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

June 25, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Jun-25 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 25 June 2003 Mercredi 25 juin 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

SENIORS' MONTH

INSURANCE RATES

ADDICTION SERVICES

HIGHWAY 410

BSE

PHARMACARE

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

COMMUNITY SAFETY

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

VISITORS

MEMBER FOR STORMONT-

DUNDAS-CHARLOTTENBURGH

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO HERITAGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

ITALIAN HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE ITALIEN

ELECTRONIC WASTE PRODUCER

RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ

DES PRODUCTEURS DE DÉCHETS

ÉLECTRONIQUES

INVESTMENT TRUST

UNITHOLDERS PROTECTION

FROM LIABILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'IMMUNITÉ

DES DÉTENTEURS D'UNITÉS

DE SOCIÉTÉS DE PLACEMENT

CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BRANCH ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA DIRECTION

DE LA SANTÉ DES ENFANTS

ET DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

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)

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

PROPERTY TAXATION

INSURANCE RATES

SENIOR CITIZENS

ENERGY CONSERVATION

HAZARDOUS WASTE

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

VISITORS

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

VISITORS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

PROPERTY TAXATION

LONG-TERM CARE

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

HOME CARE

EDUCATION FUNDING

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THE RIGHT CHOICES ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LES BONS CHOIX

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Wednesday 25 June 2003 Mercredi 25 juin 2003

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): The quality of a government can be judged by the priorities that it puts on spending taxpayers'

dollars. Every day, this government faces the question, do we spend the money on seniors or do we spend it on partisan ads? Should we spend the money on textbooks or should we spend it on partisan

ads? Should we take some of the taxpayers' dollars and spend them on affordable housing or should we spend them on partisan ads? Should we use the money to give ODSP recipients their first increase

in 12 years or should we spend it on partisan ads?

What about a citizen on ODSP who requires a special diet to maintain their health and indeed to stay alive? Should we spend the money on that or should we spend

it on steak dinners for ourselves?

I would like to tell you about a constituent, not of mine but of another member, who requires a very special diet for pancreatic enzymes. She knows she needs it,

her doctor knows she needs it, and in fact ODSP knows she needs it. ODSP has indicated that because of this diet she requires to stay alive, they will give her $250 a month for this special diet.

The difficulty is that the diet costs $410 a month.

I need advice, I guess, from the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services. Should she not eat on weekends? Should she eat the first half of the

month and not the second half? Or perhaps the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services should look at the budget and say it is worth $160 to keep a citizen of Ontario alive, and should

fund the diet at the rate she needs to stay alive.

SENIORS' MONTH

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It is my honour, on the occasion of Seniors' Month, to celebrate and pay tribute to the people who

built Ontario into the great province it is today.

Seniors are living longer, healthier lives than ever before. It is time that we cast aside all stereotypes of retirement as a quiet time in a rocking chair.

Today, seniors are contributing more hours of community service than they did while working and raising their families. Annually, seniors volunteer the highest number of hours of any age group.

Many seniors pursue sports and leisure activities to keep fit and enjoy the company of others. On June 20, when I attended the awards ceremony of the Mississauga

Seniors' Games, I talked with amazing seniors who swim or play tennis every day.

Seniors are also making an effort to stay healthy. There was an excellent turnout for the Healthy Living Expo, sponsored by the Mississauga Board of Chinese

Professionals and Businesses, which launched Seniors' Month in Mississauga.

Our government wants to help seniors remain in their homes as long as possible by reimbursing the education portion of their property tax. The many seniors

living on reduced retirement incomes will welcome this tax relief, which will occur when Bill 43 is passed into law.

To all our seniors we say, you are setting wonderful examples as you continue to share, care, teach and lead in so many ways. Thank you for creating communities

and a living environment that are the envy of the world. You will always be our heroes.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Martin Beaudry writes in the Insurance Journal, "Auto insurers put the brakes on risk in Ontario." He reports,

"Capacity is down, insurers are refusing new business, and those lucky enough to be insured are at risk of losing their coverage should anything happen."

Jim Thomson of the Timmins-based brokerage BMT Insurance says, "We are at a crisis now where people can come in off the street and I don't have a market for

them."

The

article goes on to say, "Insurers are using `predatory' practices to clean up their book of business. They are culling their databases to identify people

they want to get rid of. What they do is send a letter 45 days prior to your renewal, and they don't tell the broker. If you don't complete that form and send it back to them, you are automatically

cancelled."

I have a memo to the brokers of a major insurer that is headed, "Reasons for Declination." This list gives brokers instruction on 89 reasons to decline new and

renewal business. Not one reason is given why they should be insured.

Whatever happened to company loyalty -- loyalty to both brokers and the insured? What is the Ernie Eves government doing to assure that companies don't just dump

loyal brokers and insureds? What's the Ernie Eves government doing about insurance? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

ADDICTION SERVICES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): And the government should adopt public auto insurance. That would deal with the issue. We New Democrats

are moving in that direction.

I want to bring to the attention of the House something that is a disaster beginning to happen across this province, and it's in the area of addiction services.

It turns out that we haven't seen an increase in the budget for addiction services over the last 10 years, other than a 2% increase last year.

As a result of the funding shortfall on the part of this provincial government, we now have situations such as we have in Smooth Rock Falls, where the Cochrane

detox centre is having to close its doors for one month in order to balance their budget this September. They're in a situation of having to say, "We will take no new intakes for the month of

September in order to balance our annual budget." I say to the government that we need to deal with this, and we need to deal with it fast.

In talking to people in addiction services, it turns out it's not just the Cochrane detox centre that's in that situation; we have detox centres across the

province that are facing similar kinds of situations because of inadequate funding of addiction services on the part of this government.

Further to that, La Maison Arc-En-Ciel in Opasatika, which has not had an increase in its budget in a number of years, other than that 2%, is facing similar

crises.

We're calling on this government to do the right thing and fund addiction services to the degree they need to provide these important services to the people of

Ontario.

HIGHWAY 410

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): On Monday, I was pleased to take

part in a very special announcement in my riding of Brampton Centre with

Premier Eves, Minister of Transportation Frank Klees, Peel Regional Chair Emil Kolb, Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell and my colleagues Tony Clement and Raminder Gill.

Finally, after years of delays and bureaucratic stalling, the residents of Brampton are getting the news they've been waiting for: the extension of Highway 205

-- sorry, that's actually Highway 410. We call it 205 because it was only half completed by the NDP. This is great news for Brampton, as it will reduce gridlock and improve traffic safety in

Brampton-Caledon, as well as attract new investments and new opportunities. How important is this project? The 410 carries over 100,000 commuters a day and nearly $325 million worth of goods.

This is a good partnership, supported by the region of Peel and the city of Brampton to better serve the citizens of Ontario. Taxpayers expect governments to

work together, and this is a prime example of how it did.

I want to thank all for their hard work in making this promise a reality: Transportation Minister Frank Klees for cutting through the red tape and giving final

approval to the project; former Minister Sterling, who moved the yardsticks on this project forward; and Mr John Pappain, a man who was instrumental in the negotiations with landowners that made

Monday's announcement possible.

Thank you to Metrus and the Brampton Board of Trade for their leadership and pressure to bring this matter to the forefront. I thank you all, for the residents

of Brampton.

BSE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): The Minister of Agriculture just doesn't get it. The magnitude and diversity of our beef industry

demands broad consultation to deal with the BSE crisis.

The minister claims to be working with the OCA. Well, the OCA wrote the minister last Friday, "We are requesting that your ministry take the lead in forming an

oversight committee that will not only work toward the betterment of the current program but also take a proactive approach." They ask for inclusion of representatives from the Ontario Livestock

Dealers' Association, the Ontario Livestock Auction Markets Association, the veal and sheep associations and the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. These voices must be heard and listened to.

Ross McCall, president of the livestock dealers, says, "They just don't understand the magnitude of the problem and what it could blow into. The minister doesn't

realize the importance and urgency of getting money into producers' hands."

Len Gamble is the owner of Brussels Livestock, in the minister's own riding. He markets over 170,000 head per year. He says, "The minister should be listening to

the grassroots of the industry and the everyday farm public to find out what is going on. That's just not happening."

Our exporters and our dairy industry have been virtually ignored by this ministry. The minister must sit down and meet with these people immediately.

I'm calling on the minister once again to do what it takes to save the industry -- the entire industry. Forty per cent is a minimum contribution to the program.

The province has the ability to enhance and expand the program, and if that's what it takes, the minister should show some leadership and get on with it and get behind the ruminant industry in this

province.

PHARMACARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): The Ontario government allows, through legislation, the ability for pharmacists to waive the $2 copay for

Ontario drug benefit recipients. The government encourages discounting of pharmacy fees, yet the same provincial government has not granted an increase to their professional dispensing fee in over

13 years.

In order to compete, many pharmacists have waived their patient copay. Others have chosen to use loyalty programs like the Shoppers Drug Mart Optimum card, which

provides value to their customers. Loyalty programs provide valuable benefits to consumers and patients and have done so in this province since 1999.

Every province but Quebec allows the public to collect loyalty points on the full value of a prescription -- a significant benefit, particularly to low-income

earners. However, on June 16 this year, the Ontario College of Pharmacists reversed this policy, prohibiting the awarding of loyalty bonus points or air miles on prescriptions, prescription

services and professional services related to pharmacy in Ontario. This policy now discriminates against pharmacists', seniors' and consumers' best interests.

Loyalty and bonus points should be treated in the same way that the government is treating the waiving or charging of the copay. This should be a business

decision by pharmacists for their consumers. I call on the Minister of Consumer and Business Services to end this discriminatory practice in Ontario. This decision to prohibit loyalty and bonus

programs in this province is a bad deal for pharmacies and a very bad deal for Ontario consumers.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): It's been one crisis after another for Ernie Eves and his government. He's had a full year of sitting in

the big chair and he still doesn't know how to manage the province of Ontario. He still doesn't have any ideas about how to fix our hospitals or crumbling schools or dirty air, other than to turn

off your barbecue.

