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

May 29, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-May-29 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 29 May 2002 Mercredi 29 mai 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

IAN DAVIDSON

LONDON KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

GALT COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

TRAFALGAR MORAINE

DAVE KNOWLES

MICHAEL SMITHER

SAVE OUR SCHOOLS DAY

MUSKOKA STEAMSHIPS

VISITORS

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RELIABLE ENERGY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA FIABILITÉ

DE L'ÉNERGIE ET LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS

TRAFALGAR MORAINE

PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA MORAINE DE TRAFALGAR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

BIG TICKET LOTTERY

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

HYDRO ONE

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

MINISTRY OF HEALTH CONTRACT

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

HYDRO ONE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

FRANCHISE BUSINESSES

PETITIONS

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

YOUNG OFFENDER FACILITY

HORSE RIDING SAFETY

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

HYDRO ONE

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HYDRO ONE

MEDICAL SCHOOL TUITION

AMBULANCE SERVICES

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Wednesday 29 May 2002 Mercredi 29 mai 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

IAN DAVIDSON

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): As the provincial representative for the community of Sudbury, I want to congratulate Superintendent Ian Davidson

on being promoted to police chief for the city of greater Sudbury.

Ian, who was born and raised in Sudbury, joined the Ottawa Police Service in 1978, where he spent 20 very productive police years. He returned to Sudbury in

April 1999 as a senior officer with our regional force. At the time of his hiring, our retiring police chief, Alex McCauley, said it was the expectation of the police services board that Ian would

be one of the people who would be considered to succeed him when he retired. Yesterday, our very proactive police services board chair, Andy Humber, announced to our community that indeed Ian

Davidson will be our new chief.

Ian, who is a graduate of the Sudbury Secondary School, has a degree from Carleton University, is a graduate of the FBI National Academy and the University of

Toronto's Rotman School of Management, has immersed himself in our community since his return to Sudbury.

I know I join all my constituents in congratulating him on his accomplishments. We also want to congratulate his wife, Cathy, and their two children, Brad and

Brian, on this accomplishment. Indeed, Ian's strong set of values, his extensive policing skills and his excellent interpersonal skills will serve our community well in the years to come.

LONDON KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to congratulate four Roman Catholic parishes from London: three on their charter nights commemorating

the inauguration of the Knights of Columbus organization in their parishes and the fourth on the 10th anniversary of their council. On April 6, 2002, Knights of Columbus Council 10843 from St

George's parish celebrated their 10th anniversary with a dinner and dance, at which I brought greetings from the province of Ontario. On June 8, St Martin of Tours and Holy Rosary parishes will

celebrate their official status within the Knights of Columbus organization, and on June 15 St Michael's church will hold their charter night for the Knights of Columbus council.

The Knights of Columbus was founded in 1882 in New Haven, Connecticut, by Father Michael J. McGivney. Its original mandate was to offer financial support to

widows and children of deceased members. Today, more than a century later, the Knights of Columbus has become the largest lay organization in the Catholic Church. There are now almost 13,000

councils in the world, which now dedicate themselves to the ideals of charity, unity, fraternity and patriotism.

The order has been called "the strong right arm of the Church" and has been praised by popes, presidents and other world leaders for support of the Church,

programs of evangelization and Catholic education, civic involvement and aid to those in need. In the past decade, the Knights have donated nearly $1 billion to numerous charitable causes and

nearly 400 million hours of volunteer service.

I know that all members of the House will join with me as I wish all our Knights of Columbus councils success as they work to fulfill the mission of the order

and make life better throughout our communities, province and country.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Despite our elation last fall in finally persuading the government to increase the financial

compensation provided to northerners who must travel outside their own communities for medical care, I must tell you that I continue to be enormously frustrated by the problems many of my

constituents face in accessing the northern health travel grant program. Frankly, in light of the story I'm about to tell the House, one can only wonder whether ministry staff are actually

encouraged to find ways to deny people benefits, as my constituent should simply not have been turned down.

The story begins in 1995, when Ms Corina Setala was diagnosed with a rare tumour requiring excision. Her family doctor at the time referred her to a surgeon in

Toronto, who successfully performed the operation. Ms Setala's travel grant application was approved without any question.

Unfortunately, in November 2001, Ms Setala was told that the tumour had returned. Her new family doctor immediately referred her back to her specialist in

Toronto. Being a responsible and careful person, Ms Setala checked with the Ministry of Health office in Thunder Bay to confirm that this referral would be covered by the travel grant and was

assured that it would be. But, stunningly, her travel grant was denied. Despite a very clear letter from her present family physician, the travel grant office has since told her that they will not

approve the claim unless they know the reason for the initial referral back in 1995.

Her original doctor has since retired and left Thunder Bay. We don't know how to reach him. But regardless, this is nothing short of ridiculous and cruel. Ms

Setala should not be put through this additional anxiety.

The Minister of Health must immediately intervene in this case and move swiftly to see that Ms Setala's travel grant application is quickly approved. This cruel

treatment must not be tolerated.

GALT COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I rise to congratulate the students and staff, both past and present, of Galt Collegiate Institute on the

occasion of the 150th anniversary of that school.

The Galt Grammar School, located on a hill overlooking the heritage Grand River, opened its doors in 1852 and is the second-oldest school in Ontario. Many

notable people were once GCI students, including former Cambridge MPP Bill Barlow, former broadcaster Peter Gzowski, former federal Finance Minister Donald Fleming, PGA golfer Ian Leggatt, CFRB's

Jane Brown and the inventors of IMAX theatre, to name but a few.

This weekend, GCI will welcome former students and teachers back to this distinguished school. The reunion festivities are appropriately named The Tradition

Continues.

I salute organizing co-chairs Charles Wilson and Victoria Clark and the hundreds of volunteers who have worked so hard over the past two years. On behalf of

Cambridge families and the province of Ontario, I extend best wishes on the 150th anniversary of this historic place of learning. Thank you to everyone involved.

TRAFALGAR MORAINE

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Today I'm introducing legislation to get the provincial government to protect the endangered Trafalgar

moraine.

The Trafalgar moraine is an incredible ecological bioregion that stretches 20 kilometres from the Niagara Escarpment in the west through to Mississauga in the

east, just north of Dundas Street in the beautiful city of Oakville.

The Trafalgar Moraine Protection Act, if passed, will temporarily freeze development on this moraine until the province puts a protective plan in place that

identifies and protects the environmentally sensitive features of this region so future generations can continue to enjoy this amazing greenbelt of forest, wildlife, birds and wetlands.

The provincial government can no longer be a bystander and let the OMB and developers decide the fate of this precious 7,600 acres of green space. The province

needs to call a time out to make sure proposed changes are compatible with Justice O'Connor's Walkerton report, which calls for protection of watershed areas like the Trafalgar moraine. It is also

compatible with the province's self-proclaimed smart growth policies.

With the help of local residents like Renee Sandelowsky, Hank Rodenburg and Iris McGee, who are here from Oakvillegreen today, we are going to be successful.

This amazing group of local residents has been fighting to save the Trafalgar moraine for four years. Today they bring their battle to save the Trafalgar moraine here to Queen's Park, and we will

succeed. Save, don't pave, the Trafalgar moraine. Keep it green.

DAVE KNOWLES

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): The word "hero" is used quite often nowadays to describe a superstar sports figure. I find that the

people who deserve that title the most, the true heroes, are sometimes the ones we hear about the least. This particular hero I wish to recognize, 63-year-old Dave Knowles, hails from Port Dover in

my riding.

Captain Knowles's early morning rescue is something that those who witnessed it will never forget. Dave Knowles reacted quickly after hearing a distress signal

and noticing a tanker making a sharp turn in the Detroit River on October 23 last year. Realizing that the tanker had just swamped a small mail boat, causing it to roll over, Knowles quickly

manoeuvred his vessel toward two men who were hanging on to a life ring. Once close enough, the men were pulled safely aboard. Unfortunately he was unable to reach two others; the captain and a

crew member drowned as their boat sank.

Captain Knowles has been honoured by the City of Detroit Fire Department and the Windsor Port Authority for his heroic efforts. I ask members of the Legislature

to join them in acknowledging Captain Dave Knowles as a rescuer, as a lifesaver and as a hero in the truest sense of the word.

We in Port Dover feel a little more secure knowing that there are men like Dave Knowles working on the lakes.

MICHAEL SMITHER

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I rise today to celebrate the life of Michael J. Smither, who passed away yesterday.

During a career spanning more than 40 years, Mike Smither was a well-known local government adviser and an outspoken advocate of open and autonomous local

government. Michael recognized that local government is a vital factor in the social, economic and political structure of society. Founded on the principles of community of interest, access and

accountability, it remains closest to the people, both in proximity and value.

Michael was born in England and came to Canada, serving first as assistant clerk-treasurer in Renfrew. In 1964 he joined Municipal World, retiring in 2001 as the

editor and publisher -- Municipal World having been continuously published since 1891.

For 35 years he was an adviser to local government and municipal associations. He delivered hundreds of lectures and addresses all across this great country. He

was an author and co-author of numerous books and hundreds of articles.

Just last week, Michael's contributions were recognized with the Robert Baldwin Award, by the Ontario Municipal Administrators' Association. This prestigious

award recognizes individuals who have demonstrated a passion for local government and have made a significant contribution to the betterment of municipalities.

Michael Smither was a good friend. I considered myself at the time to be the luckiest mayor in Ontario because I could pick up the phone and call the great guru

any time.

On behalf of the Ontario Legislature and the municipalities of this province, I ask that all of us pay tribute to Michael Smither and extend our condolences to

his family.

SAVE OUR SCHOOLS DAY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): This is a call to arms to all who care about public education in this city.

At 2 pm this Sunday, June 2, here at Queen's Park it is Save Our Schools Day. I urge everybody who cares about our public education system to come out here to

Queen's Park at 2 o'clock on Sunday. Your presence can make a difference, so please come out.

