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

June 4, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Jun-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 4 June 2002 Mardi 4 juin 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

NOEL CATNEY

INJURED WORKERS'

RESOURCE CENTRE

TOURISM IN

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY

SENIOR CITIZENS

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

TELETHON

BILL WILKINS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HYDRO ONE INC. DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LES ADMINISTRATEURS ET LES DIRIGEANTS DE HYDRO ONE INC.

CLEAN UP HYDRO ONE ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'ASSAINISSEMENT

DES FINANCES DE HYDRO ONE

TERRY RYAN AND STEVE MCATEER

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 58

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

HYDRO ONE

ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

HEALTH SERVICES

YOUTH CRIME

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

PROVINCIAL PARKS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PETITIONS

HYDRO ONE

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

HYDRO ONE

OPPOSITION DAY

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Tuesday 4 June 2002 Mardi 4 juin 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to inform the House of the crisis in education we're facing in the city of Hamilton. Last

night the Hamilton board of education announced that it is facing a $16-million deficit. This would mean fewer teachers, cuts in special education, cuts in textbooks, larger class sizes and more

school closures. For example, in the riding of Hamilton Mountain, represented by my colleague Marie Bountrogianni, six schools are under review for closure, as are a number of schools in my own

riding.

This is the result of the flawed funding formula that has forced boards not only in Hamilton but in Ottawa, Toronto, Sudbury and right across this province to

make the decision to simply risk everything by saying to this government, "We are not going to go along with this. We can't continue to operate schools with this funding formula that you have put

in place and make the types of cuts that are going to be devastating to students."

I urge this government to adopt the plan introduced yesterday by my leader, Dalton McGuinty. This plan would mean additional help for students who are having

curriculum problems, extra help for students with special needs and a moratorium on school closures until the funding formula has been reviewed.

I ask the Minister of Education to meet immediately with the Hamilton board of education. I ask the Minister of Education to give us the additional funding we

need to ensure that these boards across Ontario will not continue to face this crisis we're in today. If this government immediately adopted the plan outlined by my leader, Dalton McGuinty, it

would go a long way toward easing the situation.

Schools can't wait till November, till next year. We need help now from this government.

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to draw the attention of Ontarians to particular programs called the international language

program and the African heritage/black cultural program. They have been going on in the Toronto board for about 20 years, and the international language program has been going on in the Catholic

school system as well for the same number of years.

Portuguese, Italian, Farsi, Gujarati, Hindi and a multitude of other languages are being taught in our school system. But the board of education here in Toronto and the Catholic system don't have

enough money to keep these programs on the go. In fact, in Toronto they're on the chopping block.

The African heritage/black cultural programs get no money at all from the provincial government. That means the board is doing this on its own. It has to cut $90

million in order to be able to comply with this government's laws. Without $90 million, these programs, which are so valuable, won't be able to exist. They're good socially, pedagogically and in

every way imaginable, including economically. In a global village, we become more competitive with languages.

You've got to insist the government give the money to the Toronto board to keep those programs alive.

NOEL CATNEY

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): We're not here today to talk about vintage wine. I'm pleased to stand today in recognition of Noel P. Catney,

chief of Peel Regional Police, who was among 23 other Canadians recently presented with the Officer of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces on May 17 at Rideau Hall by the Governor General.

This was the inaugural investiture of this award, approved by Her Majesty the Queen. It was implemented in October 2000 to recognize conspicuous merit and

exceptional service by members and employees of Canadian police services whose contributions extend beyond protection of the community.

I don't think there could have been a more deserving recipient than Chief Catney. Chief Catney is a renowned proponent of community policing. Under his

leadership, Peel Regional Police have introduced and expanded a number of programs such as pure patrol, youth education, bike patrol and cybernetics, just to name a few.

Chief Catney, a long-time resident, has been involved with several charities and community groups and recently was recognized by the Brampton Rotary Club in 1999

by receiving the Paul Harris Award for the support he's given the city of Brampton over the years, a rare achievement for a non-Rotarian.

Please join me in recognizing Chief Catney in receiving this outstanding award for dedication, wisdom, vision, determination, perseverance and compassion.