Ernie Eves thinks it's more important to play golf in Arizona than to deal with the SARS crisis. Ernie Eves thinks it's okay for ministers to funnel expenses

through private corporations. He also seems to think it's okay for cabinet ministers to tell ever-changing stories about their European junkets. This is the same Ernie Eves who is starving our

public health system of dollars so they can't combat the West Nile virus effectively. This is the same Ernie Eves who tried to secretly give a sports camp in his own riding a $700,000 retroactive

tax break. This is the same Ernie Eves who has left the province on the verge of energy blackouts.

Let me read what the Toronto Star has to say about this government: "Clearly, the Conservatives, first under Mike Harris and now under Ernie Eves, are spending

more time in their second term helping their friends, their own ridings and individuals and private companies who have donated to Tory coffers than they are in managing the affairs of this

province. All are signs of an arrogant, tired regime that has run out of fresh ideas and has fallen into the morass of pork-barrel politics at its worst."

Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals have fresh ideas to fix our hospitals, our schools, and clean up the air we breathe and the water we drink. We're tired

of Tory pork-barrelling. We need a change. Dalton McGuinty will bring about that change and will work for the people of Ontario.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Community safety continues to be a priority of our government. Ontario residents not only have the right to be

safe but also to feel safe in their communities.

I was pleased to be a part of a cheque presentation to the York region police on Monday. York region police have been given $1,323,999 to pay for police

officers, to fund anti-drinking and driving campaigns and to fight youth crime. This includes $1.2 million given to the community policing program to cover the cost of 79 new front-line officers.

They also received $20,500 to pay for the overtime of police officers working on the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere, RIDE, program, which operates in York region year-round. We gave $15,250 to

the youth crime and violence enforcement program. The Partners Against Crime also received a $19,000 grant.

Under the terms of the community policing partnership program, eligible police services received provincial cost-share funding up to $30,000 annually from the

province to pay the salary, benefits and overtime of officers hired under the program. Currently, 998 of the original 1,000 officers allocated are on active duty in police services throughout the

province. Since 1996, we have doubled RIDE grants to $1.2 million per year as part of a five-year enhancement program. Reducing crime, getting drunk drivers off the roads and offering better

options to young people to steer them away from crime are tangible programs that will make a difference in York region and in my riding of York North.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today I laid upon the table the individual members' expenditures for the fiscal year

2002-03. I believe that members will find copies inside their desks if they wish to review them.

VISITORS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: As a former warden of the great county of Simcoe, currently the chairman of

the ex-wardens' association, I'm really pleased to have our former warden, our ex-wardens, our current warden, His Worship George MacDonald, their spouses and friends here, visiting us from the

beautiful county of Simcoe today. I'd ask that you please give them a warm round of applause.

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

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to introduce the House to members who are here today from the

police foundation. There are 15 young people who are studying to be police and law enforcement officers. They are here to study our Legislature with their instructor, Mr John Papadakis. I welcome

them to the Legislature.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: One of our pages, Brittany Shaw, from my riding, has done a very good

job here. I know everybody has been impressed with what she has done. I would like everyone here to welcome with me today her mother Rita Shaw, her father Steve Shaw and her brother Derek Shaw in

the gallery.

MEMBER FOR STORMONT-

DUNDAS-CHARLOTTENBURGH

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There is one other former warden of a county who is in the Legislature

today. He's actually on the floor of the Legislature. This will possibly be his last day in this House as a member.

John Cleary has represented his constituents since 1987 with great distinction, a very long career in his community, a number of volunteer activities. He's been

a friend and colleague to members on this side of the House since 1987. He was elected in 1987, re-elected in 1990, 1995 and 1999. The people of Cornwall and the surrounding region owe him a

tremendous debt of gratitude. Those of us in the Liberal Party salute his outstanding achievements as a member in his work in his community and here at the Legislature.

I think I speak on behalf of all members when we say to you, John, thank you for your distinguished service to your community, your province and your country.

Our best wishes go to you and your family as you enter a new stage of life.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to join with the House leader in saluting Mr Cleary, their member for

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. Mr Cleary has served here at Queen's Park. He has served his community and he has served his party, but he has also served this chamber. He has done it with

dignity, he has done it with grace and he has done it with a sincerity and integrity that are beyond question and beyond reproach.

I want John and his community to know that it's not just his Liberal colleagues at Queen's Park who appreciate his presence for so many years; indeed, it's every

member of this chamber. His courage in addressing issues that others wouldn't address singles him out. That alone, at the very least, singles Mr Cleary out as an exceptional member, and the quiet

but effective manner with which he gets things done.

So I want this chamber, Mr Cleary and his community to know that New Democrats regret his leaving. New Democrats also appreciate and understand the opportunities

that creates for New Democrats. We will do our best, but his tenure here at Queen's Park is one of which Mr Cleary and his community can be very proud. Our personal relationships with Mr Cleary

will always be the subject matter of fond memories. Our respect and regard for Mr Cleary will, I believe, carry on long after he leaves this chamber and moves to yet another stage of his life,

which I'm sure will be as busy and fully occupied as his years here at Queen's Park.

We salute you, Mr Cleary. We wish you well and look forward to seeing what you're going to be doing with a little bit more free time in this next stage of your

life. I want you to know that you can go back home with great pride in your own right for good service, integrous service, courageous service and effective service.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs, Government House Leader): I'd like to briefly join my two

colleagues and the House leaders from both parties on behalf of my caucus and the government to thank John for the tremendous contribution that he's made to Ontario, particularly to eastern

Ontario. John is quiet but incredibly effective. There are two members of provincial Parliament whom he's defeated over the years. I think there are only a handful of members in this place who can

say they defeated not one member but two.

He's someone who has worked hard and forcefully brought forward the interests of his constituents. He doesn't get up and rant and rave in the House like all of

us on both sides of the House do, but he regularly comes up to you after question period with a letter directly bringing forward the concerns of a constituent. The people of

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh have had a quiet but effective and hard-working man on their community's side for the past 16 years. I'd like to join all members, particularly being a neighbouring

constituency, in thanking him on behalf of not just the people of Cornwall and Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh but in fact people from all over eastern Ontario and the province.

Congratulations.

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know you're probably in the same boat that I'm in.

You're leaving too, and I guess we have many regrets.

I know in my four terms here at Queen's Park I've made great friends with members on all sides of the House. I know that every member, no matter what party you

belong to, you come here to make Ontario a better place to live and to represent your constituents.

I've been elected, municipally and provincially, non-stop since 1971. I know that I've never promised anyone anything. I've always told them what I thought

should be done and I worked to that goal.

When I first ran for municipal council and was past warden -- I think I have some good friends behind me here somewhere. I was the warden in 1983. When I first

ran, my oldest daughter had just become a teenager. Now she's a grandmother. That tells you something.

I know my family feels that I put my constituents ahead of the family sometimes. Anyway, that's just the way it was.

I would like to also thank my colleague from the Liberal party, Mr Duncan, for his kind remarks, and my colleagues Mr Kormos and John Baird.

I know that it wasn't easy to quit, but the family put on a 50th wedding anniversary for us last year, and they told me that was it. They said if I decided to

run again, they were all going to work against me.

Anyway, to get back to what Peter said: you know, Peter, we had your party representing our area for some 15 years before I came along. I happened to beat a

Conservative who was in there in a minority government. But anyway, they've had their turn there.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): John, is it our turn again?

Mr Cleary: I don't know.

I just want to also say that I've had great constituency staff and riding association volunteers. They're the ones that make the member, because they're the

ones that bring things forward.

Anyway, I wish every member of the Legislature well. I know you're all here for the same goal, and I hope you can achieve your wishes. I guess that it's time

for me to sit down and say thank you.

Applause.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO HERITAGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act / Projet de loi 124, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le patrimoine de l'Ontario.

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

The Chair for a short explanation?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): It will be in ministers' statements.

ITALIAN HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE ITALIEN

Mr Agostino moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 125,

An Act to make December 12 Italian Heritage Day / Projet de loi 125, Loi visant à faire du 12 décembre le Jour du patrimoine italien.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Today, over 700,000 people of Italian descent thrive and live in Ontario. Some have been established

since the first major wave arrived in the late 1880s, and some are recent immigrants. Ontario citizens of Italian descent continue to make a significant contribution to the cultural and economic

growth of Ontario and Canada.

On December 12, 1901, the world-renowned Nobel Prize physicist Guglielmo Marconi received in St John's, Newfoundland, the first transatlantic wireless signal

from his transmission station in Cornwall, England. This was one of the most important developments in human history, allowing communication across much greater distances and permitting people

anywhere in the world to communicate with each other. Marconi's efforts were the precursor of radio, the Internet and other communications tools that are present in our everyday lives. The efforts

of Mr Marconi should be recognized through Italian Heritage Day here in Ontario.

ELECTRONIC WASTE PRODUCER

RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ

DES PRODUCTEURS DE DÉCHETS

ÉLECTRONIQUES

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 126,

An Act to ensure that the producers of electronic equipment retain responsibility when their products become waste / Projet de loi 126, Loi visant

à assurer que les producteurs de matériel électronique sont toujours responsables lorsque leurs produits deviennent des déchets.

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

The member for a short statement?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I apologize, Speaker; I sent a copy of the second environmental bill, which I'll be introducing

later.

This bill requires producers of electronic equipment to implement a program for ensuring environmentally sound collection, treatment, recovery and final

disposition of discarded and obsolete electronic equipment. Landfilling and incineration of electronic wastes are prohibited. I'm bringing this bill forward because there's been an explosion of

electronic equipment going into our landfills, and it is creating a lot of hazards to our water and land.