Education in Toronto is paid for by our property taxes, but the amount people see on their bills does not come to the school board. Instead, it is all taken by

the provincial government, which gives only part of that money, our money, back to the board of education to pay for our needs in this city.

The government has finally admitted that the funding formula they brought in is flawed and have announced about $40 million of new money -- although some of it,

I understand, is not new -- to the Toronto District School Board. However, there is still about $90 million of unfunded programs and services that may have to be eliminated, on top of all the other

cuts that have happened previous to this, if the money isn't forthcoming. We are talking about more cuts to educational assistants, more cuts to classroom computers, schools closing,

vice-principals cut, school secretaries cut, on and on.

I want to thank all those who are involved in organizing the Need to Succeed public school budget. They have organized the day on Sunday.

Please come out and support this very vital rally on Sunday.

MUSKOKA STEAMSHIPS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Steamships have been a part of Muskoka's tourism heritage ever since they started transporting guests and

supplies to the summer resorts on our beautiful lakes more than a century ago. Gravenhurst is well known for the historical mail ship Segwun, the oldest operating steamship in North America, which

is still providing historic cruises on lakes Rosseau and Muskoka, along with the 1915 steam yacht Wanda III, once owned by Mrs Timothy Eaton.

I'm glad to tell you that the Wenonah II set sail for its first public cruise on May 17, 2002. This brand new 127-foot ship is built in the style and elegance of

the famous passenger vessels that sailed our region's lakes in the early 1900s. It is the first new ship built in the region in more than 100 years.

"Wenonah" means "firstborn daughter" in Ojibwa, and it was the name of the navigation company's first ship, built in 1866. The Wenonah II will be the company's

workhorse, and more than doubles the carrying capacity of the Muskoka fleet.

It has state-of-the-art construction and operating systems and preserves the historical design features of the Muskoka steamship era. The people with the vision

to inspire this project and those with the resources to carry it to completion deserve credit for this outstanding accomplishment.

The Wenonah II means more jobs and business for our riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka and is a tremendous addition to our province's major tourism attractions.

VISITORS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Speaker, I want this House to know that visiting us today are Jason Cruise, Nicole Brown, Spencer Brown and

Helen Brown, all of Niagara region.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Earlier today, the member for Beaches-East York, Mr Prue, provided me with written notice of a point of privilege,

as required by standing order 21(c). I would like to thank the member for giving me sufficient time to review this matter.

I wish to advise that I will be deciding on the matter without further hearing directly from the member at this time, as standing order 21(

d) permits me to

do.

The member's point of privilege relates to difficulties he's encountered with the National Advertising Standards Council, specifically its refusal to deal with a

complaint launched by the member.

While the member alleges that the refusal by the National Advertising Standards Council somehow curtails the freedom of speech of current and future members of

this House, he fails to explain how this is so.

In addition, the member will know that privilege attaches only to the member's parliamentary duties and not to subsidiary duties away from Parliament. I cannot

find in the member's letter any reference to the manner in which the complaint and the subsequent refusal to pursue it are related to the member's parliamentary duties. In the absence of such

crucial information, I have no alternative but to find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established.

VISITORS

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I'd like to welcome to the Legislature my sister Kendra, in the members' gallery, and I do this

knowing it will embarrass her a great deal.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RELIABLE ENERGY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA FIABILITÉ

DE L'ÉNERGIE ET LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS

Mr Stockwell moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 58,

An act to amend certain statutes in relation to the energy sector / Projet de loi 58, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne le secteur de

l'énergie.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1354.

The Speaker: Will the members kindly take their seats, please.

All those in favour of the motion 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

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

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

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

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

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 51; the nays are 35.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to standing order 69(

b) and wish to give the House notice

that the official opposition will be filing a notice of reasoned amendment before noon tomorrow with respect to the bill that was just introduced and passed first reading by this House.

The Speaker: I thank the member for that.

The minister for a short statement on the bill?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): In ministers' statements.

TRAFALGAR MORAINE

PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA MORAINE DE TRAFALGAR

Mr Colle moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 59,

An Act to protect the Trafalgar Moraine / Projet de loi 59, Loi visant à protéger la moraine de Trafalgar.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As you well know, this is a very precious and fragile bioregion north of the city of

Oakville that is under imminent threat from developers' bulldozers. With this bill, there would be a temporary freeze in place on development until the provincial government puts in a protective

plan to ensure that the natural areas, the wetlands and all the endangered species in this bioregion are protected and that it will remain green and natural for generations to come, if this bill is

passed.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of the government's decision today to introduce hydro

legislation that would allow for the sale of Hydro One, I would like to give members of the Legislature notice that I am filing a want of confidence motion. I believe the people of Ontario should

have a say in this matter by means of a general election.

The Speaker: I thank the member for that information.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): The seamless and cost-efficient generation, transmission

and distribution of electrical power are integral to our standard of living and our economy, and they affect virtually every facet of our lives every day.

For many years, Ontario's residents could take their supply of electricity for granted. But years of mismanagement under the old Ontario Hydro have left the

status quo impossible to maintain. Crucially needed investment in transmission infrastructure has been neglected over a period of many years, and the combined Ontario Hydro debt and other

liabilities had reached a staggering $38 billion by 1999. Moreover, our electricity transmission infrastructure needs to be renewed and expanded in a fiscally responsible manner to help keep

Ontario economically competitive. In a word, what it needs is investment.

Ontarians deserve better than what they have been saddled with. They and their children should not have to continue to pay for the mistakes of the past well

into the future.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Call an election.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I've heard you say, "Let's call an election" before, and when we did, nothing changed.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock, please.

Would the minister continue his statement, please.

Hon Mr Stockwell: That is why I'm proud to stand up in this Legislature and announce that the government is introducing legislation that would

address the four restructuring objectives outlined earlier this month by Premier Ernie Eves.

Those objectives are: (1) to ensure an efficient supply of energy that is competitive for the people of Ontario and in the international marketplace; (2) to

ensure that the necessary capital is provided to rebuild and modernize the transmission and distribution of power in Ontario; (3) to bring market discipline to Hydro One, the province's

transmission company, and to eliminate the current $38-billion debt and liabilities and prevent any possibility of the recurrence of such a staggering debt; and (4) to achieve these goals while

protecting consumers.

During public consultations held on this issue earlier this month, the government heard what Ontarians had to say about what this legislation might include.

Along with these consultations, we have received many calls and written submissions on this issue. We have heard viewpoints from many different people and have listened to them all. The legislation

being introduced today has benefited immeasurably from the ideas that Ontarians have brought forward.

Interjections.

The Speaker: This is a warning. I'll pick some people out and name them. Last warning to everybody. We can't continue like this.

Minister, sorry for the interruption once again.

Hon Mr Stockwell: The government's proposed legislation would clarify the province's authority to determine the future of Hydro One as well as

give the province more flexibility to meet our four objectives.

The recent superior court ruling effectively meant that the province could not sell its own assets. Our position is that we do have the authority, and so we

are appealing the court decision.

We are moving forward today with a bill that would allow the government to determine the future of Hydro One.

During the consultations, people told me that they understood the debt problems and they wanted the proceeds from any potential disposition to go to the debt.

I am proud to say that the bill reinforces the government's commitment to ensuring that the net proceeds of any disposition option would go toward paying down the Hydro debt.

Ontarians have also stated they want us to protect the public interest by ensuring the transmission corridors would remain available both for important public

infrastructure uses as well as transmission, and this government has listened. Should this bill be passed, the government would take ownership of the transmission corridor lands now owned by Hydro

One to ensure they remain available for public uses other than transmission. The company would hold a statutory right to continue the use of the lands for transmission purposes, which would take

primacy over any other use. The company would continue to be required to apply to the Ontario Energy Board for permission to expand transmission on these lands.

During the past month, the people of Ontario told us that they want increased consumer protection. Again, this government has listened. That's why this bill

includes reforms to strengthen the Ontario Energy Board's powers against unfair marketing and retailing practices. Should it be passed, the bill would enact a new energy consumers' bill of rights

which would place new requirements on gas and electricity retailers dealing with consumers, including: (1) government authority to prescribe the content and presentation of contracts to ensure that

important information is presented clearly and factually to the consumer; (2) prohibitions and unfair practices; (3) and prohibitions on false advertising.

The bill would also provide the Ontario Energy Board with new enforcement powers, such as enhanced power to order compliance and the power to order

administrative penalties for these new offences.

The bill would also enhance a consumer's cancellation rights after assigning a contract, in that the existing 10-day right to cancel would be replaced with a

30-day period and that contract would only be effective if the customer reaffirmed it. In addition, the customer would have to reaffirm future contract renewals; the negative renewal option would

no longer be an option.

In response to input brought forward at recent consultations, the bill contains amendments to add to consumer protection in the operation of a new electricity

market. The proposed amendments include strengthening market surveillance powers by ensuring the Market Surveillance Panel of the Independent Electricity Market Operator has timely and ongoing

access to the information needed to carry out its very important surveillance work-monitoring market activity to identify inappropriate market conduct and protect customers.

Ontarians have told us as well that they want new measures to protect the environment on whose quality we will all depend. This bill would help protect our

environment by strengthening the rules governing water power generators. The Ministry of Natural Resources has a lead on these amendments to the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. These measures are

key to the economic, social and environmental sustainability of a significant renewable energy source. The province's approach to water management planning, to which the present amendments give

teeth, will continue to strengthen Ontario's rich hydro power legacy and facilitate a competitive energy market.

By implementing the proposed changes, the government will ensure that water power industry manages water levels and flows responsibility. Fish habitat and

other ecosystems would be protected. Recreational and other users would have access. A balanced approach to water power resource management would help ensure Ontario continues to offer an

attractive climate for new investment and jobs, the majority of which are expected in northern Ontario.

Amendments would also enable the government to establish an environmental information tracking and reporting system which would allow consumers to make

informed choices about electricity offerings.

