Ontario Nurses' Association, to revise the directives that had originally been issued on May 31, which did provide an assurance that the

maximum degree of protection would be provided to our health care workers?

Hon Mr Clark: I'll refer the matter back to the Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Clement: I can certainly confirm that there have been a series of new directives out to all health care venues, including acute care

hospitals, but also to long-term-care facilities and physicians' offices. They reflect the latest that is known on a scientific basis as to the best infection control techniques that can be

employed to protect health care workers, patients and our community. I signed off on those as the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and Drs Young and D'Cunha issued those directives on the

basis of our science committee and their recommendations and on the basis of extensive consultation with the hospital and other health care sectors.

If the honourable member has an individual or an organization that wishes to comment on the directives, we do invite that kind of commentary, because there is

always an opportunity to improve where necessary, and we're certainly willing and able to do that.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, this is not "an organization"; this is the body representing the Ontario nurses who are out in our hospitals day in and

day out, concerned, coming out of frightened families who know that they're putting their safety, their health and even their lives at risk to do their jobs and who ask at least that their

government and their employers provide them with minimum protection. That is a highly abstract and theoretical answer to an organization that represents nurses.

Minister, let me read to you what the nurses have asked the Premier: "I ask you," Premier, "to direct the MOH/LTC to reinstate precautions in the directives

that fully protect all health care workers in patient-care areas and ask you to direct the MOL to reinstitute proactive health and safety investigations, with sufficient resources to complete them

forthwith."

They go on to say, "Failure to meet these obligations, in our opinion, would also constitute statutory negligence on the part of this government. We urge you

in the strongest terms not to stand back and knowingly aid and abet those employers who continue to put our members' lives at risk."

Minister, how do you answer the nurses who say that your government is knowingly aiding and abetting employers to put health care workers' lives at risk?

Hon Mr Clement: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Clark: I take great exception to what the member opposite has just said. The reality is the system is working. With the greatest of

respect, the process has been this way for many years. You know that. The employer is responsible for fit testing and safety precautions. There are joint health and safety committees in the

hospitals. If the nurses have concerns about these issues, they take it to the committee.

Twenty-one SARS-related refusals, 31 in the health care -- 10 in the health care sector, one from the nurses and physicians. The Ministry of Labour has

investigated the matters. They have issued orders where orders are necessary in two hospitals. The orders have been complied with.

The Ministry of Health has made very clear what the guidelines are and my ministry is responsible for enforcing them. If the nurses have concerns, they do

exactly what they're doing now. They take it to the joint health and safety committee, and if they still have concerns, they bring it to the Ministry of Health, and it inspects, investigates and

does orders.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Today I tabled the Sir Adam Beck Memorial Act, which would make it

illegal for any government to sell Hydro One. One year ago your government passed legislation giving yourself the power to sell Hydro One. Four months ago you said, in anticipation of an election,

that you were not going to sell Hydro One. One month ago we saw your budget, which shows you intend to sell over $2 billion in public assets, but you refuse to tell the people of Ontario what

assets you'll sell. So that the people of Ontario can be absolutely sure, will you pass the Sir Adam Beck Memorial Act so that Hydro One will remain in public hands?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): As the leader of the third party knows, we have stated that we would not part

with control of Hydro One. Even if Hydro One were to have been sold a year ago, it wouldn't have generated anywhere near the $2 billion or $2.2 billion that he claims it would. Actually, the net

book value the province would have been able to book as a net benefit would have been about $200 million to $400 million at most.

Mr Hampton: Premier, it's a simple request. Will you pass legislation that ensures Hydro One remains in public hands? You should be able to

answer that yes or no. What is so confusing are the answers you give. One day you say, "We're not interested in privatizing Hydro One." The next day you say, "We wouldn't be interested in giving up

control of Hydro One." Then we see your budget, which is deteriorating every day, which is now a $4-billion problem rather than a $2-billion problem. I think the people of Ontario deserve a

straight answer. Will you pass this bill that will ensure that Hydro One, that not any part of it can be sold off, yes or no?

Hon Mr Eves: We don't have to pass the bill. We've made the commitment to the public that we are not parting with control of Hydro One, and

we're not. Now, any part of it is a different question. The answer to that question, any part of it, is no. The reality is we are not parting with control of Hydro One.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you're starting to sound like another political leader in this House, who when first asked said, "Yes, I would sell Hydro

One," and then three or four months later --

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Who's that?

Mr Hampton: It's the Liberal leader who said this. Then three or four months later he said he wouldn't sell Hydro One.

Premier, the reality is this: people know there is an election coming and what people are concerned about is, if you should be re-elected, or frankly if the

Liberals were elected, what would be sold off right away? Hydro One. That's exactly what would be on the chopping block. Yet you say Hydro One is not for sale. So if it's not for sale, will you

pass this legislation, which clearly says it's not for sale now, it's not for sale after the election, it's not for sale, period? Will you pass it, yes or no?

Hon Mr Eves: We've said no. We've made the commitment that we are not parting with control of Hydro One. No more need be said.

WEST NILE VIRUS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, I am sending you over a letter, and I am sending over a letter for the Minister of Health.

You would have received this letter earlier today from the Toronto medical officer of health, Dr Sheela Basrur, and the chair of the board of health for Toronto, Councillor Joe Mihevc. The letter

states that without 100% funding for West Nile prevention, Toronto cannot put in place the required surveillance and prevention program to fight West Nile.

Premier, next week, you will head off on your summer holidays, and the reality will be that municipalities and health units will be left holding the bag. Will

you do the right thing? Will do what Dr Basrur and the public health unit of Toronto want you to do? Will you assure them of 100% funding so that those municipalities and public health units that

have to fight West Nile virus this summer will be able to do that? Will you do it now?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I refer the question to the Minister of Health.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I want to assure the honourable member, the leader of the third party, that in fact

the province will be paying, as a result of the Premier's announcement earlier last month, 100% of the costs of larvicide, 100% of a province-wide, comprehensive public education campaign, all lab

testing for human cases, dead bird surveillance and transport to testing, all adult mosquito surveillance, a new Web-based integrated information system, an early warning surveillance system and a

provincial prevention control coordinator.

As a result of the Premier's leadership and his announcement, we are there to protect the people of Ontario when it comes to West Nile virus. We can't offer

100% protection, because there is a risk. But we are doing everything that we can do to educate, to inform and to ensure that larviciding and surveillance take place so that the people of Ontario

are protected as much as possible as anywhere else in North America from this deadly disease.

Mr Hampton: Premier, last summer your government dropped the ball on West Nile, and over 1,000 people got sick.

In the gallery today is Janet Chappel. She knows all too well what happened. Her husband, Dr Robert Grisdale, was a very healthy, active 52-year-old until last

summer, when he contracted West Nile virus on the Labour Day weekend. He is still recovering from encephalitis. Dr Grisdale and Janet Chappel want to know how many people will get sick this summer

before you realize that this is a provincial issue, that mosquitoes do not respect provincial boundaries, that you're putting municipalities in the position where some of them will not have the

money to do the full surveillance and the full prevention. If one municipality cannot do the work, then you put literally hundreds of thousands of people at risk.