INJURED WORKERS'

RESOURCE CENTRE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): It's been a pleasure and an honour for me to have worked closely with the Thunder Bay and

District Injured Workers' Resource Centre for the past several years. This is an organization that has been remarkably dedicated to the cause of injured workers in our region. It is my firm belief

that their efforts at promoting the prevention of injuries in the workplace has been nothing short of remarkable.

The provincial government should be enormously grateful for the work they have done. Yet it appears that the province no longer supports the work they do. By

cutting off the small amount of funding they received to run their office in Thunder Bay, the government is tossing aside a resource that provided a real benefit, not only to injured workers but to

everyone in the workplace.

Certainly, it's not too late to fix this mistake. In speaking with Labour Minister Clark about the meagre amount of funding required to resurrect this service, I

got the impression that he acknowledges the value of the work they do. What appears to be at issue is who should cover the small costs involved. Should it be the labour ministry itself or the

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board?

Interjection: Who cares? Give them the money.

Mr Gravelle: Exactly. Regardless, this is an organization that must be funded. Minister Clark must take a leadership role to see that funding is

restored. We need the expertise of the resource centre to help our injured workers navigate the complexities of the WSIB. We need the selfless dedication of their staff and countless volunteers to

ensure that workplace safety becomes and remains a priority for all employers.

Minister, we cannot afford to lose this extraordinary group of people to a foolish cost-cutting measure that will ultimately do nothing more than seriously

damage all our efforts to prevent workplace injuries and fatalities.

TOURISM IN

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'm sure all of the members of this House are anxious for some good weather so we can get out and explore this

great province of Ontario.

The provincial government is working hard to ensure bright, sunny days ahead, particularly for the big tourism months of July and August. However, as you know,

weather is a federal responsibility. We're working hard to convince the feds to do their part to ensure that we have good weather for a successful tourism season.

I encourage the members of this House, the people of the province of Ontario and the people of our bordering states to come and enjoy what Northumberland county

has to offer. In my riding you will find everything from historic towns and villages, to great fishing camps on Rice Lake with unlimited panfish, to well-known tourist attractions such as the Big

Apple at Colborne and Port Hope and Cobourg's historic town halls.

In Northumberland county, we pride ourselves on offering a warm and welcoming experience for tourists. We have wonderful bed and breakfasts, quaint hotels,

charming resorts and great boating on Lake Ontario and the Trent-Severn waterway. Our county towns and villages offer a range of fairs and festivals that are not to be missed.

To get more information about tourism in Northumberland county, why not visit our tourism Web site at www.northumberlandtourism.com or request your copy of the

Northumberland tourism guide, available at the county office.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): June is dedicated to our seniors, and yesterday the minister responsible for seniors made that acknowledgement in

the House. The minister, while reflecting on various seniors' contributions, failed to recognize and address the real needs of this large group in our society.

The actions of this government cannot be guided by the principles of dignity, independence, fairness and security when our seniors are neglected and deprived of

the most basic needs, like one bath a week. Do we call this giving seniors dignity, being fair with our seniors? Providing long-term stability for our long-term citizens has to be a real priority

for this government.

As it is acknowledged by the minister, we now have some 1.5 million seniors, and by the year 2041 a quarter of Ontario's population is going to be over the age

of 65. "The needs of our growing seniors' population are a priority for us," said the minister. How can we take this government seriously when it fails to recognize that we have some 15,000 seniors

waiting for a bed? How can we believe this government when they changed the rules, making it even harder for seniors to remain on a waiting list? The new rules as of May 1 of this year say, "Take

the first available bed or you're off the list for six months." Is this peace of mind for our seniors and their families, or is it adding more anxiety and stress?

Let me tell the government and the minister that announcements alone won't do it in this House. A solid commitment will. I ask the minister and the Premier to

rise and do it today.

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to tell my fellow members of the opening of the Stratford Festival's 50th season last

Monday.

This year's festival opened with All's Well That Ends Well, the very first play performed at the festival in 1953. Since the first performance under a tent, the

festival has grown to three permanent theatres, with a fourth opening in July.

Interjection.

Mr Johnson: I don't mind the opposition heckling; I hate it when my own members do.

The festival, which sold more than 600,000 tickets in each of the last two years, now generates 6,000 jobs and $346 million in economic activity for southwestern

Ontario.

I am proud of this government's recent contributions to festival projects like the renovation of the Avon Theatre and the creation of the Canada at Play series.