INVESTMENT TRUST

UNITHOLDERS PROTECTION

FROM LIABILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'IMMUNITÉ

DES DÉTENTEURS D'UNITÉS

DE SOCIÉTÉS DE PLACEMENT

Mr Hastings moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 127,

An Act to protect unitholders in investment trusts from liability / Projet de loi 127, Loi prévoyant l'immunité des détenteurs

d'unités de sociétés de placement.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): The purpose of this bill is to protect unitholders in investment and royalty trusts from liability in

their capacity as unitholders.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BRANCH ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA DIRECTION

DE LA SANTÉ DES ENFANTS

ET DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 128,

An Act to establish the Children's Health and the Environment Branch of the Ministry of the Environment / Projet de loi 128, Loi créant la

Direction de la santé des enfants et de l'environnement au sein du ministère de l'Environnement.

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

The member for a short statement?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The children of Ontario have a right to a clean and safe environment. As children grow and develop,

they are particularly vulnerable to environmental hazards, so I believe there should be an ongoing means by which children are protected from those hazards, to ensure that they grow up healthy.

What this bill will do is require the Ministry of the Environment to establish a children's health and environment branch by January 1, 2004.

VISITORS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Beside my colleague Tony Ruprecht in the west members' gallery is

Dermot Lynch, who is the business representative of district council 46 of the International Union of Painters and Allied Workers. Welcome, Mr Lynch.

Hon Carl DeFaria (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to welcome seniors

from across the province who are here to witness the vote on Bill 43, the seniors' tax credit bill.

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to take a moment to introduce four students

of democracy from the Free Flamborough group, who have arrived here today. Welcome.

Hon Tina R. Molinari (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to introduce some

members in the gallery who are here to witness the vote on Bill 53, the equity in education tax credit. I will start with the Thornhill constituents: Frank Dimant, who is the executive director of

B'nai Brith; Larry Zeifman, who is a parent of children in the education system; and Rabbi Israel Janowski, also a Thornhill resident.

The others here today: Rochelle Wilner, president of B'nai Brith; Pearl Gladman, director of communications for the community action committee; Anita Bromberg,

legal counsel for B'nai Brith; Carla Lancit, editor of the Jewish Tribune; Aaron Blumenfeld; Corrine Korzen, who is our candidate for the Eglinton-Lawrence riding; and Robert Samery, who is chair

of the Jewish Parents for Equality in Education Funding.

I'd like everyone to join me in welcoming them here today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): I'm delighted to speak today as the Minister of

Culture. The Ernie Eves government values and is committed to conserving Ontario's heritage for the enjoyment and benefit of present and future generations.

This is the first government since the introduction of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1975 to bring forward substantive amendments to the act. Ontario has the

oldest heritage legislation in Canada, but is the only province that does not have the legislative tools to recognize and protect properties of provincial significance.

The current statute is not strong or flexible enough. It promotes subjectivity of application. It is also out of step with land use planning legislation,

resulting in conflicting and inconsistent ground rules for property owners. A stronger Ontario Heritage Act would provide more tools and more flexibility to protect local and provincial heritage

and would make Ontario one of the leading jurisdictions in heritage conservation.

We made some changes to the act through last fall's Government Efficiency Act. After holding extensive consultations led by my parliamentary assistant, Julia

Munro, we heard that stakeholders supported these amendments and welcomed the opportunity to make additional changes.

We listened to our stakeholders, and the changes we are introducing today are based upon what we heard. The following amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act

are consistent with this government's Smart Growth initiative, making responsible choices that allow us to maintain a high quality of life while our communities grow.

For example, the powers to designate provincially significant built heritage: sometimes a building is of provincial or national importance and is at risk and

the province has no authority to intervene to protect it. All other provinces have this power. Like the minister's zoning orders under the Planning Act, this power would be used sparingly and as a

last resort.

Standards and guidelines for identifying and protecting provincially owned heritage property that is deemed provincially significant: my ministry would develop

these standards and guidelines in consultation with affected ministries and agencies. We would take into consideration their capacity to implement them. For example, the standards and guidelines

could be phased in.

Increased protection for significant marine heritage sites: this amendment builds on the important work undertaken by my colleague Toby Barrett to protect

marine heritage. We would be regulating access without a licence to about a dozen of the most fragile marine heritage sites such as those containing human remains -- for example, the 1812 warships

Hamilton and Scourge.

Standard designation criteria and other improvements to the municipal designation process: we would develop the designation criteria in consultation with other

ministries, municipalities, developers and heritage stakeholders. Standard criteria would help ensure quality control and consistency in designations while allowing municipalities to interpret and

apply the criteria as appropriate to address local needs.

Measures to streamline and strengthen the protection of heritage conservation districts: for example, we would require districts to have a plan in place to

help ensure better and more consistent management of changes in the district.

Updated and streamlined agency provisions for the Ontario Heritage Foundation and Conservation Review Board: the name of the Ontario Heritage Foundation would

be changed to the Ontario Heritage Trust to better reflect its mandate to hold heritage properties in trust for all Ontarians. We would also update the Conservation Review Board powers to make them

consistent with those of other regulatory tribunals.

These amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act would help build strong communities by promoting civic pride, cultural tourism and local economic development.

Most of all, our government's commitment to the preservation of our province's heritage would improve the quality of life for all people in Ontario.

On a personal note, I might say that some of these things come to us in all of our communities. For example, in my community of Markham, a designated property,

a historical property called the Wideman house, was destroyed overnight. That caused great outrage, not only in me but also in members of my community, as it was considered a cost of doing

business.

We have a responsibility to protect our heritage sites for future generations. Once we lose them, we lose that opportunity. This is our opportunity, so I hope

that all members of this House, including the opposition parties, will support this bill, because I think it will be to the benefit of our children and our grandchildren.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Responses?

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Although we all know that for eight long, dark years we have had absolutely no movement and no progress

when it comes to culture and heritage in Ontario, on the eve before the House is to rise, we now have a bill before us with some amendments. I have to say it's clear by the actions of Mike Harris

as Premier and then Ernie Eves as Premier that the Conservatives unfortunately have portrayed a level of indifference and have also rendered the cultural and heritage community in this province

irrelevant and treated them with irrelevance. I say this because it is the cultural ministry that was decimated more than the environment ministry. That is where the priorities of the government

are. So as much as I have a great deal of respect for the minister, unfortunately he belongs to a government that has shown no leadership and no understanding of the value of heritage and culture

in Ontario.

Just as late as about a month ago, the Ontario Historical Society had to take the government to court to protect some cemeteries and burial sites. This is the

second time. They had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting the government to protect a historical site. That was just a month ago. So you'll have to excuse me if I do not applaud, the

day before the House is to rise, a movement to protect our heritage.

I have to say that the Ontario Liberals understand that we need a new Ontario Heritage Act. This was known for many, many years, and yet eight years have gone

by and nothing has been done. Do you know what the difference in values is? This is fundamentally the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals: that we understand that the legacies,

the tradition and the history that give us a sense of belonging and pride in the place we live must be protected. I don't understand why now, on the second-last day before the House is to rise, we

are supposed to believe they mean what they say, because nothing has been done in action.

I have to also say there's enough tinkering and enough tweaking. Ontario needs fundamental change. We need fundamental change in values of heritage and culture

that are going to make our cities vibrant and give communities vitality. What have we done over the last eight years? I hear it from all types of groups and organizations: they have been cut back,

they have stopped giving their programs, and schools teach less and less Ontario history. That goes fundamentally to the heart of the values of who we are as a society.

We're still fighting for the first Parliament building. There is still no secure protection for cemeteries and burial grounds. Again I say, the current

government has no credibility on this file: eight years of regressive erosion and lots of our built heritage torn down. It is offensive to the community that the day before the Legislature is to

rise, we have a bill before us with little or no chance of passing.

I have to say again that the people of Ontario are not fooled by these tactics. That's all they are. The heritage community has told me they've had no ear of

the government, very little dialogue. At the very least, the government that is in power today has shown disrespect and disregard for the heritage and cultural community in the province of

Ontario.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): This is one of the first cultural initiatives presented in this place that I can remember in a long

time, and I have to say that it falls very, very short of our expectations and, I assume, very short of the expectations of the heritage community.

Minister, you say in your presentation that you are committed to conserving Ontario's heritage. You also say it's the only province that does not have the

legislative tools to recognize and protect properties of provincial significance. You make it appear that through this bill you will be protecting heritage sites. But in my cursory review, unless

I'm wrong, there is nothing here that will prevent a single heritage building from being demolished. There is no power for municipalities to say no to demolitions. That's one of the requests I made

in the bill I presented here quite some time ago. Unless municipalities have the power to say no to the demolition of our heritage sites, I'm not sure what this bill does to preserve our heritage

buildings, although you claim, incidentally and by way of suggestion, that you will be able to protect our heritage buildings. You will not be able to do it.

You also give no incentives to the owners of heritage properties to preserve them, which was another request I made in the bill I presented, as a way of

encouraging people who own heritage sites to preserve them. We believe they need incentives, and there's nothing in your bill that does that for the preservation of our buildings through the

incentives you could give those owners so we could save buildings.

There's also nothing here that will save the first Parliament. Minister, it has been two years that people like me and my friends from Toronto-Danforth and

particularly from Beaches-East York have been lobbying you and the previous minister to save the site of our first Parliament. I was looking forward to your making this announcement today. That's

what I thought our brief chat yesterday was all about. But it wasn't about that at all. I was optimistic, believing you were finally going to save our first Parliament, which is a significant

heritage to Ontario, to Ontarians, to our history of politics and Parliament. I was convinced that's what you had in mind when you introduced this today, but it wasn't to be. I believed, Minister,

that you on many occasions said this is a vitally important site, but you do nothing to stop it from being covered up by a Porsche dealership. Yes, I'm disappointed. Yes, you have presented, dare I

say, some good things here today.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): You haven't even read

it.

Mr Marchese: I haven't read it? On the brief cursory review of your bill, there are some good things, I say to you, Minister, but unless

demolition can be prevented and incentives made available, I'm sorry; we won't be able to protect our heritage. We just won't be able to do it.