Premier, the question is this: are you going to mismanage the West Nile virus the way your government did last summer and risk illness among thousands of

people, or are you going to provide 100% of the funding for the full surveillance and prevention program that municipalities and public health units need? Which is it going to be?

Hon Mr Clement: Let me say to anyone who has been affected by West Nile virus, including Dr Grisdale, that it is unfortunate when anyone

contracts this disease.

The fact of the matter is that there have been people all over North America who have contracted the disease, and I would not be honest to this Legislature if

I stood in my place today and said that no one would be contracting the disease in the future. The fact of the matter is that West Nile virus is among us, West Nile virus is a threat, and we have

to do everything we can do as individuals to protect ourselves and our families and to be part of the solution. But insofar as the Ontario government is concerned, with our seven-point action plan,

announced on March 22 by myself, with the new province-wide larviciding standards that were announced on May 13 by the Premier, and with the budget announced by our Minister of Finance, which

dedicated $100 million over five years, we are at the forefront in battling this disease. Indeed, I would say that we are in the forefront in all of North America in battling this disease. For

that, the people --

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

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I want to ask you about a contract given by your ministry

that's found in public accounts.

Around the time Tom Long joined the Monitor group, the Ministry Of Health gave the Monitor group contracts worth almost $3 million. Can you tell the House

today what Mr Long's company did to get that $3-million contract, and why money that was budgeted for health care, nurses, hospitals and doctors was used for that contract?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): If the honourable member would send me over particulars, I'd be happy to look into

it.

Mr Duncan: The details are contained in the public accounts, which I would have assumed that you would have been aware of. They're out of your

ministry. I want to remind you that this is not the first time one of Mr Long's companies has had a contract with the government. Around the time that he joined the Monitor group, the Ministry of

Health entered into contracts worth $3 million. That's $3 million for his company.

We'd like three things from you today. First, will you agree to release the contract with Mr Long's company, the Monitor group? Second, will you release the

results of the work that they did for your government? Third, will you release the request for proposals for the contract, if there was one? Will you agree to release that information today?

Hon Mr Clement: I will take those questions under advisement and get back to him as soon as possible.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Public Safety and Security. Some weeks ago --

Interjections.

Ms Mushinski: I know the Liberals across the way don't want to hear this question, but I'm going to ask it because the people in my riding of

Scarborough Centre want to hear it.

Some weeks ago, this Legislature voted to endorse Ontario beginning discussions with Ottawa to transfer the responsibility of immigration pertaining to Ontario

from the federal to the provincial level.

I know that this is something that we on this side of the House strongly believe in, as evidenced in this plan for the future called The Road Ahead.

I know that one of the concerns stems from the shocking revelations from the federal Auditor General that under the current federal Liberal government, tens of

thousands of persons ordered deported from Canada are actually missing.

Minister, can you update us on what we have learned to date about this situation?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): I thank the member. I very much appreciate her concern.

Several weeks ago, Auditor General Sheila Fraser did draw attention to the fact that federal officials had lost track of some 36,000 individuals who had been

ordered removed from this country. She also expressed concern that many of these people might pose a safety risk to Canadians. The federal Liberals, in typical fashion, said, "Don't worry; be

happy." Well, we are worried and we're not happy. We've called on the federal government to provide us with details on these people. What are the criminal backgrounds, if any? What potential

security risks do any of these individuals pose to this province and this country? Ontarians have a right to know.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that, Minister. I agree with you: Ontarians do have a right to know.

Let me ask you: if in the course of cleaning up the mess that the federal Liberals have created, which they so often do, is the Ernie Eves government

developing any overall plans or systemic oversight into how to prevent this kind of catastrophe in the future? Specifically, I would like to know what our government is doing to keep our

neighbourhoods safe from those who may be using Ontario to further their illegal activities?

Hon Mr Runciman: First and foremost, we are convinced that the best time to prevent this abuse in the future is before persons who are not

citizens seek entry into our country. That's why we support the North American security perimeter concept, and why we believe it's important for our province to have a Quebec-like agreement to

provide Ontario with greater control over immigration.

We want biometrics to be used on documentation, so that it is almost impossible to use forged or faked documents to gain entry into Canada.

Finally, the federal government needs to deal with those who transport these individuals. Too many airlines allow travellers on to flights with very little or

no documentation. When this happens on more than two or three occasions, we believe the landing privileges of these carriers should be suspended.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we continue -- if we could stop the clock for a quick moment. Members are trying to be cute and hold

up copies of it. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do it. The other side will get copies out there. I know a couple of members are doing it. I would just appreciate it if you wouldn't do

it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I know you know what's in it, so you probably don't need to read it.

ENERGY CONTRACTS

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Premier. Is the Premier still here?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): If we could just stop the clock. I've got one yes and one no. Maybe we could go to the Deputy Premier then?

Mr Bryant: Few tactics offend consumers more than negative-option billing. Consumers end up stuck with a contract by default instead of by

actively agreeing to a contract. It is the scourge of a predatory practice where a consumer gets stuck with a contract because of a tactic that is undertaken that is extremely offensive to

consumers. When the cable industry did this, consumers went through the roof, and the government had to step in and fix it.

We have learned, thanks to a notice provided today by the Ontario Energy Board, that your government has recently passed a regulation to permit negative option

billing for electricity contracts. When this government is pretending to protect consumers with a bill before the House on this very subject on the Ontario Energy Board, how on earth could you open

up this practice, when your record in terms of protecting consumers on the energy front has been a disaster? How could you have passed this regulation and hurt consumers in this fashion?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I'll refer that to the Minister of Energy.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs, Government House Leader): What the member opposite says

is not, in fact, the case. What we have done is put in place a set of initiatives and protections that have existed for many years for both electricity and natural gas. These are the exact same

consumer protections or go substantially further, as we have for folks with mortgages, for subscriptions and for insurance.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Baird: Not at all, I say to the member for Windsor.

Many consumers in the province of Ontario have sought the stability of fixed-rate contracts for either gas or for electricity. People don't want a short time

period or an action on their part to throw them on to a volatile spot market -- a market they sought to avoid.

Mr Bryant: That is just not the case. This is what the Ontario Energy Board says: "Under new regulations passed by the Ontario government,

natural gas and electricity supply contracts can be automatically renewed for one year." The consumers have to cancel the contract in writing within 30 days after receiving it. "If the consumer

does not respond to the renewal notice" -- it says here in the Ontario Energy Board notice -- "and does not cancel after receiving the first bill, the contract is renewed for one year." That's

negative-option billing.

To make matters worse, they're going to be signing on to a contract that takes them out of the price cap. You are forcing consumers off the price cap. Not only

are you asleep at the switch, as you have been when it comes to electricity consumers for the past eight years, you are now actively working to create conditions that are going to royally harm

consumers. How on earth could you have passed this regulation without telling the public, without telling consumers, and leave consumers in a situation where they've got negative-option billing and

they are stuck with contracts that they simply don't deserve?