Let me again convey my pride that the government is introducing this legislation after having heard from so many Ontarians in the past several weeks. Our

public consultations are not over. The people of Ontario will soon have a chance to provide their input on this proposed legislation and I look forward to hearing their opinions and ideas. To those

who attended the hearings or submitted their ideas, either in person or by phone or in writing, you have my gratitude for helping shape both this legislation and the future of Ontario's electricity

market.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Today we close the loop on one of the most cynical ploys ever used by any government of any

political stripe, and I will tell you specifically what I'm referring to. On the morning of May 2, a day during which two very important by-elections were being conducted in our province, the

headline on the front page of the National Post read, "Eves Says Hydro Sale `Off the Table'"; and on the front of the Toronto Star of May 2, "Eves: Hydro Sale `Off Table.'" This is one of the most

cynical ploys that has ever been used by any government of any political stripe in the history of this province -- this from a government that claims it's going to turn over a new leaf, that it's

going to be both responsible and responsive. This is a government that now claims that listening is no longer a sign of weakness but rather that it has become a hallmark of courage.

Having said all that, this smacks of the kind of arrogance that so wonderfully characterized the Mike Harris government. Ontarians should understand that we

may have a new driver, but it's the same old gang, it's the same old bus and it's going in the exact same direction.

In keeping with their tradition, the government has given us a very lengthy bill here, and what we've been able to glean in a very few short moments is

essentially that they're asking for a blank cheque. What they're saying is, "Don't worry about it. Just pass this bill. Ram this thing through before the end of the month of June," and sometime

during cover of darkness, when people aren't paying attention and they're more worried about the barbecues in the backyard, they're going to make their decision with respect to the future of Hydro

One.

What a responsible, responsive government should do: from time to time they want to do something that represents such a dramatic departure from the past, that

represents such a fundamental change in public policy that the right thing to do, the responsible thing to do is to take it to the people and give them their say by means of a general election.

Do you know why they won't do that? Because they haven't got the guts to do it and because they have in fact heard what Ontarians have been saying, and they've

not been saying what the minister would have us conclude they've been saying. They've been saying, "You know, folks, you can do a lot of things, you can make a lot of changes, you can do a lot of

things with the province of Ontario and you've done that, and much of that we do not in any way support, but we do not want you to go ahead with the sale of Hydro One."

This government has in fact heard that. They've heard that but they refuse to listen to it.

Selling Hydro One is a bad idea. It is a natural public monopoly. It is in fact generating a profit for the province of Ontario. Those profits are being used

as an investment in the future. If you and I don't like a particular highway because it is tolled, we can get off that highway and use another one. There is only one electricity highway in Ontario:

Hydro One. It is a natural public monopoly.

This government, after all this time, has yet to make a business case for the sale of Hydro One. This is an embarrassment. This minister, this Premier and this

government have not been able to place before either this Legislature or the people of Ontario any kind of rationale justifying the sale of Hydro One. We understand that it's perfectly in the

interests of their Bay Street pals. We understand that this is in keeping with Mike Harris's marching orders. We understand that Premier Ernie Eves hasn't got the guts to say no to Mike Harris or

the guts to say no to his Bay Street friends. We believe that this government is going to be paying very, very dearly for this decision.

We encourage government members to reconsider, to understand what it's going to mean to you in your individual ridings and in your seats and in your chances

for re-election. Talk to the folks back home. They want an election on this issue and they want it now.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Well, let me begin by asking, are these the same Liberals who on December 12, 2001, said it was a good

idea to sell Hydro One?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. Reset it to five. We've reset the clock to five.

Mr Hampton: This is really for all of you who are at home, because this decision by the government is going to affect your hydro bill, it may

well affect your property taxes and it may well affect your job.

Let there be no mistake about what the government is saying here. The government intends to sell off a very important part of our public hydro system. The

government is going to bring this legislation in, despite all of its words and all of its propaganda over the last month and a half. What this legislation means is that this government intends to

sell off the transmission system. They will pass the legislation this spring. They will force it through the Legislature. This summer their intention is, while everyone is focused on other issues,

that they will quietly do the dirty deal. That's their intention. I'm here to tell you that New Democrats will do everything we can to stop this government in its tracks, because this is an

abominable decision.

I say to the government, if you think you have the support of the people of Ontario on this, if you believe the people of Ontario support your government in

taking this step, then do the decent thing: call an election and let the people decide, because this is not your asset and this is not Eleanor Clitheroe's asset. This was built by the people of

Ontario over generations. It is one of the most valuable enterprises, one of the most valuable public assets that we own. No government has the right to sell it off without consulting the people of

this province. So do the decent thing: call an election.

I want to say to people again, when you read the fine print of this, what is very clear is that this is going to be another Highway 407. Remember before the

last election the government sold Highway 407 for what now turns out to be peanuts? What did they do with the money? They put the money into a pre-election slush fund. When you read the accounting

details of this deal, this government, the Conservative government, will keep the first $4 billion from the sale of Hydro One and put it into a pre-election slush fund. In other words, what's

really going on here is that this government is going to sell one of our most important public assets in order to try to buy the next election. That's really what is going on here.

Then they talk about consumer protection. They say they're going to get tough on any new private contracts that are signed for the retailing of electricity.

Ask yourself this: what about the almost one million people who have already been swindled, who've already been misled, who've already been lied to or already had their contracts forged? What is

the government going to do for them? Are they allowed to void their contracts? No, not at all. Those people don't matter to this government. This government is more interested in protecting its

corporate friends than it is interested in looking after those consumers who have been lied to and manipulated.

Then, finally, within this legislation there is provision for more exemption from the freedom-of-information act. Do you know what it was that allowed Eleanor

Clitheroe and the other Conservative cronies over at Hydro One to raise their salaries to the tune of a $6-million payout without the public knowing about it? It was that this government passed

legislation which exempted Hydro One and Hydro One salaries from disclosure via freedom of information. So what are they going to do now? They're going to make more of the details offside from

freedom of information. That the same process that brought you people at the trough taking $6-million payouts from the public, the government now says is going to protect you as consumers.

Let me tell you what it's going to do. It's going to allow this government to sell off one of the most important public assets to its friends on Bay Street,

pocket $4 billion, put it into a pre-election trust fund to be used to try to buy the next election, and then put people in Ontario in the position of having to pay higher and higher prices for our

hydro because more and more of it is going to be exported.

Do the decent thing: call an election. Let the people decide.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm just looking through our standing orders and the Legislative

Assembly Act, and I wanted to remind the members opposite that they don't have to rely on the government.

Section 25 makes it clear. Tender your resignations, run in a by-election, and we'll see

what the electorate believes about all this. Put your money where your mouth is.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order.

It is now time for oral questions. The leader of the official opposition. Sorry; the member for Beaches-East York on a point of order.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Actually, Mr Speaker, it's a point of privilege, if you will allow me to make it. I understand you ruled

earlier, but I hope you've had a chance to read my documents --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We did get the additional information you gave us, but there was -- the information gave us a chance to take a

look at it, and I did rule on that. We'll take a look at some of the information, but we're not going to allow you to stand and read it. I will review it. The standing orders allow me to do that. I

thank you for giving it to me.

What I would encourage all members to do, if they do have a point of privilege, though, is to give us as much information as you can beforehand, to be able to

take a look at it. But we're not going to get into a situation where you just give a point of privilege, an advisement of it, and then get a chance to get up in the House and go off and do things

that should be more readily participated in in debate. But I will take a look at the additional information he has given me.

It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, anybody who spent any time in this province during the past six months knows that, at

a minimum, the proposed sell-off of Hydro One is very controversial. They will also know that from a more realistic level, the overwhelming majority of Ontarians are opposed to the sell-off of

Hydro One.

I'm asking you, Premier, someone who claims he's different from the last guy, that he wants to act in a responsible way, that he's a good listener: where is it

that you get your mandate to sell off the Hydro One that belongs to the people of Ontario?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Who said we were selling Hydro One?

Mr McGuinty: Premier, we can do this the long way if that's what you prefer. Your bill that your minister just introduced leaves open the

possibility of a full sale of Hydro One. Are you now telling us, Premier -- as I say, we can do this the long way, the way we've done it in the past -- that you're ruling out the sale of Hydro

One?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition talks about anybody who has been around the province for the last six months. You had a

great deal of time, as I recall. You almost took up permanent residence in the riding of Nipissing in the recent by-election. You ran against Al McDonald on this very issue. How did you do in the

by-election?

Interjections.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): You lied to the people.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Timiskaming-Cochrane, I would ask you to withdraw that. I heard you yell across and say, "You

lied." I would ask him to withdraw that or I will ask him to withdraw from the chamber.

Mr Ramsay: I withdraw.

The Speaker: I thank the member.

It is now final supplementary for the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Speaker, it's my first supplementary.

The Speaker: First supplementary. I apologize.

Mr McGuinty: Premier --

Hon Mr Eves: No, it's the second.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): It's your second. You can't even count.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. I thank all the members --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Yes, we got it. Thank you very much. That's why we have the two-referee system: to be able to go upstairs. We've checked. You're

right; it is the final supplementary for the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: If we ever needed confirmation, we now know that Premier Ernie Eves will say anything to anybody at any time and vary that

message according to circumstances.

In case the Premier forgets, I'll remind him about the headlines that appeared on the front of the National Post on May 2: "Eves Says Hydro Sale `Off the

Table.'" Front page of the Toronto Star on the same date, the date of the by-elections: "Eves: Hydro Sale `Off Table.'" This man is prepared to say anything at any time to anyone and to vary the

message according to the circumstances to serve his purposes.

Premier, you still haven't answered the question. Is the sale on the table or off the table, because the bill that you introduced today says it's on the

table.

Hon Mr Eves: All the legislation introduced by the Minister of Energy today does is that it puts the province of Ontario in the position it

always thought it was in with respect to the potential disposal of assets. It doesn't make a decision about a sale; it doesn't make a particular --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Sorry to interrupt the Premier. It's too noisy. Would the Premier take his seat, please? We'll just wait.

Sorry for the interruption, Premier. You can continue.

Interjection.

The Speaker: You're done? New question.