Some good things: provincial power to designate provincially significant heritage. That's OK, but it does not prevent demolition of our heritage buildings. Do

you know what it does? It allows him or you, the government, to designate a building, it holds it for six months and then the private sector can tear it down.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That's wrong.

Mr Marchese: Sorry, Minister. That power doesn't prevent demolition. It only allows you, and not the city, to designate, which is good.

Allowing yourself the power to designate is OK, but you have to give yourself or the city the power to demolish heritage sites.

The minister of post-secondary education will tell me outside why I am wrong, but show me in your bill where you do that.

Standard designation criteria: this could provide needed guidance and predictability, though it may mean a property that should be designated is not. That's

possible, if the criteria are too restrictive.

So, yes, there are some positive things that the heritage community will, by and large, support. But if you don't give the city the power to prevent demolition

and give heritage owners the incentives, we will not be able to protect our heritage; we just won't.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent for second and third reading of the Ontario Heritage Act

without further debate.

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: New Democrats want to help the Premier out today, so we're asking

unanimous con-sent for a motion of solemn prayer, harnessing public power, to solve a serious problem. We want to do what the Premier suggested and pray that there won't be blackouts or brownouts

as a result of the blind faith the Conservatives and Liberals place on hydro privatization and deregulation. Let's all get down on our knees and pray. Is there unanimous consent?

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

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill 110,

An Act

to amend the Employment Standards Act, so that workers can have a long weekend on July 1, just like members of this Legislature.

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

VISITORS

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I'm happy to introduce in the members' gallery today a former member from this House from Parry

Sound-Muskoka, Mr Dan Waters.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm asking for unanimous consent that Ontario's third smog day of the

summer of 2003 is named Smog Day Eves.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

Hon David Young (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought other members of this Legislative

Assembly would like to know what you undoubtedly know. There are three honoured guests in your gallery today. They are: Zul Kassamali, who is the president of the Multicultural Alliance for Seniors

and Aging; with him is Gerry Funston, who is a Toronto resident and a very well-respected former publishing executive; last, but by no means least, a very dear and old friend of mine, Sid

Gladstone, who is a distinguished veteran of the Air Force and is currently very involved in a very important project, the Dominion memory project. I'm thrilled that they're here to join us today

from Willowdale.

DEFERRED VOTES

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

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 43,

An Act to provide Ontario home property tax relief for seniors / Projet de loi 43, Loi prévoyant

un allégement de l'impôt foncier résidentiel pour les personnes âgées de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1430 to 1435.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 51; the nays are 36.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

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)

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 53,

An Act respecting the equity in education tax credit / Projet de loi 53, Loi concernant le

crédit d'impôt pour l'équité en matière d'éducation.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1439 to 1444.

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

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 51; the nays are 36.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Today we've had yet more confirmation, as if it were needed,

that there exists a very real possibility of brownouts or blackouts this summer. Yesterday I criticized your government for failing to inform Ontarians about how to better conserve electricity in

their homes and businesses. Today I want to talk about your failure to prepare for the real possibility of a blackout or brownout. I don't want Ontarians to panic, but I do want them to be

prepared. If the power goes out, people aren't going to be able to turn on their TVs or radios to find out what they should be doing. Shut-ins who use cordless phones or whose telephones are

plugged into answering machines won't be able to call for help. Given the very real possibility of blackouts or brownouts, tell us: why hasn't your government started sharing any information with

Ontarians about what they should do in case we have a blackout or a brownout?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We have been sharing information on the Ministry of Energy Web site with

respect to things the average Ontarian can do to help conserve energy, especially during very hot days and peak demand periods. There are a number of things, as I talked about yesterday, that the

average Ontarian can do to help us during these extremely intense and hot days.

Mr McGuinty: What I'm talking about today is emergency planning. We're hoping it does not happen, but there's a real possibility it will:

power might go out. I think we've got a responsibility to tell Ontarians what they should do in that eventuality.

If the power goes out, what happens to people in elevators? I think we need to tell them about that. Food and medicine that has to be refrigerated may spoil,

and there are things they can do to help prevent that from happening. Traffic signals will go out of service, and I think it's important that we remind Ontarians what the law is on that. You can't

buy gasoline for your car, because gas pumps rely on electricity. If we don't start providing people with information now, 911 could be jammed because people may not know they should not call there

except in the case of a real emergency.

Given the very real threat, Premier, isn't it time you started educating the public on what to do, just in case the power goes out?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition and the leader of the third party were in this Legislature about a year ago today,

fearmongering about exactly the same issue. They weren't right then, and they aren't right now.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, if you have information you're not sharing with us, then I'd ask you to do that now, because based on all the objective

information we have received, there exists the very real possibility of a blackout or a brownout this summer. Your Minister of Energy tells us he cannot guarantee us that we will not have a

blackout. You yourself said yesterday that you were looking to divine intervention to ensure that we do not have a blackout or a brownout this summer. It's not the time for panic, nor is it the

time for denial.

Should people who rely on electric pumps for well water buy some bottled water? I think maybe we should be telling them that. We should be telling parents with

newborn babies that maybe they should consider buying ready-to-use formula. What about seniors on oxygen? Should they purchase backup canisters and let utilities know their special needs? I think

they should.

When computers are down and televisions and radios aren't working, I think it's important that you tell people now rather than wait until then to give them the

best possible advice on how to prepare for the real possibility that we'll have a blackout or a brownout this summer.

Hon Mr Eves: There is not a very real possibility. There's always the chance, when you have very hot weather -- which obviously the province

of Ontario doesn't control -- that you have to import power more than you would. We are taking steps to bring on-line 2,500 more megawatts of power this summer than last summer. We already have an

additional 800 megawatts on-line that weren't on-line last summer. By the time those additional 2,500 come on, we will have 11% more supply this summer than we had last summer.

Having said that, I happen to have more faith in the integrity and responsibility of the average Ontario citizen than you obviously do. I think the average

Ontarian will do the right thing to conserve energy and help the province over this difficult period of a few hot days in a row.

Most people are fairly objective about this. Some people, I guess for political reasons, fearmonger about this. If you want to talk about who imported power

and who didn't, I can get into that discussion in your next question.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Once again, we have another example of your government giving a

special kind of deal to one of your friends. This time, it's the co-chair of your single largest fundraising event -- that would be the Premier's dinner -- and that fundraiser is Jim Ginou. I'm

talking about the Ontario Place food service contract he gave to Cara Foods.

Years ago, we raised concerns about your government giving a contract to Cara Foods over another bid. An outside independent consultant described the Cara bid

as "about the weakest presentation and weakest effort we have seen in our 14 years in this industry," and he warned that Mr Ginou had ties to Cara Foods.

At the time, the entire cornerstone of the defence for this special deal was that Cara was going to pick up the tab for renovating the facilities at Ontario

Place. We found out today that the province had a secret deal with Cara. The secret deal in fact put the taxpayers of Ontario on the hook to repay Cara for those renovations to the tune of $2.3

million. The question, Premier, is this: how can you justify entering into that contract in the first place, one that was outbid by another bidder, and how can you justify a secret deal that ended

up costing Ontario taxpayers $2.3 million?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Tourism and Recreation can respond to this.

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Back whenever that contract was signed there was a lot of work that had to be done at

Ontario Place. That actually saved taxpayers money because the work done was to help some of the food concessions meet some of the needs they had in providing their contract. If we had done as

government the settlement that was agreed to, it would have cost us millions of dollars more, so it was a good deal for taxpayers.

Mr McGuinty: I can understand why the Premier doesn't want to deal with this, but I'll return to him nonetheless. Premier, the other bidder,

just so you're aware of this, was prepared to pay $2.7 million more in rent than Cara Foods. Your only defence was that Cara was willing to put in more money for renovations, but your government

had already given Cara a secret deal to pay back the cost of those renovations that cost taxpayers $2.3 million. The contract with Cara Foods cost Ontario taxpayers $2.7 million in lost rent to

Ontario Place and another $2.3 million as part of your secret deal. How can you defend a deal entered into by the chair of your single biggest fundraiser, held annually, that ended up costing

taxpayers $5 million?

Hon Mr Coburn: Up until 1995 we were subsidizing Ontario Place to the tune of about $10 million. That was under the Liberal and NDP reign.

When we came in we had to find different ways of managing Ontario Place, and today it is to the tune of about $500,000, so there have been great strides that we have made. Sometimes when you get a

deal that is too good to be true, it is too good to be true. That may be one of the reasons why they didn't accept something that was so outrageously lucrative that it could have never stood the

test of time.

Mr McGuinty: You were warned about this deal, not only by us but by an independent, outside consultant. He said with respect to Cara's bid,

"It's about the weakest presentation and weakest effort that we have seen in our 14 years in this industry." He specifically warned that Mr Ginou had ties to Cara Foods. You said in defence of this

deal that at least Cara was going to pick up the tab for renovations. Cara decided they wanted to get out of the deal. Not only did we lose $2.7 million that we would have had had we given the deal

to the highest bidder, but now we've got to end up paying $2.3 million to pick up the cost for renovations that you assured us would be paid for by Cara. I ask you again, Premier, how can you

justify this deal entered into by the chair of your single biggest annual fundraising event, a deal that cost Ontario taxpayers $5 million?

Hon Mr Coburn: Whenever the contract was signed, part of the agreement was that work had to be done at Ontario Place. Cara went ahead and did

that work at a tremendous saving, rather than have the government do it. Part of the contract that was signed was, if it's not a good deal for both parties, there's an opt-out clause, which Cara

exercised. At the end of the day the $2.3 million was paid. It was a far better deal for the taxpayers than the millions of dollars it would have cost to fix it up had we done it through the

government.

I would like to indicate as well that we have a wider variety of food operators down there now that are well received by those who visit Ontario Place, and

we've reduced the dependence on the taxpayer by well over $9 million.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. We are now told that you have turned to prayer as the answer to the

problems your scheme of hydro privatization and deregulation has created. Your government used to say that Ontario had plenty of power, so that unlike California, deregulation would go off without

a hitch. That was Jim Wilson, former energy minister, in 2001. He was wrong. Jim Wilson promised overall hydro prices would reduce by $3 billion to $6 billion after privatization and deregulation.