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite doesn't let the facts get in the way. In fact, what we've put in place are some protections for consumers,

to ensure that they have the ability to escape a volatile spot market if that's something that they have made a choice to do.

What we've said very specifically is, it's much like car insurance, who don't cut you off immediately if you don't renew your notice; there's a 30-day period

where you have an opportunity to go back to the spot market, and then you've got a further 35 days after you get the first bill.

Many consumers, whether they be in the case the member opposite talks about, electricity -- I assume he wouldn't be talking about consumers that are large

commercial or industrial users -- choose the benefits of a fixed-rate contract. We want to ensure that those protections for consumers that are in place, and others, are there; those consumer

protections were in place for many years in Ontario.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. As you're aware, about 60% of all Canadian immigrants settle in

Ontario. I think that's actually very good news. In fact, Ontario is a great place for all of us to live. Ontario has welcomed approximately 120,000 immigrants in the past 10 years. In light of the

high volume of newcomers to our province, what is our government doing to assist newcomers to become established in this wonderful province? I could add, is the federal government responding with

their fair share of funding?

Hon Carl DeFaria (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I thank my colleague the hard-working member for Durham for the

question. Cultural diversity is one of our province's greatest strengths. Ontario spends approximately $55 million a year on settlement, language training and labour market integration plans.

Ontario provides language-training classes, services and job training, settlement services and business information for immigrant entrepreneurs.

Our government is doing its share but the federal government is not. Almost 60% of all of Canada's immigrants come to Ontario and settle here. The federal

Liberal government spends less than 40% for integration programs in Ontario. Let me be clear: Ontario immigrants are not getting the fair share that immigrants in Quebec get. That's not fair.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for that honest and passionate response. I know you take the issue of immigration very seriously.

It has come to my attention that the federal government keeps talking about increasing the number of people encouraged to come to Canada. Some say it's in the

order of about 1%, which you know would come to about 300,000 immigrants a year. This increase would amount to about 80,000 immigrants over what Canada currently welcomes. I am curious about your

previous response, that Ontario is paying its share while the federal government continues to deny equal treatment in Ontario. What is our government's position on increasing the opportunities for

all new Canadians fairly, whether its Quebec or Ontario?

Hon Mr DeFaria: Yes, the federal Liberal government is talking about increasing immigrant levels, but it does not talk about increasing

funding support for immigrants. Our government believes that increases in immigration must go hand in hand with increases in federal funding. For example, a new immigrant to Quebec benefits from

more than three times as much in federal funding as a new immigrant to Ontario. Ontario taxpayers are left to pick up the tab. Again, I say that's not fair. We have a made-in-Ontario plan to fix

that.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. I just asked you to not use the props. I'd appreciate it. Two minutes after I ask it, you do it.

You wonder why I get frustrated in this job. I've asked politely. What happens is that when you do it, then the other side does it. I know you think you're cute, but it just gets it up. I'd

appreciate it if you wouldn't do it. Sorry for the interruption, but we have stopped the clock. The leader of the third party.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Recently, the Consumers' Association of Canada

completed an exhaustive comparison of auto insurance rates in five Canadian cities, including Vancouver, where they have public auto insurance, and Toronto. This report concludes that the "fairest

method for determining how much a consumer should pay for auto insurance is their driving record. The association does not support the discriminatory rating practices used in cities such as Calgary

and Toronto."

This is yet another reason why private auto insurance results in much higher auto insurance premiums. All kinds of people are singled out on the basis of

irrelevant factors, like their age or their gender, and forced to pay higher insurance rates than other drivers with exactly the same driving record that they have.

Minister, two simple questions: will you stop this kind of discriminatory insurance rate-setting that is central to the private insurance industry, and will

you establish in Ontario a non-profit, public auto insurance system that will give the drivers of this province at least a 20% break in their insurance rates?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): We certainly appreciate and understand the pressure consumers are having with auto insurance. That's

why we are taking the steps we are to bring better benefits to consumers and to put steps in place to help moderate the increases. One of the other things the honourable member knows is that there

are checks and balances built into the system to ensure that ratings and rating factors are not discriminatory, and if that is the case, the superintendent can certainly take action on that.

But again, I find it a little ironic that the honourable member would raise in the House auto insurance when his own government at the time had the opportunity

to do what he is now advocating. They didn't do it because they said it would cost too much. They didn't do it because they said it wouldn't work. So I do find his concern today a tad ironic.

Mr Hampton: The reason the NDP government didn't do it at the time was because Ontario's economy was in a very deep recession.

The consumers' association gives us a number of examples of lower rates --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. We'll let the member start again and have his time. It's just that they wouldn't be able to hear the

question. The leader of the third party may start again.

Mr Hampton: The consumers' association gives some examples of the discriminatory practice and what it means. For example, they cite a young

man with a perfect driving record in Vancouver with a 1992 Honda Civic. In Vancouver, he would pay $1,378 for auto insurance. The same young driver in Toronto, subject to the discriminatory

practices, with the same driving record, same car, would pay $3,191. That is the difference between a public system where you're rated on the basis of your own driving record and the discrimination

that is practised by the private insurance companies in Ontario.

Minister, my question to you is, do you stand by that unfairness or are you going to bring in a public insurance system which rates drivers on their own

driving record and gives those who drive well a break on their insurance premiums?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member may think that bringing in a public system miraculously provides new monies to pay for the services

consumers get. As he well knows, public systems find their savings in other things, like reduced benefits; in subsidization from other taxpayers, for example. It is not the solution he is making it

out to be.

Secondly, if he was so concerned about helping consumers, as we on this side of the House are, with auto insurance, why is it that he voted against when we

brought down the sales tax on auto insurance to help consumers? He voted against that. He obviously didn't think that would help consumers.

Thirdly, when we brought in legislation that would expand the rights of innocent victims to sue, that would expand the opportunity for consumers to get faster

treatment when they were injured, he voted against that legislation.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Deputy Premier. I want to ask you about your

private school tax credit that you have endorsed as Minister of Education, the bill being rushed through the Legislature and subject to closure yesterday.

You know, Minister, as you heard in estimates, that the money you're allowing, the millions of dollars, is being captured by high-end school tuition increases.

You're sending this money out in public cheques to Albert College, $29,000; they're going to increase their tuition next school year to $31,000 courtesy of you. Similarly, Appleby College, thankful

for your support, will be able to put their tuitions up from $35,100 to $36,850. Ashbury College, $28,850; after your donation of a new tax credit this year, it's going to be $30,200.

So I want to ask you, Deputy Premier, how can you proceed with diverting hundreds of millions of dollars away from public education that lacks the basics when

your tax credit is being captured up by high-end private schools in this fashion? How do you justify that?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I'll refer that to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I think, to the honourable member, we should be perfectly clear what the record is. This side of the

House believes that the public education system is one of the basic building blocks for economic growth for the future success of our communities. That's why we have taken steps to increase the

amount of money for public education, to raise the standards for public education, to ensure that parents have the supports they need so students can succeed -- all of those being steps that they

voted against.