Mr McGuinty: So we are somehow supposed to take comfort in this fact that this Premier has now said that all the options are on the table;

they simply haven't made a final decision yet? The people of Ontario made a final decision on this matter a long time ago, Premier. They want an election on this issue.

This is a fundamental change in public policy. You're proposing selling off Hydro One. What we're asking you to do is the right thing in the circumstances. We

want you to deliver a message now, not to a specific audience but rather to the people of Ontario. We want you, Premier, to commit to holding a general election so that all Ontarians can pass

judgment on your plan to do whatever the heck you intend to do with Hydro One. Will you call that election?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition protesteth too much. He might get exactly what he asked for, in due course.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: A lot of frothing going on over there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If you'd rather shout than ask questions, I'm sure the government would love it if we didn't have question period today, and

that's what we're going to do: we're not going to have any questions until it's quiet in here. If it isn't, the government won't be held accountable in question period.

Sorry again for the interruption, Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: There's nothing to have an election about. We are clarifying the rules of ownership of the province of Ontario and its ability to

dispose of an asset. The Minister of Energy has also further strengthened consumer protection in this legislation. He proposes to protect the corridor lands that you stood in this House no more

than a week ago and asked to be protected. It's in this legislation. You have an opportunity to vote for it. It will be very interesting to see if you stand up and vote for exactly what you asked

for in this Legislature about a week ago.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, if you think we're going to be voting for your bill, which effectively gives you a blank cheque so that, behind closed

doors in some smoke-filled room over the course of the summer, over some very expensive wine and some thick steak, you're going to make a decision about the future of Hydro, you've gone another

think coming.

You're asking us to give you a blank cheque, Premier. We are not going to do that. It would be irresponsible on our part to do that, just as it is totally

irresponsible on your part to ask us for it. We're asking you to do the right thing. This represents a profound change in public policy. You have no mandate for this. You have no mandate. You first

introduced this concept just before the Christmas break. You've been following the marching orders delivered very clearly to you from Bay Street. Do the right thing, Premier, if you've got the guts

to do it: call an election.

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition is blustering about absolutely nothing. You're against property ownership rights for the

province of Ontario. You don't believe that the province of Ontario has the inherent ability to dispose of its assets. That's what we're talking about here. There is no specific sale of Hydro One;

there is no specific IPO of 100% of the shares of Hydro One; there is no specific thing that we are proposing in this legislation. For the honourable member's information, last night for dinner I

had a hamburger at Wendy's in Beamsville for.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, then I ask you, what's the urgency here? If you still haven't made up your mind with respect to the future of Hydro One,

you still do not know what it is that you want to do with respect to Hydro One, then why do you need this bill? Let's take our time about this. There's no particular rush. Listen, why not just be

straight with the people of Ontario? You've made a decision; you don't care what they have to say. Yes, there's going to be the charade of public hearings, as there has been in the near past, but

you fully intend to proceed with the sell-off of Hydro One.

What we're asking you to do, understanding now that the truth is out -- we know what you're really all about; you're putting this bill forward so you get a

blank cheque and you make a decision under cover of darkness during the summer -- knowing that the jig is up, why don't you do the right thing, Premier? Call an election. Let the people of Ontario

pass judgment on your plans.

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition could barely get the last comment out without a smile or a smirk on his face. The reality

is, we are deciding to do nothing here today. We are declaring what we thought the property rights were of the province of Ontario with respect to assets and we're clarifying them. That's what this

legislation proposes.

Read the bill. Nowhere in the bill does it say that we are selling Hydro One. You won't find it in the bill because it's not in here. That's not what we're

doing. We are clarifying ownership rights. I understand that socialists don't understand about property ownership, that you should have the right to dispose of property that you own, but that is

what we are doing. We are clarifying what we think was an erroneous decision of Mr Justice Gans. That's all we are doing.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier.

Section 49 of your proposed legislation, if passed, gives you the

authority to dispose of Hydro One. So my question to you today is, since you seek the legal authority -- and the words are right out of the act -- to dispose of Hydro One, would you simply say to

the people of Ontario today, without any exception or other words, that you are not going to sell Hydro One?

Hon Mr Eves: There are lots of things that this proposed legislation has in it. It is clarifying the proprietary rights of the province of

Ontario with respect to an asset that Mr Justice Gans ruled the province of Ontario does not have the right to deal with.

Mr Hampton: Premier, it's very, very clear in

section 9. You seek to give yourself the authority to dispose of Hydro One. So let me ask you

this: if you don't intend to use that authority, would you agree to take it out of the bill, as proposed?

Hon Mr Eves: People and individuals and corporations and provinces and government agencies that own property have the right to do many things

with it. He's talking about one specific one out of many. They are all options for the government, as they are for individuals, as they are for corporations, as they are for legal entities.

Mr Hampton: This concerns what is probably the most important public asset for the people of Ontario, the capacity to exercise some control

over our electricity system and whether our electricity is sold here to Ontarians or whether the majority of our electricity gets exported out of the province. I'm simply saying to you that I think

you owe it to the people of this province to be very clear with them. Will you tell them definitively here that you are not going to sell Hydro One? Because the clear implication is that you want

legislation that allows you to sell Hydro One. We listened to your Minister of Energy, who says that the status quo, that is, ownership by the people of Hydro One, is not on. So the only conclusion

we can draw is that you intend to sell Hydro One. I'm asking you to clarify. Stand up and tell people you do not intend to sell Hydro One; you are not going to sell Hydro One. Will you tell people

that?

Hon Mr Eves: This legislation clarifies ownership rights of the province of Ontario with respect to an asset named Hydro One. It also further

strengthens consumer protection with respect to electricity in Ontario. It also protects corridor lands and proposes to transfer them to the province of Ontario to protect those lands, as the

leader of the official opposition and others have asked us to do.

There are lots of things that this legislation proposes. It does not pick a lane, it does not pick a particular type of action that the government is

proceeding with. It does clarify the government's right to do whatever it wants with an asset of the province of Ontario, as surely he must think the government and the province of Ontario have the

right to do.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: To the Premier: we looked at the election platform that you ran under in the last election, and nowhere does it say in that

document anything about selling off Hydro One. Nowhere does it mention privatizing Hydro One. So can you tell us where you would get the mandate from the people of Ontario to sell off our most

important public asset when in the last election campaign it was not even mentioned, it was not even referred to? Where do you get the mandate to sell off our most important public asset, since you

refuse to rule that out here today?

Hon Mr Eves: I would advise him to wait until he sees which direction the province of Ontario is going in with respect to Hydro One, and then

he will be able to either criticize, agree with, comment on, amend or do whatever he wants. But this bill does not do that, the one that was introduced today.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you don't have a mandate from the people to do this, yet you want legislation that gives you the authority to sell Hydro

One. Your Minister of Energy says that the status quo, retaining public control over it, is not on. So I think the only conclusion people can draw is that you, your government, intend to sell Hydro

One.

So I'll ask you again. Either tell the people now that you are not going to sell off Hydro One, or have the decency to call an election and let the people

decide.

Hon Mr Eves: If and when there's a need to call an election, I'm sure we'll do the appropriate thing at the appropriate time. But right now

we're introducing legislation to clarify ownerships that the province of Ontario has in a certain asset, as they do in any other asset, as we thought we did with respect to this asset.

Mr Justice Gans, however, is of a different opinion. He doesn't think the province of Ontario has the ability to dispose of, or in any way deal with, an asset

that it owns in the name of the people of the province of Ontario. We happen to disagree.

Now, is it the presumption on the other side of the House from both opposition parties that the province of Ontario does not have the ability to deal with any

asset that the province of Ontario owns? If that's their case, they should say so.

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I believe that the people of Ontario own Hydro One, and they're the ones who should make any decision with respect to

the future of Hydro One, and not you.

The Premier would have us believe today that this is merely some minor housekeeping legislation, that it's mostly an academic, esoteric exercise and will have

no real impact in terms of what this government plans to do. We don't buy that. We don't buy that for an instant.

Premier, you have specifically said that there are five options on the table. There's an IPO, an income trust, a not-for-profit corporation, a lease and a

strategic sale. Can you tell us today, Premier, which, if any, of these are no longer on the table?

Hon Mr Eves: We have four principles that we believe are essential to the future of the province of Ontario and with respect to the future of

electricity in Ontario. We are going to be guided by those principles. He will learn soon enough which direction we choose. But we are (

a) consulting with the people through consultation that the

Minister of Energy has already had, and (

b) this bill will be going out to committee. It will be having public hearings. It will be dealt with before the committee. And then, when the government

decides which lane it's choosing and which decision it's going to make, you'll be the first to know; trust me.

Mr McGuinty: What the Premier is effectively saying is that they'll make up their minds behind closed doors and they will extend us the

courtesy of telling us what the decision is after they've made it.

This bill is not some kind of an administrative, detail fixer-upper. This is about giving this government the authority to make a decision about the future of

Hydro One, including the sell-off of Hydro One.

Premier, you tell us that you're different. You tell us that you are very different from the last guy. Then start listening. The people of Ontario are very

concerned about your plans for their Hydro One. They don't want you to sell off their Hydro One. They're concerned about what it's going to mean to their rates. I'm talking about families and small

businesses in particular.

Premier, I ask you again. If you feel so strongly about the sell-off of Hydro One, if you think this is integral to the future prosperity of our province, it

is so important to our families and our businesses, then put it all on the line and call an election.

Hon Mr Eves: To the leader of the official opposition, that is not what this is about. But if he --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: It is not what it's about. But if the leader of the official opposition wants to talk about people changing their positions and

changing their minds, on December 12 of last year, Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty said that privatizing Hydro One was the right move, but it should be done following an open debate in the

Legislature. Where do you stand today on the issue?

BIG TICKET LOTTERY

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Attorney General and it relates to the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. Minister, the

latest marketing initiative of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp comes in the form of what is referred to as the Big Ticket lottery. This is a lottery that comes into direct conflict with a

lottery that has been developed and promoted by many of Ontario's charities.