However, I am equally proud to say that the festival is almost entirely self-sustaining, with 96% of its revenue coming from ticket sales, sponsorship and fundraising and only 4% coming from

government funding.

I was honoured to be joined at the opening by Deputy Premier and Minister of Education Elizabeth Witmer, Chair of Management Board and Minister of Culture David

Tsubouchi, and Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation Jim Flaherty, as well as Ontario's Lieutenant Governor, the Honourable James Bartleman.

I encourage all members of this House to visit Stratford this summer to take in the festival and enjoy some of the local restaurants and shops.

TELETHON

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'd like to salute today the many volunteers at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and the citizens

of eastern Ontario as a whole who showed their support for the hospital this past weekend during their telethon. The total raised was almost $3.6 million. That's a 3.6% increase over last year's

telethon. In a 24-hour period, CHEO raised, on the telephones alone, over $625,000. This comes from the community of eastern Ontario, from individual donations and pledges and events. They know the

value of the services of CHEO.

It's important to understand that all of this money was raised even though the government has jeopardized the pediatric cardiac surgery unit. Donations in fact

increased. People turned out in support of CHEO.

Ryan Williams, who is 13 years of age and the CHEO Champion this year, started off his day at a rally in support of CHEO with over 2,000 parents saying to the

government, "Keep the cardiac unit where it is." Ryan knows the value of CHEO. Ryan says CHEO is like a second home. He has undergone 29 surgeries in his short lifetime. Ryan's story is just one

among many stories we heard over the 24-hour period.

I had the pleasure of answering phones for over three hours during the telethon. We heard from people from Pembroke, Kingston, Cornwall and Arnprior. Calls came

from all over eastern Ontario. It explains why the hospital once again was able to increase year-after-year donations.

Residents in eastern Ontario are united in keeping the pediatric cardiac surgery unit at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

BILL WILKINS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): On Saturday, June 2, I attended the funeral service of Barrie firefighter Bill Wilkins.

Bill was the youngest of four children born to Barbara and Bill Sr. Bill was hired by the Barrie Fire and Emergency Service in January 2000. This began his

full-time employment in fire services and fulfillment of his lifelong goal. Bill Wilkins was a firefighter who died in the service of his community.

The Barrie Examiner reported on the funeral as follows: "The funeral for Bill Wilkins will forever be remembered by all who lined the streets or watched on TV,

as Barrie mourned one of its own with grace and dignity.

"Thousands of firefighters in dress uniforms marched, medals gleaming and white gloves glowing in stark contrast to their black uniforms, shoes and hat brims

catching the light as they marched for Bill, his friends and family.

"And they marched for each other."

Fire Chief Ron Hickey spoke about the loss of one of his men: "Bill was one of those individuals who bring a team together. He had a passion for saving lives,

which was exemplified by his work here in Barrie." He then presented Bill's fiancé, Julie Cann, with a plaque which held Bill's firefighter badge, number 67, and retired the number from

service.

The loss of Bill reminds us of the courage of firefighters who face unforeseen risks so often in their work and yet go forth each day into unknown dangers in

their efforts to protect others. It also reveals the fortitude of Bill's loved ones, who at times like this may find solace in the realization that sacrifice in service to one's community is a high

calling.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Since I introduced the Family Restroom Facilities Act last week, I

have been inundated with calls from seniors whose partners require assistance when travelling, from persons with disabilities and from caregivers of young children, all of whom noted how much their

life would be improved if they had access to a family washroom.

I would ask for unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill 57,

An Act to facilitate families by requiring that all buildings open to the public be

equipped with family restroom facilities.

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

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 81,

An Act to provide standards with respect to the management of materials containing nutrients used on lands, to provide for the making of regulations

with respect to farm animals and lands to which nutrients are applied, and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 81, Loi prévoyant des normes à l'égard de la

gestion des matières contenant des éléments nutritifs utilisées sur les biens-fonds, prévoyant la prise de règlements à l'égard des animaux d'élevage et

des biens-fonds sur lesquels des éléments nutritifs sont épandus et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

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

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 1348 to 1353.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise 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

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, Al

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

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

Christopherson, David

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Sorbara, Greg

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 51; the nays are 39.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HYDRO ONE INC. DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LES ADMINISTRATEURS ET LES DIRIGEANTS DE HYDRO ONE INC.