Wrong again. Jim Wilson also said that electricity conservation and electricity efficiency strategies were useless, and that's why the Conservative government terminated them. Clearly wrong

again.

Premier, have you now turned to prayer because everything that your government said in promoting hydro privatization and deregulation hasn't worked?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, the leader of the third party will know that we have not

privatized hydro, either OPG or Hydro One. He knows that for a fact. He stands up and prefaces his question with "Well, now that you've privatized hydro, rates have gone up."

He will also know, having been in Bob Rae's cabinet, that we have imported power for as long as there has been an Ontario Hydro or an OPG or a Hydro One. He

knows that in the regular course of business, when there is not enough supply during peak periods in Ontario, we import power from other jurisdictions, such as Quebec, Manitoba, Michigan and New

York state. He knows that, he knows it has gone on for decades, yet he stands up in the House and pretends that this is something brand new and it's just happening now in the last few months or

years.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Eves: Pardon?

Interjection: Short-term memory loss.

Hon Mr Eves: As a matter of fact, it has been going on for probably 50, 60, 70 years in the province.

Mr Hampton: Premier, don't misunderstand me. Prayer is good. But you said that you had the legal authority to sell off Hydro One and that

would be good for consumers. You were wrong again. But don't feel bad; the Liberals agreed with you on that one. You said that selling a minority stake in Hydro One would be a good thing, but then

you later admitted that was wrong too. You said that hydro deregulation would promote meaningful competition and bring down prices. Wrong again. You said that temporary hydro rate caps would pay

for themselves. In 12 months, you're already $600 million wrong on that one. You said private power companies would not gouge consumers in the privatized market, but Brascan's outrageous gouging of

the people of Wawa proved you wrong there.

As I said, prayer is good, but don't you think it's time to admit that hydro privatization and deregulation hasn't worked the way you thought it would?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I never said at least three quarters of the things he said. He sort of embellishes the truth and makes -- except

for maybe the part about the Liberals agreeing with us.

The government of Ontario does not control the weather in the province. Obviously any time there is a peak demand, the province has now, and always has had, to

import power from other jurisdictions. What we said was that over a four-year period of time this fund will pay for itself. In the previous four years of time that fund would have had a surplus of

$200 million in it. So the fact that he says today, after 11 or 12 months, you'd be this much behind is interesting, but this is a four-year plan, not an 11-month plan or a 12-month plan.

If you want to talk about importing power, the highest net importing year of power in the history of the province that I can lay my hands on was the year 1990

when you two people shared that privilege and you were in power with your grandiose schemes for power.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you also said that Pickering A nuclear station would be back in service producing electricity three years ago. Wrong on

that one. You then gave four more dates when Pickering A would be back producing electricity. Wrong on all of those. Most recently, you and your energy minister said that Pickering A would be

producing electricity by June. Wrong again. You said that Bruce A nuclear station would be back this spring producing electricity. Wrong again. Then you promised that your $100-million temporary

emergency generators would be producing power by June 15. Wrong again.

Premier, prayer is good, but first you must repent. Do you admit hydro privatization hasn't worked and recognize that public power is the answer?

Hon Mr Eves: I'm happy to see that the leader of the third party has another occupation he can fall back on if required. That was actually

very good, Howard. That was quite good.

To the leader of the third party, I would say that there are going to be 2,500 more megawatts of power on stream this summer. Even the IMO report which came

out recently indicates that when those 2,500 megawatts are up and running, in addition to the 800 that are running this summer and weren't running last summer at Bruce, we are going to have 11%

more power in the province. That's going to happen within a matter of a few days or weeks, and when that happens, we are going to have 11% more capacity than we had last year.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Again to the Premier, first you must confess your sins; then you pray.

Premier, this week we have had multiple revelations concerning corporations that gave thousands to the Conservative Party and then got millions in Conservative

government contracts. Cara Operations gave thousands of dollars to your party; then they got an Ontario Place contract for $50 million. Meanwhile, everyone who works at Ontario Place seemed to know

it was a bad idea, a bad deal, but they were ignored. Now Ontario taxpayers are on the hook for a further $2.3 million.

Your pal John Danson's Unauthorized Solutions Inc gave over $6,000 to the Minister of Health in his leadership bid; then he got a $1.2-million government

contract to promote "healthy lifestyles," even though a nearly identical proposal had already been turned down before the contribution.

A group of private power companies pay your party over $170,000, then get $100 million in private power contracts.

Premier, these deals benefit your financial contributors but they don't benefit the public of Ontario. Are the people of Ontario wrong to think that something

looks very fishy here?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The leader of the third party sees a skeleton under every single bed, in

every single closet. He thinks there is always something subversive going on and there are some secret deals being made somewhere.

I would say to the leader of the third party that on at least two of the three issues that he talked about there were requests for proposals that went out, and

they were followed in the ordinary course of business, as far as I am aware.

I wish that we could all be perfect and that nobody would ever go down a road where they might make a mistake, and I know that everything the Bob Rae

government did was absolutely perfect. That's why we were spending a million dollars an hour more than we were taking in in revenue when you left office.

Mr Hampton: Premier, no one out there in the public believes that your big corporate contributors don't get favours from your government. No

one believes that, because the average Ontarian, no matter how hard he or she works, is not going to get a $2.3-million deal for walking away from a contract that they made with your government. No

matter how hard they work, the average Ontarian is not going to get a $100-million private power contract, even though the average Ontarian is more than capable of producing the zero megawatts that

Toromont and TransCanada have produced so far.

It's time, Premier, to recognize what the public already knows: there are too many big corporate contributions in our political system. If it isn't corrupt, it

looks corrupt to them. So I say to you, Premier, and I say to the Liberals: will you end the corporate contributions and union contributions to our political system, so that it becomes a matter of

citizen involvement and not who has the most money and who can get the biggest contributions? Will you end this abuse?

Hon Mr Eves: With respect to the generation contracts that have been let, first of all, it's a prudent thing to prepare for that eventuality,

something that no previous government ever bothered to do, although perhaps they should have. With respect to those contracts, they were all put through a very proper request for proposal process

and were tendered. The appropriate tendering and successful proponent won in every single case.

With respect to the comment he made at the end and the question that he posed, I understand he has a very philosophically different point of view; that is, he

believes that everything done in the political process should be paid for 100% by the taxpayers of Ontario. We actually believe that private individuals, unions and companies should be able to

donate to the political candidate or party of their choice, and therein lies the difference.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question?

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier. I'd like to talk to you about a company that went through a very proper

request for proposal process and was not successful. The name of that company was Unauthorized Solutions. They received a letter from the Ministry of Health telling them, "Thank you, but you did

not meet the requirements for this RFP." In the last several days, we have now been reading in the news media about the Minister of Health and his relationship with this company, Unauthorized

Solutions.

Given what we now know, that the Minister of Health has in fact benefited from the individual affiliated with Unauthorized Solutions, who does donate and

participate in other political parties but has a very significant relationship with the Minister of Health as a fundraiser to his leadership campaign and a significant donor to his leadership --

the Minister of Health has now confirmed that his office was in fact involved in getting Unauthorized Solutions a project worth $1.2 million after the Ministry of Health's office said that

regrettably the proposal did not meet the necessary requirements. I'd like to know what you have to say about this matter and what kind of investigation you are now going through with the Minister

of Health.

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I presume the company she's talking about is the one that's run by one John Danson, who came forward with a

different proposal than the RFP he lost that actually had some Olympic athletes participating, talking about a very constructive program against smoking for young people in Ontario. There was a

certain amount set aside in the Ministry of Health budget for that anti-smoking program. The amount of $10 million comes to mind, although I'm doing this from memory, so I stand to be corrected.

The minister's office and the minister decided to have a pilot project and thought this one was very inventive. It involved Olympic athletes, people that young people in this province might

actually listen to, in terms of not smoking in the future. It was acted upon in a pilot project fashion, which has actually been around for many years in this place.

Ms Pupatello: Actually, I think you do a disservice to Olympians by having them participate in a program that doesn't appear to have gone

through all the proper steps you just mentioned, which you suggest all these proposals go through. Let me show you the letter from the Minister of Health to this individual, which says they did not

meet the requirements. Then we have a letter to St Michael's Hospital saying, "Here's $1.3 million," for something that apparently the hospital is now on record as saying they had nothing to do

with the project; they simply funnelled the funding. Funding was funnelled to St Michael's to Unauthorized Solutions, the same company that did not meet the criteria from the Ministry of Health in

the first place. If this is such a wonderful program, you'd think you would have done those Olympians a service to have them participate in a request for a proposal. Is this some kind of fund

available to ministers for their high-end donors or those individuals who participate as fundraisers in their leadership bid, that they all of a sudden take a program that didn't meet ministry

requirements, turn it into a pilot project and hand it over without other companies out in Ontario who can equally participate in running a pilot project --

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

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member will know that pilot projects have been used by all three parties in this House when they were in

government for various issues. For example, there was a very effective pilot project run though Sunnybrook and Women's College about cochlear ear implants for, I believe, $1.73 million by the

previous Bob Rae government. There were similar ones used by the David Peterson government.

Having said that, she will be quite familiar with John Danson, being the son of Barney Danson, a former Pierre Elliott Trudeau cabinet minister. I'm not going

to stand in this House and question his integrity or the Minister of Health's integrity. I will say to her, though, that I had a conversation with the Minister of Health, who is out of province

today on business for the Ministry of Health in Washington. He has indicated to me that he is referring this entire matter to the Integrity Commissioner. In case you or anybody else thinks that

this wasn't appropriately done, the Integrity Commissioner can rule on this issue.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. First of all, I want to congratulate him on his

superb leadership in the fight to get the federal government to come up with its fair share of the costs relating to SARS.