Minister, do you agree that the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp, which is already generating in excess of $700 million a year through its lotteries, should not

be in competition with charitable foundations in this province, and will you agree to direct the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp to withdraw this lottery in the interest of Ontario's charities?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the honourable member for raising this important issue. I

should say that there have been other members who have raised this issue from time to time. I have also heard from a number of charities and a number of associations that benefit from those

charities, and it is an issue that I am examining now. It is an issue that I will say publicly I have some concerns about.

I have undertaken to a number of individuals, and I'm certainly prepared to say to the honourable member, that I will not be proceeding quickly to reinstate

any type of lottery similar to the one referenced by my friend a moment ago.

I have arranged for meetings to take place with a number of the interested parties. In fact, this Friday I'll be meeting with the Heart and Stroke Foundation,

the Princess Margaret Hospital, the Canadian Cancer Society and the CNIB to discuss this matter further.

Mr Klees: Following your meeting, during which I am assuming, Minister, that these organizations will present you with evidence that in fact

this Big Ticket lottery has been undermining their fundraising initiatives, I would ask you to commit today that following the receipt of such evidence, you will direct the OLGC to cease and

desist, to withdraw from any further issuance of a Big Ticket type of lottery in this province.

Hon Mr Young: Indeed, I am going to seriously consider the suggestion made by my colleague. I will be taking into account what he had to say

today and what I will undoubtedly hear at those meetings.

It's also important, though, to remember that as a province, we benefit greatly from the gaming industry, including lotteries. Well in excess of $1 billion

each and every year goes toward hospitals and community groups and charities through the Trillium Foundation and other sources. I think it is important for all the honourable members to keep that

in mind. We have to find the right balance.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Premier and it concerns hydro policy. Premier, imagine that I am a

senior citizen in Ontario today and I consume and pay for, on average, $1,200 of electricity annually. I note that in this last 12-month period, my residential electricity bills have increased

under your watch and the watch of your predecessor by about 15%. I hear you today announcing that the government is going to do some things about hydro policy for the future, so I'm trying to

imagine what this is going to mean to me, the Ontario senior on a fixed income looking at a $1,200 annual bill that has just gone up by 15% in the last 12 months.

With that senior citizen, that consumer, in mind, let me ask you this question: when am I going to know from you in specific terms what the Ernie Eves policy

is going to be with respect to the future of Hydro One, fully understanding that I, as the consumer, am going to pay the bill one way or the other?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): What you will have in the bill today, if you are the senior the honourable

member purports to be for the purposes of this question -- you will know that consumer protection and the Ontario Energy Board's power to regulate and control rates in the province of Ontario is

strengthened by this bill.

Mr Conway: I've been reading the papers, and as a senior citizen on a fixed income, I know that under your watch I have to potentially pay a

multi-million dollar golden parachute for some woman named Eleanor Clitheroe. I've been reading the papers, and I find out that the Pickering deal, the refurbishment of Pickering A, that was

supposed to cost $800 million is now at $2.2 billion, almost certainly on its way to $3 billion.

Premier, you have given me a statement today that is, in a sense, the envelope. I don't have the letter. I don't have the content. Let me ask you very clearly,

with the customer in mind, when are you, as leader of this government, going to lay before the consumers of Ontario and this Legislature a detailed and specific policy with respect to your plans

for the future of the electricity highway and how that plan is going to serve the public interest and the consumers' interest?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member can rest assured that in the future, for the seniors and for others in the province of Ontario, with

respect to electricity rates, they won't be the 94% that they went up while the Bob Rae and David Peterson governments were in power.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

I am fortunate to represent the constituency of Peterborough, a riding that is home to Sir Sandford Fleming College. This year, through the apprenticeship

enhancement fund, our government will invest $112,208 in this college. This money was put forward to the general carpentry program for the purchase of new saws and equipment, which resulted in the

opening of 38 new seats.

Interjections.

Mr Stewart: Mr Speaker, the people of Peterborough would sure love to hear this question.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The people who were doing the yelling and the laughing, if that's who you mean, were having a little bit

of a joke. But it was your own members, not the opposition, who were making all the noise in that. I will add that it was the Minister of Environment and Energy, on the way out, who was yelling

across. I couldn't even hear you for him standing up in my way. So if you want me to stand up and interrupt you with your own members, I can do that.

I'm hopeful all members will be patient with everybody. The member for Peterborough has an important point. He has an important question he is asking for the

people of his riding. I would appreciate some co-operation, particularly from the government members.

Mr Stewart: I would ask my own members to be quiet too during this very important question.

The machinists program was also updated with new machines and equipment so that the students can be trained on the most current technology. The electricians

program has also benefited from upgraded equipment. These changes bring obvious benefits to Sir Sandford Fleming's apprenticeship training program, training that is important to my riding, as it is

to all of Ontario.

Minister, can you tell the House a bit more about the apprenticeship enhancement fund and this year's recipients?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): In response to the member

for Peterborough, Sir Sandford Fleming, as all of you know, is one of 25 great colleges in the province of Ontario. They are responding to the needs of the public.

When you hear the member mention carpenters, machinists and electricians, this is our goal: to double the number of young people, or anyone, going into

apprenticeship programs in the province of Ontario. So yesterday we did make an announcement. We're investing another $5 million in apprenticeship training. This is part of our government's

five-year plan to spend $50 million in our commitment to modernize our training and apprenticeship facilities.

Our goal to double the number of apprentices is contingent upon the employers in our communities. So every member in this House should be very proud that we

are able to get the number of employers. We need more of them to work in partnership with our schools and colleges to give our young people an opportunity for apprenticeship training.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Madam Minister.

The effects of our government's investments can already be seen. At Sir Sandford Fleming the employer satisfaction rate has increased from 91% in 2000-01 to

93.1% in 2001-02. This new investment will allow colleges to continue to provide the most up-to-date equipment and training possible.

In today's fast-moving, high-tech world, it is important for our students to have training on the most current equipment so that they can stay competitive. Our

government is dedicated to economic growth and this funding will help improve the quality of education and the quality of our workers who graduate from these programs.

It is no secret that training equals economic growth. Besides this injection into the apprenticeship fund, I wonder what other steps our government is taking

to ensure students are prepared for the workforce. Please tell the House what our government is doing to ensure that our training system and its apprentices stay competitive.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I would like to again thank the member from Peterborough for taking such an interest, as does my seatmate, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Housing, in Sir Sandford Fleming College.

Yes, $50 million over five years is a tremendous number, but it's never enough. We of course invite our colleagues in the opposition to work with us in getting

our training agreement with the federal government so that we can work better together in spending the money that we actually spend in Ontario.

I would also like to say that parents, teachers and members of our community should be encouraging our young people to enter into apprenticeship training. In

that regard we have OYAP, the Ontario youth apprenticeship program. We celebrated that program once again yesterday, and we now have some new numbers: 6,000 last year; 7,240 young people are in our

Ontario youth apprenticeship programs in our schools, working with our colleges.

This is a great success. It's been three years. It went from nothing to over 7,000. We should be congratulating those young people, their teachers and the

business community.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Again to the Premier: there are no less than 10 sections in the legislation you've introduced today

which deal with the disposal of Hydro One: provisions providing for the sale of shares, provisions providing for the disposal of shares through other ways, or disposal of Hydro One altogether. Can

you tell me why you would need this many detailed sections dealing with the disposal of Hydro One if your government doesn't intend to sell Hydro One?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The province of Ontario, like any other individual or entity in Ontario,

needs to know and have clarified what its ownership rights are and what its ability is to deal with assets, just as any other entity does.

Mr Hampton: Premier, when you've got so many sections of the bill dealing with disposal of Hydro One, it behooves you -- I think you have a

duty to the people of Ontario to stand up and tell them you're going to sell Hydro One, yes or no, otherwise you look as if there is an

article here of avoidance or there is an

article here of

trying to evade the public's understanding of what's really happening. With so many clauses dealing with the disposal of Hydro One, don't you think it is the open, accountable and responsible thing

for the Premier of the province to stand up and say yes or no, you're going to sell Hydro One? Yes or no, are you selling Hydro One?

Hon Mr Eves: The people of Ontario will know exactly what we're proposing to do with an asset, including Hydro One. When we make that decision

we will certainly share it with the people of Ontario. There will be an open discussion about any proposed route of action.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): A short question for the Premier: what do you plan to do with Hydro One?

Hon Mr Eves: We are considering several options. We are listening to the people of Ontario and we will continue to listen to the people of

Ontario before we decide what we're going to do.

Mr Bryant: Premier, you say consultations are over. You cannot possibly tell me you don't have any plans for Hydro One. Is it income trust or

is it not-for-profit or is it strategic sale or is it IPO? We want to know what your plans are. I think the people of Ontario deserve to know.

They also deserve to know why the government is proceeding with this when this very issue is before the Court of Appeal. A couple of weeks ago, on May 17, the

Attorney General of Ontario said of another bill, the subject of which is before the Court of Appeal, "I think frankly it would be foolhardy for any government to move forward with an initiative

without first hearing what the Court of Appeal has to say."

So I say, why is the government proceeding with this bill against the advice of the Attorney General? Why is the government being so foolhardy in coming

forward with a blank-cheque bill?

Hon Mr Eves: I would refer this supplementary to the Attorney General and he can answer it himself.

The Speaker: Attorney General.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Mr Speaker, if you would give me just a second to return to my

seat.

The member opposite raises an interesting point, and the point is --

The Speaker: I should have allowed you a chance to get back to your seat. You knocked over three ministers getting there. You looked like the

Leafs last night.

Hon Mr Young: The member raises an interesting point. I would say to you, though, that he is indeed comparing apples to oranges.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Young: If the issue wasn't so serious, this would be humorous, but it's almost like having canned laughter.