Mr Stockwell moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 80,

An Act respecting directors and officers of Hydro One Inc. and its subsidiaries / Projet de loi 80, Loi concernant les administrateurs et les

dirigeants de Hydro One Inc. et de ses filiales.

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

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): The bill removes the directors of Hydro One Inc from

office, effective June 4, 2002. It also removes them from the board of directors of any subsidiary company of Hydro One Inc. The Minister of Environment and Energy is authorized to appoint their

replacements. The minister is also authorized to make other appointments to the board of directors until the first annual meeting of shareholders after the act receives royal assent.

The bill imposes restrictions on the payments that designated officers of Hydro One Inc are eligible to receive on or after January 1, 1999, when their

employment is terminated or when they resign. The employer of the designated officers is required to negotiate new employment contracts with them. If a designated officer enters into a new

employment contract, these restrictions cease to apply to him or her.

Contractual and other rights of the directors and designated officers who receive compensation or other payments in excess of these amounts, if any, authorized

by the act are deemed to have expired. If a person receives an excess amount, it must be repaid. If it is not repaid within six months, it becomes a debt owing the crown.

No proceedings may be brought against the crown, Hydro One Inc, a subsidiary of Hydro One Inc or any other persons relating to anything done in the act.

On a point of order, Speaker: Considering the amount of debate about this issue in the last couple of weeks, I would ask this House to do the right thing and

give this bill second and third reading right now. I seek unanimous consent to do that, without debate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Speaker: I seek a five-minute recess in order to allow the opposition to read the

bill before we vote on it.

Interjections.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Speaker: I just read most of the bill, in particular

section 8, and I put to the

Minister of Energy, you've got to be kidding. Of course not.

The Speaker: If we could, it's a little noisy and I want to make sure I get the sense of the House --

Interjection.

The Speaker: I can tell I'm going to get the sense, I'm sure. The minister has asked for unanimous consent for second and third reading and

I'm going to ask for it. I think I know the reaction.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's time to proceed.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to understand very clearly that the minister has just introduced another

six months for the board members and he has refused five minutes for the opposition. I want to have the minister repeat exactly what he said.

The Speaker: I'm not going to be the one who's going to interpret --

Hon Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just asked for unanimous consent. There was no request for five minutes put to the House

and, furthermore, the unanimous consent was turned down by the third party.

CLEAN UP HYDRO ONE ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'ASSAINISSEMENT

DES FINANCES DE HYDRO ONE

Mr Hampton moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 82,

An Act respecting the compensation of Hydro One Inc. executives and sponsorships and political contributions by Hydro One Inc. and other entities /

Projet de loi 82, Loi traitant de la rétribution des cadres de Hydro One Inc. ainsi que des activités de parrainage et des contributions politiques de Hydro One Inc. et d'autres

entités.

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

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

All opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The leader of the third party for a short explanation.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): The bill provides that the compensation of executives of Hydro One Inc shall not exceed amounts

established by regulation using comparison to executive positions with comparable companies in other provinces.

Termination payments are limited to what would be payable under

section 65 of the Employment Standards Act of Ontario.

The Integrity Commissioner will review Hydro One's sponsorships of athletic and cultural events and establish binding policies to govern them. These policies

will also apply to sponsorships engaged in by other government-controlled entities. Hydro One is not permitted to make provincial political contributions. This restriction also applies to other

government-controlled entities.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On the introduction of this bill the minister went on at some length.

Would it not be appropriate to give the opposition an opportunity to respond? It went well beyond --

The Speaker: It was not that long. It was the short explanations in the notes.

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): Sur un point d'ordre, monsieur le Président : comme vous le savez, à beaucoup de

d'ordre. J'ai demandé le ministre de l'Énergie et il a dit que oui, en effet le premier rapport sur Walkerton était pour être publié et disponible sur les sites web du

gouvernement et du procureur général par la fin de la période de questions de hier.

À 1 h 30 cet après-midi, le premier rapport n'était encore pas disponible. J'aimerais, monsieur le Président, que vous assistiez

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

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for second and third readings of Bill 20,

An Act to amend

the Occupational Health and Safety Act to require the appointment of a workplace carcinoma committee.

The Speaker: Agreed? No. I'm afraid I heard some noes.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm looking for unanimous consent for second and third readings of Bill

66,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act to require that a certified food handler be present at all times during the operation of a food premise.