Now let's look at the equity in education tax credit. We on this side of the House believe we should respect parental choice. On that side of the House in the

Liberal Party, they only respect parental choice when it's the choice the Liberal Party wants them to make. We do not agree with that approach, and we've been very clear about that.

Mr Kennedy: We now have a clear illustration of the essential problem. There's no Minister of Education over there.

This is what the last Minister of Education, who is the Minister of Finance, said. She said, in a letter of January 13, 2000, that extending funding "would

result in fragmentation of the education system in Ontario and undermine the goal of universal access."

Well, that's exactly what has happened. What has happened under this government is a 50% increase in enrolment in private schools, now 10 times the growth,

such that one in four new Ontario students is going to private school, up from one in 16 under the previous government.

Again I want to ask you, since the Minister of Education won't defend public education, perhaps the Minister of Finance will tell us now if she's proud of how

programs, denied textbooks and denied the class sizes they need to succeed?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The Minister of Education on this side of the House needs no lesson, sir, from you about how to advocate on behalf of public

education. When we brought in higher standards, the new, tougher curriculum, standards for teacher professional development, all standards to raise the quality of education, that side of the House

voted against it.

Secondly, when we brought in steps to respect parental choice, that side of the House voted against it.

Thirdly, no one on this side of the House would be supporting the equity in education tax credit if it were to take one dollar out of public education. That's

why on this side of the House we have increased funding for public education by over $2 billion, because we believe it is an important support for economic growth and the quality of our

communities.

SARS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Yesterday, a representative

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. We'll let the member speak. He's having trouble. We'll just let them settle down.

The member for Simcoe North has the floor.

Mr Dunlop: Yesterday, a representative of Health Canada, Dr Paul Gully, commented on Ontario's response to the SARS outbreak while speaking at

a global conference in Malaysia. Dr Gully was reported in today's National Post as saying that the fight against SARS is complicated because, "A shortage of nursing home beds means seniors, those

most susceptible to SARS, can spend too much time in acute care hospitals, risking exposure."

I would like to ask the associate minister, is there any truth whatsoever to this claim?

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It's always a pleasure to respond to the honourable member from Simcoe

North.

I was disappointed to read those comments this morning, because the exact opposite is true in Ontario, and Health Canada ought to know that. The fact is, our

government's response to the SARS outbreak included transferring non-SARS alternative level of care patients out of GTA hospitals and into two long-term-care facilities to help relieve the

pressures on the hospitals. I want to add today that an additional facility was ready to assist, if needed.

If we indeed had a shortage of nursing home beds in Ontario, these transfers would not have been possible. It's pretty simple math. It's more than ironic that

the federal government is spending so much time criticizing others when they should be spending their time, and most importantly their money, helping the people of Ontario recover from the

consequences of SARS.

Mr Dunlop: I thank the associate minister for his response, but I'm not the least bit surprised to hear that there's no truth to the federal

government's latest accusations. I agree that the Chrétien Liberals should step forward and keep their pledge of SARS assistance to Ontario. It seems that they're not even taking our request

for SARS assistance seriously. That's a real disappointment, but again, it's not surprising, coming from the same government, the federal Liberal government, that doesn't give us a single penny for

long-term care here in Ontario.

Long-term care for Ontario's seniors may not matter to the Liberals in Ottawa, but I know that it matters to the people of Ontario, and I know that it matters

to the people in my riding of Simcoe North.

I ask the associate minister if he could speak about the absence of federal support for long-term care in this province.

Hon Mr Newman: I once again thank the hard-working member from Simcoe North for his question.

Ontario's population is growing and aging, and while the Ernie Eves government has made record investments in the sector, Ottawa is nowhere to be found. It's

just like the federal government's lack of response to SARS. Ontario has spent almost $1.5 billion on SARS, including compensation and recovery, and we need the federal government to provide

immediate, significant federal disaster assistance to this province. The federal disaster assistance program, designed for situations just like this, provides for up to 90% assistance to the

province, and that's exactly what we expect. We expect the federal government to contribute at least $150 million in a down payment immediately, followed by the balance of more than $900 million.

We expect this for the people of Ontario.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Since 1997, about 10,000 Ontario property owners have

signed up for the managed forest tax incentive program. It's a good program. It says, "Look, we recognize there's very little cash flow off a managed forest, so in return for your preserving the

forest, we will assess a property at farm evaluation, and thus farm tax rates." It's an excellent program. It worked well. Unfortunately, though, in the last year the Municipal Property Assessment

Corp, instead of assessing it on the basis of a woodlot, has chosen to assess it at its highest and best use. That has driven the tax rates up 200% to 600%, and it's causing the people who own

these woodlots to be unable to continue to remain in the program.

Minister of Finance, you have the authority to have an impact, to evaluate it, as the commitment was made, at the farm tax evaluation level. Will you

immediately implement that?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): Obviously, the honourable member has not been informed. I'd be quite happy to share correspondence with

him. We have agreed to make sure that the assessment methodology that MPAC uses on managed forests is for current use. We've also made some other improvements to make sure that those who are

protecting that land can indeed continue to protect it.

Mr Parsons: That's an excellent answer. Someone needs to tell MPAC and someone needs to tell the property owners, because as of yesterday

afternoon, the municipalities were still continuing to set the evaluation and in fact have sent the tax bills out and received interim payments based on the highest and best use.

So if indeed this has happened, it's great news, but I would then ask you, will you ensure that municipalities refund the money for the high tax rate that has

been paid previously? They have paid it at the high rate, and the landowners are still out of pocket by a considerable amount. I'm assuming you're going to make it retroactive, because that was a

commitment from 1997. Will you ensure that every property owner receives a rebate for their managed forest?

Hon Mrs Ecker: If there's a particular municipality and the honourable member wishes to send the information over to me, we'll certainly take

a look at it. But we have communicated with MPAC; we have communicated with stakeholders. We are moving to ensure that the property tax assessment for managed forests continues to support those

owners who are protecting very important land.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): My question is for the Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I understand that June 17 was the

fifth anniversary of the Tenant Protection Act. We've come a long way since the introduction of this act in protecting tenants' and landlords' rights. We've seen record investments in the rental

housing stock and protection for tenants.

The Tenant Protection Act protects tenants against excessive rent increases by limiting above-guideline increases based on capital improvements. Dalton

McGuinty has another idea to provide real rent control to tenants across this province. Minister, could you tell this House a little bit more about Dalton McGuinty's nonsense plan and how it will

affect tenants in the province of Ontario?

Hon Tina R. Molinari (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I want to thank the member for Nipissing for this very important

question. When I look at the platform that the Liberals are proposing, I can see similarities between their policies now and the Liberal housing boondoggle in 1985. At that time, the then Liberal

housing minister, Alvin Curling, suggested, "Rent controls could be lifted ... if the vacancy rates reached comfortable levels of about 3%."

This may sound familiar --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm going to interrupt the minister. Stop the clock. I would ask the members: you know you can phrase a question

and get into that, but when you just simply ask a question like this -- last warning -- you know it has to relate to your own ministry.