What we are talking about in this case, the Hydro appeal, involves numerous issues and includes issues of standing and so on and so forth that won't be --

couldn't be -- dealt with in this bill that was tabled today. So he really is comparing apples to oranges.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I wish to question the Minister of Natural Resources. First of all, I'd like to congratulate the

minister on his appointment to the Ministry of Natural Resources. I spent time as parliamentary assistant to the former minister and I'm confident -- in fact, I know full well -- that Minister

Ouellette will do a very good job given the background and skills that he brings to this portfolio.

Minister, recently there has been a significant amount of national media attention to forest fires, particularly in the western provinces of Alberta and

Saskatchewan. Fortunately, we've had a chilly spring but Ontario has not been exposed to the extreme weather conditions experienced by other provinces so far this year. Could you please inform me

about the current forest fire situation in the province of Ontario?

Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): I'd like to thank the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for the question. But before

I answer the question, I would like to thank the Premier for the opportunity to work in this portfolio. To the members of this House and to the people of Ontario, I commit to work to the best of my

ability, as do all ministers and members of the House, not only to the people of Ontario in this particular portfolio, but to all entities of the province.

Returning to the question, currently there are five fires burning in the province, and to date approximately 500 hectares of land have burned. In contrast,

Ontario had experienced far greater damage last year at this time, having more than 3,000 hectares of land burned by this time. When you look at a 10-year average, over 45,000 hectares at this time

of year were burning.

The cool and wet spring has been relatively quiet, and Mother Nature has been very helpful. However, we can see a change very quickly with Mother Nature, and I

know our provincial response centre is very aptly able to deal with these situations should they arise.

Mr Barrett: Thank you for the update and thank you for that answer. As I mentioned in my first question, parts of northern Saskatchewan,

Alberta and Manitoba have been hit very hard by major forest fires. For example, the fire hazard in northern Saskatchewan is the highest it has been in five years. What I'd like to know is, to what

extent are we able to assist neighbouring provinces like Saskatchewan in their struggle against forest fires?

Hon Mr Ouellette: Ontario is world renowned for firefighting. We've had trained people in from China to Greece, and I know as well that

Ontario and the other Canadian provinces and territories are signatories to a national resource-sharing agreement whereby we assist each other in times of extreme fires.

Currently, Saskatchewan and Alberta have called for our assistance with the very serious fire situations that are taking place and that are taking a bit of a

profile in the media at this time. In response, yesterday Ontario sent out eight four-person, initial-attack firefighting crews and two liaison officers to Saskatchewan, and today we're sending 100

sprinkler fire kits to assist Alberta, with the full understanding that any time they're required back in Ontario, we'll have them back in a moment's notice.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH CONTRACT

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier. We understand that your health minister is losing his high-priced spin

doctor at the end of this week. For the past 15 months, Gord Haugh has been at the side of Tony Clement, your Minister of Health, and he has been paid handsomely to be there. In fact, he was paid

$300,000 a year for this contract.

Premier, the official salary range for a press secretary is between $62,000 and $80,000. We'd like to know from you, Premier, what you feel about an individual

acting as a press secretary making $300,000, when the range for a press secretary is between $62,000 and $80,000. Do you feel this is an appropriate use of taxpayers' money, in particular through

the Minister of Health?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Health, and he can

provide the answer.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to inform the House that the person in question had a one-year contract and

the contract is over.

Mrs Pupatello: Premier, we can't tell whether you think this is an appropriate use of taxpayers' money. We already heard the ministry defend

this contract last year. We're asking you. You're the new guy in town. You're the guy who's going to be so different from before, remember? You're the one we're asking if you think it's an

appropriate use of taxpayers' money, in the face of seniors in home care and in long-term-care facilities getting a bath maybe once a week. We want to know if you believe that a press secretary, on

a contract, making $300,000 is an appropriate use of taxpayers' money. You're the guy who is supposed to have the new face here. I ask you specifically, do you believe --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Clement: We always have to be mindful of taxpayers' money. That is a constant challenge for all of us that we have to be vigilant

about. I, as well as all of my colleagues, feel strongly that we have to be always cognizant of taxpayers' money, and we'll continue to be so in the future as well.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Last year we passed the Oak Ridges

Moraine Protection Act, and I congratulate you and the Premier of the day for passing that particular bill.

But it's no surprise for a PC government to be that environmentally friendly. We hear so much from the opposition and the third party, but we ask, "What kind

of action is there, and what action did we see in the environment from 1985 to 1995?" Almost none. When you look to the States, what do the Democrats do other than talk? That's sort of typical of

the opposition here.

Minister, you stated that even though it was not part of the legislation, the government was committed to the establishment of an Oak Ridges Moraine

Foundation. Last week you, along with Premier Eves, announced the establishment of this foundation, and again this is typical of an Ernie Eves government concerned about our environment.

Minister, can you tell us the role that this foundation will play and has been playing up until now?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I appreciate the question of the member for Northumberland, and he's absolutely

right: although it wasn't in the legislation, we did promise it and it's a promise kept.

Last Friday, May 24, 2002, Premier Ernie Eves and myself had the honour, on behalf of the taxpayers and the people of Ontario, to announce $15 million as seed

money to set up a foundation for the Oak Ridges moraine trust. The money will be used to organize and participate in the funding of other registered charities, environmental groups and other levels

of government and to come up with a plan in public education, in trail securement and in more property purchases, if necessary, around the linkage to the natural core areas. It's something that we

feel very proud about and on which we had the support of all parties in this Legislature.

Mr Galt: Minister, I appreciate that response. Certainly that is typical of our PC government and a hallmark of our environmental record.

Minister, there has been the establishment of an interim board for this foundation. I was wondering if you could inform us what kind of qualifications and

expertise these individuals have that they were entrusted with this large and generous donation of some $15 million from the province, and also inform us of the mandate this board has.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know the member for Northumberland cares about the environment. He's been involved with this government's initiatives from

the very beginning.

We have a number of people on the interim board of the foundation. It will be non-profit and will work as a charity to oversee initial operations,

administration and management of the foundation, and to develop a three-year strategic work plan, program goals and a funding strategy.

Some of the people on the interim board are: Ric Symmes -- he's an environmental consultant and he's also the former executive director of the Federation of

Ontario Naturalists; James McKellar -- he's the associate dean, professor and director of the Schulich School of Business at York University and in 1990 he was appointed as a United Nations'

technical advisor; John Riley, the director of conservation, science and stewardship with the Nature Conservancy of Canada; John Burke, the deputy minister of the Ministry of Natural Resources; and

Russ Powell, who has been the chief administrative officer of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority since 1995.

When the foundation and the trust are established, we will be appointing Steve Gilchrist, a member of our caucus who has been vitally interested in this issue

since before he got into provincial politics.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to ask the Premier again: you have a detailed

section in your bill which sets out what happens

with the proceeds from the sale of Hydro One. Why would you need a

section dealing with the proceeds from the sale of Hydro One if, as you say, you don't intend, or don't necessarily intend, to

sell Hydro One?

Again, Premier, I think you owe it to the people of Ontario to be clear with them, to be open with them about your intentions. Why do you need a

section

dealing with the proceeds from the sale of Hydro One if, as you say, you haven't necessarily decided to sell off Hydro One?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll refer this to the Minister of Energy. I'm sure he's feeling left out

this afternoon.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): We had to detail that because in the auditor's report of

2000, if there were any proceeds from Hydro One, with their disposition -- he directed us exactly how we had to handle that disposition money. The act clearly stipulates exactly how the auditor

informed us how to handle this money, and that's what we did. We put it in the bill to ensure that that process is followed.

Mr Hampton: Again I'll ask the question that none of you over there seems to want to answer. Why do you need this

section in the bill if, as

you say, you have not made a decision to sell Hydro One? The real question is, we think it's pretty clear you're going to sell Hydro One. Why don't you have the decency here today to come right out

and say it to the people of Ontario since you have sections dealing with where the proceeds go, detailing how you can sell it and dealing with the process you'll go through to sell it? Don't you

have the decency to say to the people of Ontario, "We intend to sell it. That's why all these sections are in the bill"? Why don't you have that decency, Minister?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Before this bill came into the House, you were making accusations against this government that if a disposition of Hydro One

took place, the proceeds wouldn't be used against the debt of Hydro One. We wanted to make it very clear to alleviate your concerns, so we put into the bill exactly how the proceeds would be

handled according to the auditor. We addressed that concern in the bill of the question that you put in this House four, five, six, seven times. Now you get the bill and you complain that we've put

into the bill exactly how we would handle the proceeds according to the auditor's report and deal with the debt; you're complaining that we put this in the bill. So first of all, you complained

that the proceeds may not go to the debt. We put in the bill that if there are proceeds, they will go to the debt. Now you're complaining that you've got in the bill

an act that says that if there

are proceeds, we'll put them before the debt.

Get your questions straight. What do you want us to tell you? That is as clear as we could be. The bill was drafted. If there are proceeds through some

disposition of Hydro One, we will handle it the way the auditor told us. The proceeds would be applied to the debt. Clear. Full stop. End of story. Read Hansard. Don't ask that question again,

please.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): To the Premier: just a short while ago NAFTA's North American Commission for Environmental

Cooperation released a very important annual report. They tell us that North America has seen a marked improvement in the amount of toxic pollution released into our air, water and soil. They say

more specifically that pollution in the US has decreased by 3% since 1995. Even in George Bush's Texas, they saw a 50% decrease since 1995.

But, Premier, here's the bad news. Since 1995 in Ontario, the amount of pollution released into Ontario's air, water and soil has increased by a whopping 19%.

That is this government's environmental record: an increase of a whopping 19%. Will you now take responsibility, Premier, for this shameful environmental record?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm sure the Minister of the Environment can answer the question.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): With respect to the environmental report the member has

talked about, those numbers and data came out in 1999. Since 1999, this government has taken dramatic efforts to clean up the soil and air in this province. We've toughened --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Lots of noise.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Speaking of lots of noise -- we've toughened air standards. We've placed hard emission caps on the electricity sector. We've

introduced the Drive Clean program that is being expanded across eastern Ontario. We've proposed the phaseout of Ontario's hospital incinerators. We've strengthened hazardous waste regulations.