The Speaker: The member has asked for unanimous consent. Agreed? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

TERRY RYAN AND STEVE MCATEER

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): On a point of order, Speaker: I understand we have the unanimous consent of

each party to speak for a few minutes on the deaths of Durham police Constable Terry Ryan, the chair of the Police Association of Ontario, and Toronto police Detective Sergeant Steve McAteer.

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

Hon Mr Runciman: Before I begin, I'd like to ask that, following the comments, all honourable members rise for a minute of silence in memory

of Terry Ryan and Steve McAteer.

I rise in the House to recognize the tragic and untimely death of Provincial Constable Terry Ryan, a member of the Durham Regional Police Service, a husband, a

father, a grandfather and a friend to many. In addition, I want to recognize Terry's vast contribution to his fellow police officers and policing, not only in Ontario but across Canada.

Terry was killed last Thursday evening when he was involved in a head-on collision. Typical of Terry, he was heading home from a police function.

He began his policing career in 1973 with the Pickering Police Department, which in 1974 was merged with others to form the Durham Regional Police Service.

Terry was always a highly professional and dedicated police officer. The overriding goal of his career and his life was to strive for safer communities for his fellow police officers and the

citizens they served. He provided tremendous leadership and dedication to the policing community through his involvement in police officer associations.

He served on the board of directors of the Durham Regional Police Association for more than 20 years and was first elected president in 1993.

At the provincial association level, he was a long-serving director of the Police Association of Ontario and represented the PAO on several ministry

committees.

I got to know Terry well over the years and I can tell the House he was always honest, forthright and dedicated to the safety of all Ontarians and to the

police officers of the province. Terry had this gruff exterior, at least with politicians, but when you got by that you were meeting and talking with one warm-hearted, funny and genuinely good

guy.

He was a consistently strong voice for the front-line officers in Ontario who put their lives on the line every day to make our streets and communities

safer.

A colleague of Terry's recalled when, back in 1992, the Blue Ribbon campaign was starting and police association representatives were called to meet in St

Catharines. Terry had injured his back and he wasn't able to walk, but he insisted on travelling from Oshawa to St Catharines. When he got there, they borrowed a secretary's chair and Terry was

wheeled into the meeting to have his say. Terry strongly supported the Toronto police, who were struggling with many difficult issues at that time, and he wasn't about to let personal pain get in

the way of showing his support.

Terry also gave freely of his time and commitment through his volunteer work in the community, particularly in minor sports organizations and local charity

work.

Sadly, Terry was not the only police officer to pass away last week. Detective Sergeant Steve McAteer passed away on Wednesday, May 29, after a brief battle

with cancer.

Detective Sergeant McAteer was an instrumental player in the development of the repeat offender parole enforcement, or ROPE, squad. The ROPE squad has been a

very valuable tool in the fight against those who try and evade law enforcement while often becoming a threat to our law-abiding communities. I think it's fair to say that our families and our

communities are that much safer, thanks to Steve McAteer and his ROPE squad colleagues.

In fact, it was this dedication to community safety and lifelong policing that led to Toronto Police Chief Fantino's promoting Steve to the rank of Detective

Sergeant only hours before his passing.

Terry and Steve will be deeply missed by the men and women who served on their police services. Their strong leadership and dedication to public safety will be

truly missed.

I believe we all understand that the loss of Terry Ryan and Steve McAteer will most profoundly affect their loved ones, their families and their friends. On

behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, let me extend our deepest condolences to all those mourning their loss. Our thoughts are with you.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus, and indeed all Ontarians, to pay tribute to a man who

has passed away so suddenly and tragically.

On Friday morning, Constable Terry Ryan, a 29-year veteran police officer, president of the Durham Regional Police Association and chair of the Police

Association of Ontario, succumbed to injuries suffered when his vehicle was struck head-on. He was off duty at the time.

Mr Ryan's police career began in 1973. He spent over 20 years on the board of directors of the Durham Regional Police Association and was first elected

president in 1993. During this period, Terry played a key role in the development of the Durham Regional Police Service and was able to build many bridges for the betterment of service to his

community that he so dearly loved.

Terry was a stocky and, some might say, vertically challenged charmer. He always had a smile on his face, unless he was talking to politicians. He was

tenacious in his fighting for a cause. He worked with, among others, our own Rick Bartolucci, the member for Sudbury, on the Joe Mac committee.