I would say that there's a way to get into that very, very easily without being so blatant. If you do it -- last warning -- you lose the question and I go on

in the rotation. I would thank all members. I'll let you wrap up. Again, if I could be very clear to those who are writing the answers and so on, so I don't need to get up again in the days coming

up, if it does get to be something as blatant as that one clearly was, without any spin whatsoever, them I'm simply going to go on to the question and you're going to lose it.

Minister?

Hon Mrs Molinari: The Liberal platform, in comparison to what we have in place today, if they were to consistently go on the 3% -- a Globe and

Mail

article of June 16 said that the vacancy rate in Toronto jumped to 3.5% in April. So I'm just trying to point out that the truth is that the Liberals' real rent control is really no rent

control for Toronto.

Mr McDonald: I understand our legislation was so much stronger. I wonder, Minister, if you can speak to this and what the differences are

between our protection plan and that of the Liberal government.

Hon Mrs Molinari: The Tenant Protection Act that we have in place is far-reaching and far beyond what the opposition has put in place in the

past. I want to highlight that in the past under the Liberal government, there were several examples of unacceptable rent increases, which averaged 12% annually. One such example was a tenant in

Brockville. The landlord had asked for a 26.5% increase. However, under the Liberal rule, the landlord wasn't awarded the 26%; they were awarded 29.5%.

This is difficult to --

The Speaker: I'm sorry. We're going to continue on. Again, I know it made it a little bit difficult when you were into the second question. I

thought you would have been able to ad lib it. I understand that sometimes that's not possible. But just for everybody, I want to be very clear that if it happens tomorrow, we go right over to the

other side. We're not going to put up with that any more.

The member of the NDP, new question?

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): Ma question est au Chair of Management Board. Monsieur Tsubouchi, j'ai eu la situation juste

dernièrement que la communauté de Hearst voulait faire application à un de vos programmes provinciaux à travers le Patrimoine vital. Quand ils ont été pour faire

capable de traiter cette demande, on lui a dit, « Il n'y a pas de personnel dans le staff du Patrimoine vital pour être capable de traiter la demande. »

autres communautés francophones ?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): I'm not clear about the program the member is talking

about. Maybe he could clear that up in the second part of the question. I'm not quite sure if he was asking me -- he started by asking me as Chair of Management Board. I'm assuming you're asking me

as the Minister of Culture.

Mr Bisson: Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Chair of Management Board for a heritage program?

programmes clés de ce gouvernement.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Once again, I'm not quite clear on the program. Usually the heritage programs are through the Ministry of Culture, so I'm

not aware of what he's asking me for. If he's asking about whether or not the services should be in French, they should be, and certainly I'll look into it once I have the details from the

member.

M. Bisson: Je ne sais pas quoi dire à ce point-ci. Que le ministre de la Couronne ne sait pas son propre programme, qui est le Patrimoine

vital -- straight translation, "Living Legacy." Je penserais qu'au moins le gouvernement saurait son propre programme. La ville de Hearst a fait demande sous Patrimoine vital pour être capable

d'avoir une application pour des fonds pour le reboisement dans la région de Hearst. Quand la municipalité, à travers le conseiller, M. Rhéaume, a fait application, on est

Je vous demande de corriger ce programme et cette erreur. Allez-vous le faire, oui ou non ?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The member has now cleared up what the program was. He said Living Legacy. Living Legacy is natural resources, not

Management Board. No wonder I don't know the program. It's not my program. Ask the right minister, for God's sake.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. We've talked with Anne Fraser from Walkerton about

the difficulties her family is having with the government compensation package. Anne is the mother of three teenagers. Prior to Walkerton she was a regular mom with a regular job, with a regular

family, regular lifestyle. She lived in a three-bedroom house with her kids. She was in good health except for a bad knee.

Anne is the mother of three teenagers, but that's about all that remains in her life. After she drank contaminated water in May 2000, she had to quit her job.

She has chronic diarrhea, her joints are constantly aching, her muscles are weak, her vision is impaired. She's a 40-year-old, she says, but she feels like she's 70. She can go to work and come

home and that's it for her. She doesn't dare do any more, she says. She has had to sell her three-bedroom house and has moved into a basement apartment with her kids.

I ask the Minister of the Environment, why is your government preventing a woman with so many problems from getting adequate and fair compensation as a result

of the situation in Walkerton when your government promised that you were going to provide that to her?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Minister of the Environment): I'd be happy to look into the case that the

honourable member has brought forward if he wants to provide me with the details. We take these matters quite seriously on this side of the House.

Mr Bradley: The Premier of the province is likely to show up in Walkerton sometime to have a flashy announcement about the water centre in

Walkerton. When he is there, would the Minister of the Environment suggest to the Premier of this province that he meet with Anne Fraser and others who, after months and months of working with

adjustors, have lost any hope that they will receive anywhere near the amount of compensation needed to cover expenses such as she has had to cover thus far and will have to cover the rest of her

life? She's been in and out of hospitals and doctors' offices since she fell ill. She's had to travel to London, Kincardine and Owen Sound. Her entire family has faced hardship, and the government

is only willing to give her $7,500 to cover everything -- her travel, her medical bills, her lost days, her pain and suffering -- $7,500.

Will you suggest to the Premier of this province that when he goes up to Walkerton to make his announcement with so much fanfare, with the Tory cameras going

behind them because you'll have them there for campaign purposes -- will you ask him to meet with Anne Fraser and the others who are hard done by because this government is failing to keep its

promise to the people of Walkerton?

Hon Mr Wilson: Well, I think our government responded very quickly and in a fair manner to the needs of the people of Walkerton. I come from

that part of the province and I know first-hand that we were on the ground responding.

With respect to compensation claims and the needs that certain people have now, there is a court-monitored process in place. Mr Flaherty was the Attorney

General at the time and responded very quickly to make sure that a fair process was in place. You know, coming from not too far away from Walkerton, I've not heard a lot of complaints.

I will take very seriously the matter you've raised, and I'll get back to the honourable member if he provides me with all of the details. I want to make sure

the honourable member is telling the family involved, though, that they have rights under the court process, and we want to make sure that they exercise all of the rights that they have, because we

want to be fair to them.

VISITORS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): When she was six years old, Alicia Harvie rescued her mother and sister from their burning home. Today,

Alicia, who is now eight, was honoured by receiving the Ontario Fire Marshal's Fire Safety Award. Alicia Harvie is here, with her sister, Thya Harvie, her mother, Amanda Harvie, her dad, Brian

Levesque, and fire prevention officer Tom Nenadovich and his wife, Linda Nenadovich, from Welland. I hope the House will join me in welcoming them.

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

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition signed by thousands of people, and it reads as follows:

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

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

local and county officials; and

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

at reduced costs;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Immediately rescind the forced amalgamation order and return our local municipal government to the citizens in a two-tier model of government to be approved

by referendum by the electorate in the 2003 municipal election."

HOME CARE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition again concerns the termination of homemaking services by the Manitoulin-Sudbury Community Care

Access Centre.