We've required electronic tracking and monitoring of hazardous waste.

The report presents a distorted picture. It does not take into account the emissions that cause smog and acid rain.

Ontario agrees with the public's right to know. We introduced our on-air Web site, which provides timely access to emission information. Since 1999, we have

taken very clear action to protect Ontarians' soil and air. We should be proud of this action, and I'll make a note that most of these things are contained in bills your party voted against.

Mr McGuinty: Those have all been wonderful announcements, but none of those have been implemented, Minister.

Here's the real record when it comes to this government's environmental record. You've effectively abandoned public transit in this province. You've opened the

door to sprawl by gutting the Planning Act. You've cut off funding for the blue box. You still have North America's dirtiest gasoline. You have one of the lowest rates of diversion for garbage in

all of North America. You have refused to police industry; our prosecutions are way down. You refuse to sign on to the Kyoto agreement. You've extended the welcome mat for US --

Hon Mr Stockwell: Are you in favour of the Kyoto agreement?

Mr McGuinty: Yes, I am in favour of the Kyoto agreement. I'm not afraid to say that. I'm not afraid to stand up for our environment.

I ask you again, since the Premier referred this to you, Minister, how does it feel to be the leading jurisdiction in North America when it comes to

pollution?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I'm glad to hear the provincial Liberals are in favour of the Kyoto agreement. Maybe he should talk to his federal cousins

and get them on side.

First and foremost, let's understand the report. We have a very diverse --

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Stay on-message there.

Hon Mr Stockwell: OK. Thank you for the advice.

Let's understand the report. We have a vibrant, going concern from an economic prosperity point of view. We have investments. We have a lot of prosperity. We

create jobs in this province. Yes, there are environmental concerns when you do create jobs. We've been dealing with that, because you get prosperity, investment and taxes.

Understand this report. The top performers were Guam, Alaska, PEI, Virgin Islands and Hawaii. Why? Because they don't have the economic diversity that Ontario

has. They don't have the investment. We have introduced legislative --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): You're not going to compete with the yelling. You've got a loud voice but not when they're yelling like mad at

you.

Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Understand that those are at the top, because they don't have the diverse kind of economic prosperity that Ontario has.

Interjection: We don't have any.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Yes, we do. With that prosperity, we brought environmentally sound legislative initiatives. I will add, those initiatives --

tough air standards, hard emission caps on the electricity sector, phasing out Ontario hospital incinerators, strengthening hazardous waste, electronic tracking and Drive Clean programs. You have

the nerve to complain and bellyache about virtually every one of those programs. You bellyache about the environment, then you come in here and you vote against them. That starts with an H, and I

can't use that word.

FRANCHISE BUSINESSES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. As you know, small business drives the economy of

Ontario. Since 1995, our government, of course, has made it a priority to create the right climate for small business to grow and prosper.

One of the most common forms of small business today is the franchise operation. Franchises, as you know, are run in many cases by family-owned and -operated

businesses. Really, these families have invested their life savings into creating jobs in Ontario.

Minister, could you update me, the members and my constituents as to what your ministry is doing to protect the franchise business in Ontario?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I want to commend the member for Durham. He's a strong champion of small business

and franchisees in his riding and across the province. In fact, members remember that as chair of the small business advisory committee, he brought forward some great suggestions this government

has acted upon.

When the Arthur Wishart Act was brought in, we took some important steps forward. For example, the dealings between franchisees and franchisors are a more open

and transparent process. We asked that financial information, for example, be provided for prospective franchisees. It's quite true there were some examples in the past where franchisors made

exaggerated claims about how much money a franchisee could make, and no cooling-off period was provided. It also imposes a precept for fair dealing with the franchisor in the ongoing relationship

between the two. These are just two examples of how the courts can now get involved in the process to make sure the dealings are conducted in a fair manner.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for that response, Minister. As you know, the Arthur Wishart Act passed in 2000 with, I might say, the unanimous consent

of all three parties in this House. It provides protections for franchisees, including disclosure, using common language, and also the right to form associations.

I recently met with groups of franchise owners who have alleged that they faced intimidation tactics from their franchisors in the attempt to form

associations.

Minister, in simple terms, what advice do you have for small franchisees who find themselves in situations of intimidation? What actions can they take to

defend their investment?

Hon Mr Hudak: If the accusations are true, then I would advise them to take legal advice to see what kinds of damages could be received

through the court or to see how they could make sure that all the aspects of the Arthur Wishart Act are enforced properly.

Quite frankly, before we brought forward the Arthur Wishart Act, there was no right for franchisees to create associations. Now it is clearly outlined in the

act that they do have that right to associate and to form organizations in dealing with the franchisor. So if a franchisor tries to stop a franchisee from attempting to create an association, then

in fact they are in transgression of the Arthur Wishart Act and should look for legal advice.

Again I want to commend the member for his hard work on behalf of franchisees and small business in the riding of Durham and the province of Ontario.

PETITIONS

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition concerns the double cohort and quality in education. It's from the College Student Alliance

Partners in Learning and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

and

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

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

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to provide full funding for every new student entering Ontario's

universities and colleges; provide additional funding to increase quality at Ontario's universities and colleges; provide targeted funding to colleges for skills and innovation; and increase the

per student funding to the national average over the next five years."

Of course I've signed this petition in support of it.

YOUNG OFFENDER FACILITY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition that reads:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has pushed Kennedy House Youth Services (Uxbridge), an 80-bed young offender facility, out of the provincial public service

and into the hands of a private sector employer;

"Whereas the new employer has shown complete contempt for the 130 unionized corrections services staff and has kept them locked out for almost a year" -- since

June 2001 -- "while demanding outrageous concessions;

"Whereas, as a result of the lockout, provincial revenues are being wasted as the provincial government forces the taxpayers of Ontario to pay the Kennedy

House operator full funding for the past year, as if this virtually empty facility were operating at capacity;

"Whereas the safety of the surrounding region continues to be compromised by the provincial government and by Kennedy House Youth Services as dangerous young

offenders in need of supervision and secure custody are instead given passes or open custody;

"Whereas the few young offender inmates who remained in the facility since June 2001 were provided with little or no programming, thus raising serious concerns

about their rehabilitation;

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

"We demand that the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services act immediately to resolve this crisis by directing Kennedy House Youth Services to

negotiate in good faith with its employees."

I concur with that petition and I have affixed my signature.

HORSE RIDING SAFETY

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas an increasing number of Ontarians are turning to horseback riding as a recreational activity; and

"Whereas many of these inexperienced riders are children; and

"Whereas an unacceptable number of preventable injuries and fatalities have occurred while horseback riding;

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

"To amend Bill 12, the Horse Riding Safety Act, 2001, by amending:

"(1) the definition of `horse' to include those equines under 14.2 hands; and

"(2) the definition of `horse riding establishment' to include all commercial stables."

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Conservative government promised to institute patient-based budgeting for health care services in the 1995 document known as the Common Sense

Revolution; and

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature. I am in complete agreement with this petition.

HYDRO ONE

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

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

economy;

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

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

for consumers;

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

Ontario."

This petition is signed by a number of residents of Tilbury, Chatham and Blenheim and I too have signed it.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

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

"Whereas the residents of Centre Hastings are facing an immediate and critical situation in accessing physician services; and

"Whereas a retiring family physician has been unsuccessful in procuring a replacement physician, potentially leaving 5,000 patients without a doctor; and

transportation; and

"Whereas Centre Hastings has been designated as an underserviced area in need of five physicians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act immediately to establish a community health centre in Centre Hastings."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition that relates to private member's Bill 134, and it's entitled "Fair Rent Increases

Now!"

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the number of tenants receiving above-guideline increases is growing exponentially, and;

"Whereas many of these increases are for increases in utility costs, many of which have gone down since; and

"Whereas tenants should not have to pay for improvements forever, even when the costs have been realized by these rent increases; and

"Whereas the Tenant Protection Act does not give a tenant relief due to the costs being realized or a drop in utility costs; and

"Whereas tenants should not be receiving rent increases where there are work orders issued for the building" they live in;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to immediately pass MPP David Caplan's Bill 134 entitled the Fair Rent

Increases Act at the earliest possible opportunity so that tenants can get relief from above-guideline increases once the bills have been paid."

I've affixed my signature to this petition. I agree wholeheartedly with it.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I have a petition here that was sent to my good colleague David Caplan. He's asked me for so many,

but here it goes. It's to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Conservative government plans to sell off" Ontario "Hydro" -- you heard it today -- "and Ontario's electricity transmission grid -- the central

nervous system of Ontario's economy;

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

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

for consumers;

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

Ontario."

I'm going to affix my signature. I'm in full agreement with this.

MEDICAL SCHOOL TUITION

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

"Whereas medical school tuition was deregulated by the Ontario government in 1998; and medical school tuition has and continues to increase in excess of 300%

such that at some universities tuition is now $14,000;

"Whereas the physicians most likely to practise in a rural area are originally from rural areas themselves; and

"Whereas unaffordable tuition disproportionately excludes medical students from rural communities;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario government and the universities of Ontario to ensure that medical education be made financially

accessible to all qualified students; and

"Be it further resolved that we, the undersigned, request that medical tuition be capped and re-regulated at a level accessible to all Ontarians, and that the

Ontario student assistance plan/Canada student loan program be adjusted, in order to ensure that Ontarians from all communities are able to afford a medical school education."

I have signed this petition.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Conservative government hastily amalgamated Niagara's ambulance dispatch service into the Hamilton Central Ambulance Communication

Centre;

"Whereas an independent review of Hamilton Central Ambulance Communication Centre found several major shortcomings, including inexperienced dispatchers, high

call volume and out-of-date equipment, hindering the dispatch of ambulances in Niagara and in other parts of the province;

"Whereas poor training of Central Ambulance Communication Centre dispatchers by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has led to improper emergency coding,

resource misallocation and waste and increased wait times for those requiring ambulance services;

"Whereas the Central Ambulance Communication Centre dispatchers are handling 1,300 more calls a year than recommended by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term

Care;

"Whereas these shortcomings in ambulance service restructuring are putting lives at risk in Niagara, Hamilton and throughout the province;

"Whereas the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has been in possession of the independent review since October 31, 2001, which provides recommendations to

greatly improve ambulance dispatch services in Niagara and Hamilton;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately act upon recommendations presented in the independent review of the Central

Ambulance Communication Centre and eliminate the grievous imperfections which are placing our citizens at risk."