It is fair to say Terry was a tireless member of the Police Association of Ontario. To the leadership and membership of the OPA we offer our deepest sympathy.

Ontarians have lost an important leader and advocate. Terry strove for safer communities for both police personnel and the citizens they serve. He will be sadly missed.

What compounds the tragedy is that Mr Ryan was allegedly killed by a drunk driver. Terry was a non-drinker and a strong advocate against the perils of impaired

driving. It sickens me and, I know, all of us here to think that people continue to put their lives and the lives of others at risk by drinking and driving. Again we have another example of why we

must never rest until drinking and driving is a thing of the past.

Mr Ryan is survived by his wife, Carol, his two sons, Jamie and Kevin, and this three grandkids. Again, on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus, we

offer our heartfelt sympathy and prayers to the entire Ryan family and their friends. As we journey through the sadness and grief, let us celebrate the triumphs and accomplishments of this

wonderful man.

Last week we lost another member, a true leader within the police force, Detective Sergeant Steve McAteer, who passed away, too young, on Wednesday from a rare

form of cancer.

Steve was described by many as born to be a police officer. He entered the Toronto police force early in the 1970s with the aim of ridding the city of bad guys

and providing safe communities for all. Over the next 32 years, he amazed all those who surrounded him with his uncanny vision, unflagging determination and righteous pursuit of justice. As one

officer stated, Steve exemplified all those virtues that you want not only in a police officer or even a gentleman, but all human beings.

Although we stand in memory of this fine man, we should also reflect on the legacy and the vision that he imparted. Steve helped found the repeat offender

parole enforcement unit, the ROPE squad, which since its inception has been credited with taking 400 dangerous fugitives off the streets. He was also instrumental in founding the Toronto police

fugitive squad. Both squads work under very difficult conditions, seeking to find those predators who attempt not to be found.

Again, I, on behalf of the Liberal caucus and Dalton McGuinty, would like to send our condolences to Steve's sons, Sean and Brock, his relatives, family and

friends, for whom he cared so deeply. We will not forget the legacy that he has left.

I have a reflection, which I share with this House today, that captures the essence of these two fine public servants. It's called Take Time:

Take time to think -- thoughts are the source of power.

Take time to play -- play is the secret of perpetual youth.

Take time to read -- reading is the fountain of wisdom.

Take time to pray -- prayer can be a rock of strength in a time of trouble.

Take time to love -- loving is what makes living worthwhile.

Take time to be friendly -- friendships give life a precious flavour.

Take time to laugh -- laughter is the music of the soul.

Take time to give -- any day of the year is too short for selfishness.

Take time to do your work well -- pride in your work, no matter what it is, nourishes the ego and the spirit.

Finally, take time to appreciate -- thanks is the frosting on the cake of life.

I thank God for these two fine men.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): New Democrats join in this tribute to these two police officers. I wanted to be quite clear that this House,

this assembly and its 103 members stand to pay tribute because of our personal sadness over the deaths of these two men, but clearly on this occasion we speak as well on behalf of 12 million

constituents. We speak on behalf of them and attempt to articulate the regard that Ontarians have for personnel, women and men, who are there on the front lines: firefighters, the emergency medical

response personnel and, today, two police officers.

Constable Terry Ryan had an outstanding career cut short under the most tragic of circumstances all too soon. His sons, Jamie and Kevin, were deprived of a

father far earlier than nature intended for them to be without a dad, and three grandkids will never get to know their grandfather the way grandchildren ought to. So there is a tremendous loss for

this family: Carol, the sons, the grandkids.

There is also a tremendous loss for a policing community. Constable Ryan was held in the highest regard by his own colleagues. For over 20 years he served, out

of a sense of responsibility to his fellow police officers in Durham, on the board of directors of the Durham Regional Police Association. For 29 years, of course, he was a police officer, serving

his community, serving his province, and in 1995 he was elected chair of the Police Association of Ontario, with 13,000 members. It's a huge community to be responsible for, in the role of

incredible responsibility that Constable Ryan assumed on their behalf, but it's also an impressive figure in terms of the numbers of people who called upon Constable Ryan, as they did, to speak for

them.