"Whereas we are outraged by the community care access centre's decision to cut homemaking services to seniors;

"Therefore,

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

"

(1) Provide enough resources to the Manitoulin-Sudbury Community Care Access Centre so that they can provide homemaking services; and

"

(2) Instruct Associate Minister Dan Newman to attend a public meeting in Sudbury with MPP Rick Bartolucci to hear stories about what will happen when

homemaking services are cut off to these clients."

Of course, I affix my signature to this petition, as I did last week and yesterday, and I give it to Brittany to bring to the table.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

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

"Whereas we strenuously object to the proposed Richmond landfill expansion by Canadian Waste Services; and

"Whereas fractured limestone is an inappropriate location for a landfill; and

"Whereas the town of greater Napanee produces less than 1% of the waste sent to the Richmond landfill; and

"Whereas the Ernie Eves government has indicated that they will break their promise that no community should have to accept waste against their will; and

"Whereas the courts have ruled that the present terms of reference are invalid;

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

"We request that the Conservative government keep their promise, stop the expansion of this landfill and make waste reduction a priority for Ontario."

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

SERVICE DE DIALYSE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): J'ai une pétition et c'est M me Thérèse Bezel qui l'a organisée à

Kapuskasing pour Marie-Ève Chainey. Elle se lit ainsi :

« Nous, les soussignés, demandons au gouvernement de l'Ontario d'agir sans délai dans le dossier de Marie-Ève Chenier qui requiert le

service quotidien de dialyse à la maison. Marie-Ève était candidate pour recevoir ce service sous peu. Cependant, mercredi dernier, faute de financement de gouvernement de l'Ontario,

l'hôpital Riverside d'Ottawa lui a refusé ce service. Nous demandons au gouvernement conservateur de Ernie Eves d'écouter ses citoyens et de rapidement agir. »

J'ai signé cette pétition.

TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE

AND ACUPUNCTURE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I have a petition here in support of the regulation of traditional Chinese medicine and

acupuncture.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional Chinese medicine ... including acupuncture, has been practised successfully for over 5,000 years and has improved the health of billions

of people worldwide with an emphasis on prevention and treating the cause of illness and not just the symptoms; and

"Whereas there are thousands of unregulated individuals practising acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine in Ontario without any regulations, standards

of care or professional training requirements; and

"Whereas the failure of the provincial government to protect consumers by regulating TCM/acupuncture places Ontarians at risk because any person can now

practise TCM and acupuncture without any qualifications or standards whatsoever; and

"Whereas TCM/acupuncture is regulated in over 40 states in the US and in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, and these jurisdictions have

passed legislation to regulate practitioners of TCM/acupuncture in order to provide safe, effective and high standards of care to the general public; and

"Whereas hundreds of thousands of Ontarians have experienced the benefits of TCM/acupuncture and are culturally linked to traditional Chinese medicine, given

the diverse origins of so many Ontarians; and

"Whereas we spend over $2 billion a month in Ontario on western medical treatment and virtually nothing on preventive, complementary or alternative medical

practices such as TCM that not only prevent illness and promote wellness, but also save taxpayers billions of dollars in drug costs and hospital stays;

"We, the undersigned, urge the provincial government of Ontario and all MPPs to pass legislation as soon as possible based on the British Columbia model to

allow for the regulation of TCM/acupuncture and establish a college of TCM/acupuncture of Ontario, and set standards of care and training qualifications for practitioners in Ontario so that all

Ontarians can safely enjoy all the benefits of TCM/acupuncture from highly qualified and trained practitioners."

I will affix my signature for I am in full agreement and Caitlyn will take it to the desk.

The Deputy Speaker {Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Durham.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a surprise that you said "Durham." I'm pleased to present a petition to the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario on behalf of my constituents in the wonderful riding of Durham. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Oak Ridges moraine is an ecological treasure that warrants protection and careful stewardship now and in future generations; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario has recognized the importance of the moraine with the passage of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, to protect

natural and water resources, preserve agricultural land and provide clarity on where development can and cannot occur; and

"Whereas the act has resulted in certain limitations on citizens' use of their own property within the moraine;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario take action to ensure there are no undue restrictions on Oak Ridges moraine residents making minor improvements to their homes

and property; and

"That the province of Ontario work" together "with municipalities and landowners to ensure the

interpretation and enforcement of the act continues to fully

protect the moraine while also giving residents the right to fair and reasonable enjoyment of their property."

I'm pleased to read this in the presence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as well as present it to Lucas, who's from the riding of Oxford and

is serving us here in the Legislature.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): "Listen: Our Hearing is Important!

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas services delisted by the Ontario provincial 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 new provincial government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded audiology assessments across" this province; and

"Whereas this policy will lengthen waiting lists for patients and therefore have a detrimental effect on the health of these Ontarians;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned" residents of Peterborough, Stratford and Pembroke, "demand the Eves government move immediately to

permanently fund audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

I'm in full agreement, and I've affixed my signature hereto.

ITER

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Speaker. I have another petition here from my wonderful riding of

Durham.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

tech-nology;

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

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

Canadian ITER bid;

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

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

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

I'm pleased to present this --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further petitions?

VISITORS

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to recognize the grade 5 students, the teacher and

the parents from the Sacred Heart Catholic school in Parkhill, Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): That is not a point of order, but we welcome them to our Legislature.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

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

"Whereas sexual harassment is the most significant occupational health and safety hazard for women in the workplace; and

"Whereas the Ontario Human Rights Code guarantees the right to work in an environment free from sexual harassment, there is no effective remedy under the

current legislative regime to immediately stop the sexual harassment, remove the dangerous behaviour and keep workers in their jobs;

"Whereas sexual harassment can occur in any workplace setting, can cause health and safety risks and lower employee productivity;

"Whereas employers often fail to develop strict anti-harassment policies in the workplace, because presently it is simply left to their own goodwill to

implement such policies;

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

"That measures contained in Bill 55, the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act, presented by Pat Hoy, MPP, Chatham-Kent Essex, be immediately enacted.

This bill puts teeth in the right to be free from workplace sexual harassment and provides enforcement mechanisms that operate to immediately stop the harassment and to protect and keep the worker

in their job."

I, of course, have signed this petition.

DIALYSIS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I realize I was being blocked by the member from Algoma, who's just getting in my way.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: He meant well, he meant well. I don't say anything bad.

I've got probably the better part of a couple of thousand names that were gathered by Thérèse Bezel, who went around with other volunteers in regard

to Marie-Ève Chenier. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, are asking the government of Ontario to act without delay in the case of Marie-Eve Chenier, who requires the daily home services of

hemodialysis. Marie-Eve Chenier was one of the candidates scheduled to receive this service. However, the lack of funding by the Ontario government has forced the Riverdale Hospital in Ottawa to

eliminate Marie-Eve from the program. Marie-Eve was advised of this decision last Wednesday. We, the taxpayers of Ontario, ask the Conservative government of Ernie Eves to listen to its taxpayers

and act promptly so that Marie-Eve can get her hemodialysis."