For almost 13 years, I've been privileged to serve in the Ontario Legislature. During this time, I've always considered the elected municipal councillors in my

riding to be my colleagues. I've always sought to build strong working relationships with them. We've worked together in the interest of our communities. I've always worked to solve the problems

they've brought to my attention.

The government is looking at a policy that would compel municipalities to hold referenda before they can increase property taxes. This proposal is not being

well received by our municipal partners and has generated a negative response from a number of municipal councils in my riding of Waterloo-Wellington.

I'm aware that recently the minister had an opportunity in the city of Kitchener to address the Large Urban Mayors' Caucus of Ontario, LUMCO, a key partner in

the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. He spoke to them about the government's property tax referendum proposal. Can the minister advise this House about the policy proposal on municipal

referenda and on his work with municipalities on this issue?

Hon David Young (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Protecting the interests of taxpayers is the most important principle this

government holds. But the Ernie Eves government believes that there is indeed more work to be done to protect taxpayers' wallets. I've been proud to work with the member for Waterloo-Wellington as

part of the government --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Young: I will say to you, sir, that I am particularly proud that he and I have supported 225 tax cuts for the people of this great

province.

Since 1995, not only have we delivered personal tax cuts but we have also lowered taxes on businesses that have helped create well in excess of a million new

jobs. I will note that the Liberals voted against each one.

When it comes to delivering the same kind of protection, Premier Eves and I are there. We want to ensure that the same protection exists for taxpayers at the

municipal level. In fact, I know there is a lot we can learn from some of our municipal leaders. One example is in Puslinch township. Mayor Brad Whitcombe and his council delivered a tax freeze to

their taxpayers this year. That jurisdiction has the lowest tax rate in Wellington county.

Mr Arnott: I want to thank the minister for his response and for his willingness to communicate with our municipal partners. On this issue of

property tax referenda, they want their views to be clearly understood. A few days ago, Wellington county council passed a unanimous resolution asking the government to set aside the proposal

obligating councils to have property tax referenda before contemplating tax increases. The town of Minto called a special meeting of council and insisted that I attend. We discussed this proposal,

and they voiced their disagreement with it. Mayor Wayne Roth of the township of Wilmot and the councils of the township of Centre Wellington, the township of Guelph-Eramosa, the city of Kitchener

and the township of Wellington North have all expressed their strong concerns about the referendum issue.

What can the minister tell my municipalities in Waterloo-Wellington in response to the objections they are bringing forward? Will he assure them that their

views will be thoroughly considered before any final decisions are made on extending the principle of taxpayer protection to the municipal level of government?

Hon Mr Young: This government has a very firm commitment to protecting taxpayers, and part of that is recognizing that many of the best

solutions may well lie in what municipalities already do. We will certainly consider the thoughts and insight of those individuals as we move forward with this policy, and we will.

Governments need to listen to taxpayers. We need to listen to them in order to learn from them, to earn their trust and to seek approval when it comes to

taxes. This government understands that. We want municipal governments across the province to understand that as well. In some instances, they do, and in some instances, they don't.

I know that most local politicians are true friends of the taxpayer. They understand, as does this government, that people demand lower taxes and should have

the final say.

Extending the Taxpayer Protection Act that we have provincially to the municipal realm may well be a controversial issue. But I say to you that I know from

knocking on doors in Willowdale and across this province that it is something that the people of this province want to see happen, and it is something that this government will deliver.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I'll go to the Deputy Premier. As you well know, people all across the province of Ontario --

car drivers, owners -- are being hit with fantastic rate increases. Your government promised to get auto insurance rates under control. That was some 199 days ago. You have yet to deliver on that

promise.

But there's another concern in addition to that one, and that is property insurance premiums. Those are going through the roof as well. I'll give you one

particular instance here. Gianfranco Belli, a homeowner in Sudbury, tells us that last year he paid $309-plus taxes for home insurance. This year, it's going to cost him $649 plus taxes. That's

roughly a 125% increase for his home insurance premiums.

We've been focusing a great deal of attention, and quite rightly so, on auto insurance premiums, but what Mr Belli wants to know is, what are you going to do

in government to help him and homeowners just like him across the province of Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. We certainly

recognize that insurance is extremely important to the homeowners in the province of Ontario. Obviously, our number one commitment is to ensure that there continues to be a very strong and vibrant

insurance market in Ontario that can capably serve the consumers.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the regulator is responsible for monitoring the financial health of the insurance companies and making sure they can

fulfill their obligations.

We need to make sure that homeowners are aware of the fact that they should be working with their brokers and their agents to obtain a better understanding of

the factors that obviously influence their premiums. They need to do everything that they possibly can. Certainly our government will be doing everything that we can to protect homeowners.

Mr McGuinty: You should know that when constituents phone us, they don't want to talk about a regulator. You should know, as well, that the

regulator doesn't regulate property insurance premiums. They're looking after auto insurance premiums. You should know that, at a minimum.

It's not just affecting homeowners. Small businesses are also getting hit. Here's the story of a bowling alley in Kirkland Lake -- the Uptown Bowl. It's owned

by Fred and Sonia Lang. Last year, their insurance was $3,000. They didn't make a single claim. This year, the same coverage would cost over $7,000. The only way they could afford to pay their

insurance was to reduce their coverage and to assume greater personal risk.

I ask you again, when is your government going to start to do something -- anything -- when it comes to property insurance premiums, either for homeowners or

small businesses, across the province?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's very important to put it into some perspective. I think we have to recognize the fact that the market has

changed. Throughout the world, there are different experiences occurring as a result of insurance. But I want to certainly let the Leader of the Opposition know that we are committed to doing

everything that we possibly can to ensure that we have a strong industry. By having a strong industry, we can better protect the homeowners in the province of Ontario.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the minister responsible for seniors, the hard-working and very effective member for

Mississauga East, who is going to be in the great riding of Perth-Middlesex this weekend to join the local Portuguese community for the Listowel Festival of the Holy Spirit.

Minister, our government is committed to supporting seniors, and I know you have been working hard on behalf of all Ontarians, including those

Portuguese-Canadian seniors you'll meet this weekend. An important part of our commitment is Bill 43, the Ontario Home Property Tax Relief for Seniors Act, which proposes to eliminate the burden of

residential education property tax paid by seniors who rent their own homes. If passed, the act would provide $450 million in benefits for our seniors next year. About 945,000 senior households

would each save an average of $475 per year. Minister, I would like you to stand in your place and tell me what the reception is from seniors.

Hon Carl DeFaria (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I thank my colleague for the question. Ontario's seniors have

contributed to the growth and prosperity of Ontario, and yes, our commitment to Ontario's seniors is real. We all know what the Liberals have said. They said no to Ontario's seniors. They said they

would roll back the tax relief we passed today. Our government feels our seniors deserve this break. The United Senior Citizens of Ontario, representing approximately 300,000 seniors, support this

measure. The Canadian snowbirds support this measure. Ontarians support our seniors. Do you want to know who said no to our seniors? Dalton McGuinty.

Mr Johnson: I thank the honourable member for that response. I know that the roughly 13,500 seniors in my riding of Perth-Middlesex would want

me to express their gratitude for the work you do on their behalf. You have also introduced legislation to eliminate mandatory retirement at age 65 in Ontario. This legislation is great news for

older workers in Ontario. Minister, please tell this House why you think it's important to give older workers the right to decide when to retire.

Hon Mr DeFaria: Our government believes seniors should have the right to choose to work past the age of 65 if they so wish. It will put choice

back in the hands of individuals. The freedom to choose should belong to everyone, regardless of age. People over 65 are productive and valuable contributors to the Ontario economy, now more than

ever before. It's clear that our government feels Ontario's seniors deserve all we can provide. Let's give them the respect they deserve. We on this side say that our seniors are adult enough to

decide when they will retire.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, we were amazed and somewhat dismayed to

hear that you think barbecues are a major cause of smog, while at the same time denying the role of coal plants as the single biggest contributors to smog. Your solution to deadly smog is to get

everybody to stop barbequing, and the Premier's is to order in Swiss Chalet. Minister, this is a very serious problem. Over 2,000 people are going to die prematurely in Ontario because of smog. You

have to stop fiddling around the edges here, fooling people that this is going to solve the problem. Once again I am asking you today, will you commit to taking real action on smog by adopting the

NDP's Public Power plan for clean air?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Minister of the Environment): The

preamble is cruel, it's untrue and it's just

bloody ridiculous, so I'm not answering the question.

Ms Churley: The minister said it. Minister, I'm going to tell you something else you said here: "The private sector asked us to get out of

large-scale government conservation programs." He went on to say, "They may have made the odd person feel good, but they had absolutely no effect."

Minister, I'm going to ask you to step outside and you can see the effects of doing nothing about smog. Check out the emergency room on a day like today. Visit

a classroom and you can see a number of students using puffers to help them deal with their serious breathing problems.

In the light of the very real health impact of smog, your government's response to date is a cruel joke. Tell us today that you repent, that you didn't mean it

when you said that conservation didn't work and that you have not caved in to your buddies in the private sector and you will bring in a strong conservation program, that you now believe in

conservation. Tell us that, Minister. Will you repent?

Hon Mr Wilson: That quote comes from a briefing from the NDP-appointed deputy minister and assistant deputy minister, who said, and had the

charts to prove, that the NDP's conservation program of maybe free fridges but not free fridges, little stickers everywhere, millions and millions and millions of dollars spent on energy

conservation -- and what happened to energy? It soared through the roof. Usage went way up exponentially. So it had no effect at all on usage.

And who ran the coal plants full-out every smog day that they were in government? The NDP. Who sold more power out of coal plants to the United States at

cut-rate prices? The NDP. Who bought power back at outrageous prices? The NDP.

I don't know how they've got the gall to ask these questions. Your energy conservation program was a fake. It didn't have any effect. John Baird's is going to

work a lot better, I can tell you, when he brings it in.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I also have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I'm assuming you've heard of the toxic tar

ponds site in Sydney, Nova Scotia, which has become known as the most toxic site in Canada. Ontario is accepting untreated toxic material from the Domtar tank on the Sydney, Nova Scotia, tar ponds.