I affix my signature. I'm in complete agreement.

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I have a number of petitions here from people from long-term-care facilities, and specifically this

one's from the Extendicare unit in Schumacher. It reads:

"If you already have a friend or family member in any of the 525 long-term-care facilities across Ontario, you will understand why I'm asking for your help.

But even if you don't, the following information will help you understand the pressing needs and growing sense of frustration.

"Whereas over 60,000 Ontarians living in long-term-care facilities are older, frailer and sicker and require more care than ever;

"Whereas 95% require assistance to get dressed, 94% some assistance to eat;

"Whereas 63% of them suffer from dementia, with 39% of them being aggressive;

"Whereas 56% have circulatory diseases, with 49% having musculoskeletal disabilities;

"Whereas government funding has not kept pace with the increasing residents' needs;

"Whereas current funding levels allow only for four minutes to assist with getting up, being washed, being dressed and dining, 10 minutes for assisting with

eating, 15 minutes to do programming every day and one bath a week;

"We urge this government in order to provide additional funding, operating funds that will increase staffing to raise the unacceptable level of service that is

present within facilities across Ontario."

I support that petition.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition. It is entitled Listen: Our Hearing is Important!

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas new Conservative government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded audiology assessments across vast regions of Ontario;

"Whereas this new Conservative government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced areas across the province of Ontario;

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

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that Mike Harris and the Conservative government of Ernie Eves

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

It's an excellent petition, and I have affixed my signature to it because I agree with it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other

standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 101,

An Act to protect students from sexual abuse and to otherwise provide for the protection of students, when Bill 101 is next called

as a government order, 60 minutes shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, to be divided equally among all recognized parties, and at the end of that time, the Speaker shall

interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the vote on third reading may, pursuant to standing order 28(h), be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "deferred votes";

and

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mrs Witmer has moved government notice of motion 5. Debate? Debate? If not --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Yes.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Timmins-James Bay.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Mr Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: I called the member for Timmins-James Bay. I'd asked for debate twice. No one stood. The member for Timmins-James Bay did.

The member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Bisson: I know that our education critic and the member for Nickel Belt are going to want to speak on this in some detail. I want to refer

all of the comments to my good colleague here. I'd like to give her an opportunity to continue debate, so I'm asking --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Yes, it's going to carry on in rotation, and I look forward to the comments that will be made.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'd like to address the Student Protection Act, 2002.

The Acting Speaker: Sorry; we need unanimous consent. You had the floor when you moved the bill. We need unanimous consent to have the

minister speak now. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'd like to address the Student Protection Act, 2002.

This bill, if passed, will significantly strengthen the legislative safeguards that protect the students in our schools. The act would make it easier to

identify child abusers and would bring them to justice. Of even more importance, this act would greatly assist in preventing this sort of abuse, abuse that we know can traumatize a child for

life.

This bill would affect Ontario's teachers and would support them in the very important work they do. Our teachers enjoy the trust and respect of students and

parents in the province. Unfortunately, however, there are a small number of teachers who misuse their positions. Although their number is small, their effect can be great. It is in the interests

of everyone -- children, parents and teachers -- that such individuals who have abused or may be likely to abuse children are identified and that their contact with our students cease.

Mr Justice Sidney L. Robins, in his report Protecting Our Students: A Review to Identify and Prevent Sexual Misconduct in Ontario Schools, made some important

recommendations. This bill is a part of our response to that report and it is an important action that we must now take on this most sensitive issue.

Bill 101 proposes amendments to the Education Act, the Ontario College of Teachers Act and the Teaching Profession Act.

Part I of the bill proposes an amendment to the Education Act that would give school boards new responsibilities. When a board becomes aware that a teacher has

been charged with, or convicted of, an offence involving sexual conduct and minors or any other offence that might place students at risk, the board would be required to ensure that none of the

teacher's duties involve contact with students. The board would also be immediately required to remove the teacher from any duty which might involve contact with students, including classroom

duties.

Bill 101 would fulfill the mandate for broader

definitions of "sexual abuse." It would define sexual abuse by a teacher as including touching of a sexual

nature and behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by a teacher directed toward a student.

The bill also proposes changes in the reporting relationships between the employers of teachers and the Ontario College of Teachers. Employers of certified

teachers would be required to report to the college whenever a teacher's employment has been terminated or his or her duties restricted for reasons of professional misconduct. Furthermore, an

employer would have to report to the Ontario College of Teachers if a certified teacher resigns while an investigation of this sort of activity is underway. This provision is essential to make it

even more difficult for potential abusers to avoid detection by changing employers.

With these provisions, Bill 101 demonstrates our commitment to the safety of the children in the province of Ontario.

The legislation was developed under the guidance of my predecessor as Minister of Education, the Honourable Janet Ecker. Minister Ecker worked with many

stakeholders to develop and improve the legislation to protect our students, and I would like to express my sincere appreciation to those stakeholders.

At Minister Ecker's request, the Ontario College of Teachers consulted widely and presented to the ministry well-considered proposals for legislative changes.

The Ontario College of Teachers has been instrumental in this process and they, in particular, deserve our sincere appreciation for their partnership in creating this legislation.

I would like to list and thank some of the groups that participated in these consultations and whose views and recommendations have contributed to the

legislation presently under consideration.

First, let me thank all five of our teacher federations, our three principal councils, our school board representatives, the federation representing

independent schools, the Ontario Parent Council, the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, the Ontario Association for Parents in Catholic Education, the Institute for Catholic

Education, the children's aid society, the Catholic Children's Aid Society and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

Yesterday, May 28, I learned that the Ontario Teachers' Federation had concluded their examination of a proposed change to the regulations accompanying this

bill and they are, I am pleased to say, in agreement with the government's proposals for changes. I know we all appreciate the federation's continuing support and interest in making this

legislation the best it can possibly be on behalf of our students and teachers.

I realize it is unpleasant for us to contemplate the sort of child abuse that this bill seeks to prevent. However, it is important that we address this

issue.

We have today a bill that is the result of tremendous consultation and input from many groups, individuals and professional organizations, who all share a very

strong interest in our education system and the welfare of our children.

This legislation, if passed, will go a long way toward addressing and preventing a problem which, while rare in its occurrence, does have, as I mentioned at

the outset, grave results for its young victims. Therefore, I would invite all members of this House to support this legislation for very speedy passage.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I made it. I was in closer proximity to make it this time.

There are two things I want to discuss today. I want to discuss some issues about the particular bill, but first I want to make a few comments about time

allocation and time allocation motions.

Just so that everyone understands, what we're discussing today is the cutting off of debate. In other words, if there are members of this Legislature on either

side -- the government side, for example -- they won't have an opportunity beyond today to carry on what limited discussion we'll have at this time.

Quite frankly, I've spoken to this issue before, and I will continue to do so. The cutting off of debate -- closure, time allocation, whatever you want to call

it -- really limits the ability of this Legislature to have any effect whatsoever. We had a hydro bill introduced today, for example. I am willing to bet -- and yet, I've said before I'm not a

gambling person -- that we will see time allocation on that bill. It's used much too often, in my view. The constituents of every riding that is represented in this Legislature, I think, expect

their member to be able to stand and voice their opinion and the opinion, therefore, of their constituents. So once again, we are going to stand today, take a legislative day's debate, and at the

end of the day we're going to have to accede to the government's wishes that they simply choke off democratic debate.

I really think that's a hallmark of the previous government, the tough Mike Harris government, and it's being carried on by the mild-mannered, new-generation

Eves government. It's absolutely no different than it was in the last session. In the first bill brought before us since this session opened -- excuse me, the second bill; they have been debating

others. In the second bill brought before us in this session, time allocation is being used. That, to me, is not the hallmark of a government that wants to listen. It's not the hallmark of a

government that wants to consult. It's the hallmark of a government that simply wants to ram legislation through.

Let's take a look at this legislation. Quite frankly, it's legislation that, if I recall previous discussion on it, we all have a basic appreciation for. We

have a basic understanding that there is a need for it. So in the legislative course of events, this could have been something that was dealt with, in my view, along with some other legislation,

pending certain amendments and so forth. In other words, this legislation in itself is very, very important, but I think it could have been dealt with in a different way; and we might have been

here this afternoon discussing the Nutrient Management Act and some other important pieces of legislation that this government has proposed.

Let me just take a couple of minutes to speak to the bill itself. Notwithstanding the fact that we support it, we don't feel it goes far enough. As has been

pointed out by the minister, it requires all employers to report to the Ontario College of Teachers a certified teacher charged with a sexual offence against a student. What about teachers who

aren't certified who work in private schools, which this government wants to see flourish in the province of Ontario? If you're not a certified teacher -- and private schools don't have to have

certified teachers -- then if there's a case of sexual abuse, it doesn't need to be reported. Quite frankly, if we're concerned about sexual abuse of students in this province -- and every one of

us is; I have absolutely no doubt about that -- then it should cover everybody and it should cover every circumstance. It should cover every employee who is employed by a private school, a public

school, a religious school. Any school whatsoever that deals with children should be dealt with in the same manner as this bill deals with them.

We know, for example, that the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation are officially supporting the

bill in principle. It's been welcomed also by the Ontario public school boards as a necessary move, and we agree with that. But we all want to prevent sexual misconduct in our schools no matter

where they be in the province, no matter what kind of school it be.

Even though we would support this bill in principle because it's part of that often-used "first step," we think there's much more that this government could do

to protect children in the province of Ontario. Dalton McGuinty, the Liberal caucus and the Liberal Party have made recommendat