I have signed that petition, and I congratulate all who worked on this.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I just wanted to make a comment. To the students from Sacred Heart school, the

member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex is one of the best members in this House.

I'm privileged to read a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham:

"Whereas the timely and efficient movement of people and products is crucial to the success of the Ontario economy;

"Whereas the province of Ontario is meeting the challenge of traffic congestion in the greater Toronto area by making improvements to our highway networks and

by improved public transportation;

"Whereas the further construction of Highway 407 eastward into the Durham region would improve the flow of traffic in Durham region and throughout the GTA;

"Whereas the citizens and municipalities of Durham region have faced uncertainty over the final alignment of the proposed 407 highway for many years and are

entitled to a timely resolution to this matter;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario take all necessary steps to fast-track the extension of Highway 407 eastward into the regional municipality of Durham, while

also ensuring that all the necessary environmental assessment and public consultations are followed."

I'm pleased to sign this, endorse it and hand it on to Timothy, who is the page serving his last week here in the Legislature.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Royal Canadian Legion branch 429 in Wawa has a long-standing tradition of promoting the mandate and ideals of the Royal Canadian Legion in serving

Wawa;

"Whereas the members of the Royal Canadian Legion branch 429 in Wawa are the contribution that the branch has made in serving the Royal Canadian Legion in

Wawa;

"Whereas this long-standing tradition has been compromised due to negative changes in the local economy, changes in provincial legislation respecting

charitable gaming laws, and other socio-economic changes within society in general;

"Whereas the deregulation of hydro in the province of Ontario has had a devastating effect on the branch to pay the power rates;

"Whereas the cumulative effect of all of the above changes has jeopardized the future and integrity of the organization;

"Whereas a motion has been unanimously passed at the general meeting of the Royal Canadian Legion branch 429 held on June 12, 2003, requesting the executive to

write to the government of Ontario with regard to the outlandish power rates and request immediate action by the government;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately and retroactively reduce the electrical distribution charges in the Great

Lakes Power area so that Great Lakes Power customers no longer pay the highest power rates in Ontario."

This is signed by president Richard Watson and by Eric Mitrikas, the first vice-president of the branch.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD

CONSUMER PROTECTION

AND GOVERNANCE ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS ET LA RÉGIE

DE LA COMMISSION DE L'ÉNERGIE

DE L'ONTARIO

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 17, 2003, on the motion for second reading of Bill 23,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Act, 1998 and the Municipal

Franchises Act in respect of consumer protection, the governance of the Ontario Energy Board and other matters / Projet de loi 23, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l'énergie

de l'Ontario et la

Loi sur les concessions municipales en ce qui a trait à la protection des consommateurs, à la régie de la Commission de l'énergie de l'Ontario et à

d'autres questions.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I think in the rotation of things, the NDP caucus has the floor. So I recognize the member from

Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Mr Speaker, I am so glad you recognized me in this debate. This is a really important debate. I've got

to say that I'm quite happy today to have an opportunity to speak to this, because we are talking about probably one of the most fundamental issues to not only to the Ontario economy but

specifically the northern economy.

You'll know that in the place I come from, northern Ontario, we have the largest hydro utility customers in the province of Ontario. In fact, the one customer

who buys more hydro than anybody else in Ontario is in the city of Timmins: Falconbridge. They operate the metallurgical site in Timmins, where they operate three different lines -- a refinery, a

smelter and a concentrator -- and the zinc plant, and are the biggest utilizers of electricity in the province of Ontario.

You have other companies like Tembec who operate everything from paper mills to saw mills and pulp mills, all across not only my riding, but other parts of the

province. You have customers like Domtar, Buchanan and a number of other mills who are some of the highest utilizers of electricity in the province of Ontario. So if anybody is affected by hydro

policy in this province, it is certainly those particular employers in northern Ontario, because they are about the largest users of hydro in Ontario. A lot of people don't recognize that. They

would think GM, Ford or one of the big auto plants would be the biggest customers. But in fact, it's mines and mills, because of the amount of electricity they have to use for the processes of

extracting ore from the rock into finished product.

I have to say to the Minister of Energy: John, we told you so. We stood in this House, my leader Howard Hampton, myself and others -- well, you weren't the

Minister of Energy at the time. We told Jim that and he didn't believe us. We told Jim, now Minister of the Environment, and part-time Northern Development and Mines, "If the government moves to

deregulate and the government moves to privatize Hydro, it would be a disaster to the economy of Ontario and its citizens." When we looked at the experiences of deregulation and privatization

across not only North America, but into Europe and other places, there are no real examples that you can point to that say, "Wow, here's a place where we've opened the market and we've deregulated

and privatized, and hydro prices have gone down over the longer term." Now, in California, one could argue that initially there was a bit of a drop in prices, but after the companies got the greed

factor in and they started trying to figure out how they could gouge more and more money -- like the insurance companies are doing in automobile insurance and other insurances -- they couldn't help

themselves. They started taking huge profits, to the chagrin of the California economy. In fact, as the leader of deregulation, California is now moving in the opposite direction. They're saying,

"What a disaster." It has led to all kinds of problems: brownouts in California, higher energy prices, plant shutdowns, seniors and people on fixed incomes who can't afford to pay their electricity

rates -- everybody was a loser. Finally, California had to start moving in the other direction.

Remember that song, Alberta Bound? I can sing it, Speaker; I know the words, and my guitar is in the back. If you let me bring it in, I'll sing it.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Speaker, are you trying to say you don't want to hear my lovely voice?

The Deputy Speaker: Don't ask me now.

Mr Bisson: OK. Maybe another time. Maybe we can do it in another venue.

Alberta, the one province in Canada that's probably the most Conservative of provinces -- for years they've elected more right-wing governments than Ontario;

it was either Social Credit or it was Conservative. And even their flirtation with privatization, as we pick up the Globe and Mail and the National Post, those right-wing papers -- which I like to

read every morning, because they tell me what the other guys are doing. About a month ago they were running articles saying that, basically, they've had to admit that deregulation and privatization

was wrong, that it doesn't work and that it has led to higher prices.

I'm just going to use the opportunity of this debate to say what it has meant to people and industries in northern Ontario. On a number of occasions, I've

raised in this House the bills that citizens in my constituency were having to pay when it came to higher Hydro rates. I was telling you about a number of small businesses in my riding --

restaurants, tool and dye shops, carpentry shops, welding shops -- who contacted me over the year to say, "Gilles, if I was paying $600 or $1,200 for electricity on a monthly bill last year, prior

to deregulation, I'm paying twice that and more now. Tell me how I'm a winner, Gilles, with privatization and deregulation." A lot of them didn't really understand the issue, because most people,

let's admit it, don't follow the details of what government does. All they really pay attention to is the final effect. In fact, I've had a lot of small businesses come to me and say, "Gilles, how

come my Hydro rates went up? I used to pay $600 last year; I'm paying $1,200 to $1,400 this year for the same amount of electricity." I said, "Well, did you know that Ernie Eves opened the market

and then basically had to backtrack somewhat and put a cap in place that really doesn't apply to you because of the usage of electricity you have?" They said, "No, I wasn't aware of the details.