It was scheduled to be trucked into Ontario last winter and is now rescheduled for this summer. Apparently the contaminated soil that caused a lot of people to become sick has already been

landfilled, untreated, here in Ontario at Clean Harbors, without notice. Please explain to the residents of Sarnia-Lambton and the people of Ontario why you are allowing the importation of highly

toxic waste and then simply landfilling it untreated, a practice outlawed in every other jurisdiction. Why has Ontario become the toxic dumping ground for other jurisdictions under your

government's watch?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Minister of the Environment): The waste in question is handled under certificates

of approval. No liquid hazardous waste is allowed to be put into a landfill site or into this site -- as you've been accusing the government of for quite a long time now -- without pre-treatment.

The certificates of approval aren't in the hands of politicians; they're in the hands of the directors, the bureaucrats who do this. They have no axe to grind and they have no company to be in

favour with. They're there to protect the people of Ontario -- and doing a fine good job, I might add.

Ms Di Cocco: I'd suggest that the minister learn exactly what untreated hazardous landfilling of toxic waste means, because that's what is

happening, whether you know it or not.

Your government is responsible for developing a gigantic toxic legacy for the future. You are watching the creation of an environmental cesspool by

transferring thousands of tonnes of toxic waste from Nova Scotia and have already landfilled over a million tonnes there. It's coming from jurisdictions other than Ontario, because Ontario has the

lowest standards and because it's done on the cheap.

You fast-tracked the environmental assessment process in 1997 and you gave permission for the site to expand. Your lax rules are wrong, irresponsible and a

hazard to people's health. You're creating a much larger problem than that now in Sydney, Nova Scotia. How do you answer to those facts?

Hon Mr Wilson: The site in question has an inspector on-site full time from the Ministry of the Environment. They check everything that's

going in. They make sure it abides by the laws. This government updated those laws to make sure they were a lot tougher than when the Liberals were in office. I have confidence in our people in the

government who are paid to protect the environment. As I said, they have no axe to grind, except to protect the environment for your children and grandchildren and their children and

grandchildren.

If the honourable member has some concrete proof that someone's breaking the law, then go to the police or go to the environment police outside of this place

or go to the OPP and file a complaint. You've been going on about this for quite a while. I know it's a great political issue, but go talk to the inspector on-site and ask him or her, depending on

the day, whether they're doing their job and whether they have the confidence of the people of Ontario.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Highway 205, half of 410: just this past Monday the

Premier was in Brampton to announce a major infrastructure investment, the extension of Highway 410.

Brampton's a booming city. We've got a population of over 325,000 people. Many of these people work in Brampton. Many of them commute to Toronto or elsewhere

in the GTA. But most of all, these people need to get from where they are to somewhere else at some point. As such, we need an efficient transportation system to meet these growing needs. How is

this investment going to help us? How is it going to help Brampton's strong economy and our quality of life?

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the member from Brampton Centre for his question. I want to say, first of all,

that the member has been a strong advocate for the extension of the 410. No one has spoken as strongly in favour of this project as the member.

I had the privilege of attending with the Premier and area MPPs to make an announcement for a nine-kilometre extension of the 410. Truly Brampton and Peel

region, in fact the entire GTA, are rapidly growing. We depend on our transportation system, and not only for the movement of goods. Some trillion dollars' worth of goods are moved on our highways

every year; $325 million worth of goods are moving across the 410 right now. It's a growing and expanding area. The extension of the 410 is going to improve the quality of life. It'll strengthen

the economy. It'll ensure we continue to have the infrastructure in place that we need for a growing economy in this province.

Mr Spina: We know it's important to invest in other modes of transportation to provide choice for our commuters. We have commuters who not

only go in and out of Toronto from the suburbs; we also know it's important for jobs and industry in the suburbs for people who come to work outside Toronto, because that's where a lot of jobs are.

A reliable and efficient public transit system in Brampton and throughout the GTA gives more people the option to leave their cars at home. Minister, what action is the ministry taking to improve

transit in the GTA, and what do you have coming for more attractive commuting options?

Hon Mr Klees: The member refers to the importance of transit, and our government certainly agrees with that. We've invested some $3.9 billion

for transit since 1995. We announced some 645 million in additional dollars for interregional transportation earlier this month. Of that, we allocated some $73 million last January for GTA

municipalities to buy new vehicles to refurbish their transit fleets or extend the life of their existing fleets. This includes some $7.2 million for Mississauga, Brampton and Peel region. This

investment is just part of our 10-year commitment of $325 million a year -- $3.25 billion over 10 years -- to transit in this province. Our challenge now is to bring the federal government to the

table to match that $3.25 billion. Let's have the federal government at the table and we can really do something about transit.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Deputy Premier. As the legislative session moves toward a close, my

community continues to struggle with the fact that your government has yet to allocate promised funding for hospital restructuring. This is an important issue to the well-being of my citizens and

our part of eastern Ontario. We have to get immediate action.

The process to develop an effective hospital services initiative has been a strenuous and ongoing procedure in my riding. Through the entire deliberations,

however, local officials have demonstrated a commitment to the project that has been developed: a consistent vision for hospital services within the community. Despite this, the directives set

forth by the local hospital council have not always received your attention, as they deserve.

In 1998, for example, a health care restructuring committee overturned a local health council directive for hospital development. This decision frustrated the

local community and squandered thousands of taxpayers' dollars away. Not to be dismayed, the local community was determined to see their project go ahead. After a town hall meeting attended by my

colleague Lyn McLeod and the president of the medical academy, Dr Foley, in April 2002, the Religious Hospitallers of Saint Joseph submitted a proposal to the ministry for health and long-term-care

consideration.

In March 2003, the ministry announced its intention to support the plan and included the establishment of a community-based corporation to oversee the joint

governance of two hospitals.

Deputy Premier, as I stated, the funding has been agreed to in principle -- a 30-day period for public consultation -- nearly two months ago. I ask you, on

behalf of my constituents of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, when will you announce the funding?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I appreciate the very thoughtful question from the member opposite. I know that

when I was Minister of Health, he did certainly work hard on behalf of his community. I want to take this opportunity, as you leave this Legislature, to personally extend my congratulations to you

for your hard work. I can assure you that the officials at the Ministry of Health are working as hard as they possibly can in order to resolve that situation and provide the appropriate

funding.

Mr Cleary: Thank you, Deputy Premier, for your comments. When Minister Clement visited eastern Ontario last February, he was quick to applaud

the community efforts which were demonstrated at the Winchester Memorial Hospital in Dundas, the support and the hard work of the dedicated local community. We have that same dedication in the

eastern part of the riding, and the people in my community want to get at the restructuring of the hospital services.

The process of hospital restructuring has depended on funding, and the community has waited long enough. I understand that the province has been waging a

difficult battle with SARS, and I think we've all supported that. I want to ensure that the health care of my constituents is not compromised and that the wishes of the community are fully granted.

The community has lived up to its end of the agreement, and now it's time for the province to step up.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again, I do appreciate, as I said in my first response, the thoughtful manner and the very sincere question that has been

asked by the member. I can certainly tell the member that I will personally communicate your concerns to the Minister of Health and personally encourage him to reach a resolution. Obviously that

money would flow as would be appropriate in a timely fashion.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): My question is to the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services. Last Thursday in the

Owen Sound Sun Times, Wayne Richardson of Bruce Grey Children's Services claimed that your ministry is significantly underfunding this agency. I understand that there has been a historical funding

inequity for children's mental health in Bruce-Grey. What has your ministry done to fix this problem with Bruce Grey Children's Services?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I thank my colleague from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound for the question.

He's a fierce champion of his constituents, and we appreciate that.

My ministry recognizes that there have been challenges for this agency, and we have made every effort to address this with Bruce Grey Children's Services. One

of the ways we have done this is by increasing the funding to Bruce Grey Children's Services by 50% since the year 2000. In fact, since November 2001, southwest region has received $1.5 million to

support children's mental health services for children up to the age of six. Although these counties constitute only 18% of the children's population in the region, they actually receive 26% of the

funding as part of our ministry's efforts to redress historical funding imbalances. I want to assure my colleague that I have made every effort in any announcements from my ministry to include an

equity component to make sure that funding is fair all across this province.

I would also like to say to my colleague that this area has, in addition to the 50% new funding, a number of new services that come to this region, such as

intensive child and family services.

Mr Murdoch: Thank you for your answer, Madam Minister, but in the

article Mr Richardson goes on to say, "The government hasn't made children's

mental health a priority until now." I find this an odd statement and feel that you must correct the record on this inaccurate statement.

Hon Mrs Elliott: I too am offended by this inaccurate statement, and I do want to correct the record. In 2003-04, our government will invest

over $400 million in children's mental health. This is a 56% increase from when we took office. In our recent budget, we committed to a children's centre of excellence for mental health at the

Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

We know we need to do more. That is why in The Road Ahead our government has committed to 50 million new dollars for children's mental health over the next

three years to ensure that we have the best possible care for vulnerable children. We've been very clear. I would like to note that our opposition across the way have not one word in their campaign

document about children's mental health. It speaks to our commitment and to our understanding of how very important it is to provide children's mental health services not only in Bruce-Grey-Owen

Sound but for children all across Ontario.