All I know is I'm paying more." In this House, I've raised all kinds of examples of businesses in my riding that have been negatively affected by Hydro deregulation and the failed attempt to

privatize.

I've raised cases of individuals, like Mr Bergeron in Kapuskasing, who's a senior on a fixed income; he's now retired. He's had to pay over double what he used

to pay before.

I have other cases here. I just happened to open my householder and I've got another one here. Mr Hansen on Government Road, when you look at the hydro bills,

was basically paying -- I believe if I take a look at this, this is for the month of March. March this year, he had to pay $542 for electricity. Can you imagine paying $542 for electricity in the

month of March? In March the year before, he was paying but half that. If you take a look in the winter months, it was even higher. If you take a look at the period of February, he was up to $834.

How can this gentleman afford to pay that?

Mr Adams, again from Kapuskasing, brought in his hydro bills and he's upset. He says, "Here I am in the month of May and I'm having to pay $660 for

electricity." May 2003: $660 for electricity. If you keep on going through the bills, the month before he was paying -- I've got to get the right page. That's the other thing. These bills have

become so complicated to read. We've unbundled the price, and you can't even read the bill any more. Here we've got $318 that he paid the year before compared to $660 this year.

Hydro bill after hydro bill has demonstrated that the whole policy of the government to open and deregulate the market has been nothing but a disaster. We have

been saying since before the onset of deregulation and privatization that hydro bills would go up. The government said, "Oh, Howard Hampton, you don't know what you're talking about. You're just

saying that because you're fearmongering." Here we are but a year later -- just barely a year later -- and in fact what we said was right, because hydro prices have gone up.

That's why we, in our Public Power platform, are advocating that we put an end to deregulation and privatization so that at the end we're able to put hydro

back under public control so that we can bring some stability to rates and provide power at cost to consumers because, quite frankly, electricity is a big part of what drives our economy.

We believe that. It's something we want to do. We know it's something you can do, because we did it before. If you look at hydro prices in Canada, the cheapest

rates for electricity are where? The province of Quebec and the province of Manitoba, and both have public hydro. It's a little bit like the auto insurance issue that we raised today, but that's

for another debate.

You would also know that my colleagues Tony Martin, Shelley Martel and Howard Hampton, all of us northern members, have kicked off a northern tour. We're

travelling this spring and summer to communities across northern Ontario to talk to communities, industry and individuals about what's happening in their communities vis-à-vis job losses that

we're seeing happen.

In fact, I was in Sault Ste Marie on Monday -- that's why I was not here -- with my colleague Mr Martin where we boarded a Beaver airplane at the bush plane

museum in Sault Ste Marie to go and visit the communities of Wawa, Dubreuilville and White River.

These are some of the notes I took when I was in these meetings. Quite frankly, what these people are telling us is really scary. For example, we spoke to Norm

Lecuyer who is, I believe, the general manager for River Gold, and he basically talked about how energy prices for River Gold in Wawa have led to over $200,000 more in actual cost to the company as

compared to last year. The government and others say, "Well, $200,000, they're a profitable company. They can probably absorb that."

Mining is a very finite business. You have to spend money on exploration every year to replace the ore that you've identified and mined this year so that in

future years you have ore that's identified to mine in the following years. What he told us is, "That $200,000, we had to get it by cutting our exploration project back by over $200,000." He's

saying, "What this is doing is shortening the life of the mine." Monsieur Lecuyer said they basically could not afford to pay these rates for hydro, because it was cutting into their bottom line to

the point that it's making it difficult for them.

I don't believe River Gold is in a position of having to shut down, thank God, and I don't want to see that, but I can tell you that an extra $200,000 in costs

to that company is a lot. This is a government that likes to take pride in saying, "We lowered taxes." Well, yes, you lowered taxes. Sure, you might have lowered $20,000 in taxes for River Gold

last year, but you're charging them $200,000 in extra energy charges. That is not a good thing. Plus, you also regulate how we price gas in the province of Ontario, which is yet another debate. Gas

costs for these companies are going through the roof and leading to very bad times.

We went to Dubreuilville and we spoke to a number of people there. Mr Leo Raymond was there, who is the mayor of White River. We met with Mr Mike Mantha, who

is the IWA rep there, and a number of other people, including Mr Dave Jennings, who is the manager of the local mill in Dubreuilville. In Dubreuilville there is a forestry operation, in a community

of 1,000 people, that employs 450 people. As a result of the energy prices of Great Lakes Power in that community, energy prices for Dubreuil lumber have gone up by 75%. You tell me what business

is able to make a 75% increase on the selling price of an item over one year. Even MPPs only got 25% last time, and we, as New Democrats, think that's somewhat excessive considering what other

people are getting. We don't see people in the retail business increasing their prices by 75%.

saying and doing what's happening in Dubreuilville. They're going from employment of 450 people and dropping down to 150. That's a lot of jobs in a community of 1,000 people.

When we sat down there and talked to the workers, they were plenty upset. They were saying, "We can't afford to sit around in Dubreuilville for the next year

wondering if we're going to get rehired. We're going to start looking for jobs elsewhere if we can find them."

For Dubreuilville that's a huge issue because their municipal assessment is going to go down. They can't sell the houses, so the houses are going to go vacant.

When the company reopens to full employment levels, once we fix the problems with hydro and a couple of other issues, where is Dubreuilville going to get these qualified workers who understand the

plant? The skilled tradespeople, the skilled men and women who work in the plant and understand the production methods, the people who are harvesting in the bush: you just don't go get those people

in downtown Toronto. Those are skills that are learned over a lifetime. You can't replace them just like that.

One of the things the company and Dave Jennings were telling us was that it's bad enough that we have to lay off. They feel really bad about it but they're

saying that if this goes on for any period of time, they're really worried about what it means overall when they come to reopen and get back up to employment levels. They're saying, "Where are we

going to find all these people? Are they going to be willing to come back?"

I guess the bad part of this answer is that they'll come back if the economy is bad elsewhere, which is a double whammy, and they won't come back if the

economy is good elsewhere.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): What did Bob Rae say Saturday night?

Mr Bisson: Bob Rae restructured those communities. As a New Democrat, I can tell you that when Sault Ste Marie, Kapuskasing, Sturgeon Falls,

Atikokan and Thunder Bay were going down the tubes, our government was there. We sat down with the communities, the companies, the unions and the workers. We said, "Let's help to restructure," and

we restructured those companies, and those communities survived.

I represent Kapuskasing. I was not the member for Kapuskasing at the time, it was Mr Len Wood, but I can tell you that when Kapuskasing was going through what

Dubreuilville is now, we were there as a government looking for solutions. The solution the company and the workers brought forward was employee ownership.

I'm not arguing that we have to do employee ownership in Dubreuilville, but if it's the only option, maybe the government should be at the table. Here's the

message we were told by the communities of Wawa, White River and Dubreuilville: the government is missing in action. They said they had been trying to get hold of ministers to deal with their

issues. They've been