VISITORS

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It gives me great pleasure to welcome in the members'

gallery Dr Richard Hamilton, a great educator from New Jersey, and Dr George Lewis and Mr Harpal Dhaliwal from Universities123. If we could welcome them, please.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you know, the constituency of Timmins-James Bay is very far from

Queen's Park, but if people could afford to drive here, I'd like to be able to recognize them. There's nobody from Timmins-James Bay, but if there was, I'd welcome them.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I'm pleased to be able to rise today and to offer a petition with roughly 3,100 names

on it from the Free Flamborough group for the de-amalgamation from Hamilton. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislature Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of Flamborough had no direct say in the creation of the new supercity of Hamilton; and

"Whereas the government, by regulation and legislation, forced the recent amalgamation against the overwhelming majority of the people of Flamborough; and

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

reduced costs; and

"Whereas the promise of tax decreases has not been met, with an average increase of 30% since amalgamation, and the expected transition costs to area taxpayers

of this forced amalgamation has already exceeded the promised amount by 88%;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario immediately rescind this forced amalgamation order, return our local

municipal government back to the local citizens and their democratically elected officials in Flamborough, and, in so doing, remove the bureaucratic, inefficient, single-tier governance that has

been imposed on the residents of Flamborough."

I just noticed the last duly elected mayor of the town of Flamborough. I'm pleased to present this in this, the people's place, today.

VISITORS

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): On a point of order, Speaker: I'd like the members to recognize the members of the

Ontario Greenhouse Alliance, affectionately known as TOGA, accompanied by the intelligent and charming Minister of Agriculture, Helen Johns. They are having a reception in committee room number 2

in a few moments. We look forward to having a good time with the greenhouse folks, the largest agriculture sector in the riding of Erie-Lincoln.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Welcome to our Legislature. Of course, that isn't a point of order.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's indeed my pleasure today to read a petition, which I have relentlessly read for the last period of time. It's

quite unique.

"Whereas the province of Ontario has delayed the second phase of the equity in education tax credit for parents who choose to send their children to

independent schools; and

"Whereas prior to the introduction of this tax credit, Ontario parents whose children attended independent schools faced a financial burden of paying taxes to

an education system they did not use, plus tuition for the school of their choice; and

"Whereas the equity in education tax credit supports parental choice in education and makes independent schools more accessible to all Ontario families;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully request that the government of Ontario introduce the second phase of the tax credit forthwith and continue --

without delay -- the previously announced timetable for the introduction of the tax credit...."

In light of the legislation passed here today, I believe this petition has been responded to. I'm pleased to sign it.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have a petition sent to me by the Special Services At Home Provincial Coalition in the

form of individually signed letters.

"Whereas I am a citizen who has a family member/friend with a disability. Living with a disability is a life-long reality. I need to know that this government

means what it says about its promise to provide people with disabilities opportunities to live meaningful lives close to their families and in their community. I call on this government to put

their philosophy into action, and take leadership in supporting families who care for a child or other family member in their home.

"Whereas the special services at home program is cost-effective and it works. Yet, your ministry spends only 6% of its billion-dollar developmental services

budget on special services at home to support 18,500 families. The underfunding of SSAH has created undue stress and hardship for families with members with a disability. Families simply do not

have enough support.

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the government to:

"

(1) Make special services at home a program of first choice.

"

(2) Increase the special services at home budget by $25 million provincially to help meet the current needs of families.

"

(3) Develop a simplified, efficient application process.

"Please tell me what you, Minister Elliott, are going to do to help us."

That is to be directed to the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services, Minister Elliott. I'm very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition to the Legislature of the province of Ontario and it's with regard to land

lease communities. It's signed by about people and it reads as follows:

"Whereas we are being classed as second-class citizens of the province in that we do not have the same rights and privileges as other citizens

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of the province of Ontario as follows:

"We the undersigned homeowners and voters of the province of Ontario, petition the Legislature to amend the Assessment Act, 0.Reg. 282/98, to allow us to have

assessment notices and municipal tax bills to be sent directly to us instead of to a third party. Amendment is needed immediately before an election is called. Please do not waste the time and

money to produce the property assessment and classification review, produced by Marcel Beaubien, MPP."

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition here that has been signed by people in Stratford, Sudbury and Oshawa, and it

reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

resident for nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

government's own funded study."

I agree with the petition, I've signed it accordingly, and I'm handing it over to Jenna.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has delayed the second phase of the equity in education tax credit for parents who choose to send their children to

independent schools; and

"Whereas, prior to the introduction of the tax credit, Ontario parents whose children attended independent schools faced a financial burden of paying taxes to

an education system they did not use, plus tuition for the school of their choice; and

"Whereas the equity in education tax credits support parental choice in education and make independent schools more accessible to all Ontario families;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully request that the government of Ontario reintroduce the second phase of the tax credit forthwith and continue,

without delay, the previously announced timetable for the introduction of the tax credit over five years."

I realize that we passed this legislation today, but I thought it important that we still present the petition from the citizens of Ontario. I'm pleased to

give it to Sabrina from our home riding of Brampton Centre. But more particularly, we're Heart Lake people, right?

Interjection: Yes.

Mr Spina: Just north of Vodden.

HOME CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition here which is addressed to the Ontario Legislature, and I'm filing this on

behalf of my colleague Mr Rick Bartolucci from Sudbury. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Manitoulin-Sudbury Community Care Access Centre will be cutting homemaking services to seniors and the disabled effective June 23, 2003; and

"Whereas nursing services, personal support and homemaking services should be of equal importance; and

"Whereas most seniors and the disabled live on fixed incomes and cannot afford to purchase private homemaking services; and

"Whereas many seniors and disabled people will be forced to move into institutions once their homemaking is cut off;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Eves government increase the CCAC budget in order to

allow them the necessary funds to enable them to continue to provide homemaking services to those who are eligible."

I agree with the petition and have signed it accordingly, because this is the area where funding really should be insisted upon for our seniors.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I've got hundreds of names here, possibly thousands, on a petition against the continuing actions of

supervisors in the Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto district school boards:

"Whereas the government has cut over $2 billion from public education over the past seven years;

"Whereas the provincial funding formula does not provide sufficient funds for local district school board trustees to meet the needs of students;

"Whereas district school boards around the province have had to cut needed programs and services, including library, music, physical education and special

education" and more;

"Whereas the district school boards in Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto refused to make further cuts and were summarily replaced with

government-appointed supervisors;

"Whereas these supervisors are undermining classroom education for hundreds of thousands of children;

"We, the undersigned members of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, call on the government to restore local democracy by removing the supervisors

in the Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto district school boards."

I strongly support this petition and affix my signature.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario has delayed the second phase of the equity in education tax credit for parents who choose to send their children to

independent schools; and

"Whereas, prior to the introduction of this tax credit, Ontario parents whose children attended independent schools faced the financial burden of paying taxes

to an education system they did not use, plus tuition for the school of their choice; and

"Whereas the equity in education tax credit supports parental choice in education and makes independent schools more accessible to all Ontario families --

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): How long did it take you to write all that?

Mr Spina: It's all typed out. It's a legitimate petition, Mr Patten, thank you.

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully request that the government of Ontario reintroduce the second phase of the tax credit forthwith and continue --

without delay -- the previously announced timetable for the introduction of the tax credit over five years."

This is signed by Lise Campbell of Callahan Drive and David Campbell of Palmer Court. I realize that this legislation went through today but, nevertheless,

we're presenting the petition from the citizens of Ontario, and I'm so pleased to do so.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THE RIGHT CHOICES ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LES BONS CHOIX

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 24, 2003, on the motion for second reading of Bill 41,

An Act to implement Budget measures / Projet de loi 41, Loi

mettant en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I believe we have unanimous consent for a representative of each of the parties to do up to five minutes

in tribute to the imminent retirement of my colleague the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is there consent? It is agreed.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): It is with a mixture of emotions that I rise to say a few words about our friend and colleague

Lyn McLeod. On the one hand, I'm paying tribute to someone whom we all respect, and that's something to feel very good about. On the other hand, if this is indeed Lyn's final day in the

Legislature, then we are losing something precious today, and that's a sad thing for a great many people. For a start, it's a sad thing for the people of Thunder Bay. The people in that city and in

that region have had 14 years of public service of a quality that I think is unmatched anywhere. The people in that community have been very lucky to have her.

Lyn was the first female party leader in Ontario's history. As Liberals, we are very proud of that, and I know that in this House we all honour that. These

days, thankfully, prominent female politicians are less and less an exception, and that's a good thing. But it still matters. When I try to tell my daughter that she can be whatever she wants to be

as long as she works hard and well, Lyn McLeod is who I point to.

I mentioned that Lyn's departure is a sad thing for a great many people, and I think I can speak for everyone in this Legislature when I say we are losing a

valued colleague. Lyn transcended the partisan politics that so often characterize this chamber. She didn't really care about putting cabinet ministers on the spot, and she didn't really care about

making the government look bad. What she deeply cared about was the people in her riding and the people of this province. Everything she did in this Legislature, everything she said, was about

them.

This is obviously a particularly sad day for our party. We're losing a former cabinet minister, obviously a former leader, but most of all, we're going to be

seeing a great deal less of a very dear friend. Lyn has always been, as she is today, classy, compassionate, the best kind of friend and colleague you could possibly have. For myself, I'm losing a

constant source of wisdom and support.

I want to tell you a story about our transition period -- old leader giving way to new. I, of course, was taking over her office, and I'm sure you can imagine

how awkward that might have been. Not with Lyn. When I got there, all her stuff was gone. Everything was in order. She'd cleaned it all out. There wasn't a sign that she'd been there, except in the

top left-hand drawer of the desk I found one pair of pantyhose. That is the only time that Lyn has ever let me down. What was I going to do with those? My legs are obviously much longer.

The fact that Lyn is leaving politics is bad news for everybody in this province. Yes, she has represented Thunder Bay specifically and she has worked with us

particularly, but she worked tirelessly for all the people of Ontario. She has always put the public need first. She's been a leader, a minister and a critic, but more than anything else, she's

been an advocate for her constituents and an advocate for this entire province. If everyone in Ontario practised politics the way Lyn McLeod has, this province would be a better place.

So it's only fair that after so many years of service to the people of this province, she is now free to spend some time with her family. I'm pleased to report

that that family is growing. I'm happy to tell you that Lyn's daughter Robin has recently given birth to a healthy little girl. I don't think it will take long for little Mia to realize she has one

terrific grandmother.

I want to end by saying something on beha