Yes, mention has been made of Constable Ryan and Queen's Park and his role as a lobbyist. He was as effective as any lobbyist who ever walked the corridors of

this building. I hope his fellow officers across this province know he was a tough, tenacious, determined advocate for the interests of police officers as well as for the interests of the safety of

communities and the residents of those communities across this province.

In paying this tribute, we express our admiration for Constable Ryan. We express our gratitude for his contribution not only to his own community but to his

province and for the leadership role that he performed in such an exemplary way on behalf of his fellow police officers.

We deplore the tragic circumstances in which his life was stolen from him and in which he was stolen from his wife and his sons and his grandkids. We pay

tribute with the hope that those three grandchildren can reflect upon, yes, perhaps even the Hansard of these brief proceedings here, and understand that their granddad was a man who earned the

respect, admiration and affection of his colleagues and of his community. He didn't win it in a game of chance; he did it the old-fashioned way: through his own, Constable Ryan's, hard work.

Today we are doubly saddened because Constable Ryan is joined by Detective Sergeant McAteer, an innovative, creative, gutsy police officer who leaves behind

family: his mother, four sisters and two young sons, Brock and Sean. Again, a life taken all too soon, a life ended all too early, but a life ended which, in and of itself, Brock and Sean should

know, provided a police officer who provided incredible leadership and, as I said, innovation in developing some of the strategic efforts, particularly in the ROPE exercise. It was his efforts in

the establishment of ROPE, the apprehension of repeat offenders and parole violators, Detective Sergeant Steve McAteer's role in the creation of that team, that gave rise to what has become an

established institution and one that has been acknowledged by governments, both provincial and federal, in terms of understanding and recognizing the need for that level of law enforcement.

So we admire Detective Sergeant McAteer. We respect him for the contribution he made to policing, which means the contribution he made to safer communities,

the contribution he made to building and developing and nurturing more civil communities.

We mourn the loss of these two police officers. We recognize that they've set standards for other police officers that other police officers are going to have

to aspire to and attempt to meet, and we recognize the vacuum that the loss of these two men has created for their families, their friends and their communities.

New Democrats join every other member of this House in expressing our most sincere sympathies, our condolences, to the families of these two police officers.

We hope that this tribute today on behalf of every single Ontarian will be of some comfort to those families.

The Speaker: Will members and our friends in the gallery please join us for a moment of silence?

The House observed a moment's silence.

The Speaker: I will ensure that copies of the Hansard from today go to the families.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 58

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's with respect to Bill 58,

An Act to amend certain statutes in relation

to the energy sector.

Speaker, you will note that the Orders and Notices paper for today indicates that Bill 58 is to be called at 6:45 pm. I'm conceding to you, sir, that the most

appropriate time for raising a point of order around the orderliness of a bill is the point at which it's called. I ask you to indulge me today, sir, because I have a serious matter that I raise

with you in as brief a context as possible because it may require you to reflect on the validity of the point of order and the argument supporting it and will give you an opportunity, sir, to do

so, so that if the Speaker concurs with the point or does not, a ruling could be made in such a way that it is less disruptive than it would be otherwise.

So I ask you in particular with respect to Bill 58. I ask you to refer to standing order 23, which reads:

"In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she ...

"(

g) Refers to any matter that is the subject of a proceeding

"(

i) that is pending in a court or before a judge for judicial determination, or

"(ii) that is before any quasi-judicial body constituted by the House or by or under the authority of

an act of the Legislature,

"where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Speaker that further reference would create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceeding."

Standing order 23(

g) embodies the historic sub judice convention of this and other assemblies. The purpose of that convention was spoken to by the Canadian

House of Commons special committee on the rights and immunities of members in its 1977 report, and I quote:

"The purpose of the convention" -- that's the sub judice convention -- "is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand

to be affected by the outcome of the judicial inquiry. It exists to guarantee everyone a fair trial and to prevent any undue influence prejudicing a judicial decision or a report of a tribunal of

inquiry."

Speaker Fraser in the House of Commons, March 8, 1990, stated that one of the functions of this convention is "to maintain the separation and mutual respect

between the legislative and judicial branches of government."

I put to you, Speaker, and I put to you that I am prepared to provide you with sufficient information to satisfy you that the separation is threatened by

allowing debate to proceed on Bill 58. Well in advance of tabling this legislation that enables the sell-off of Hydro One, the government had already filed its appeal of Mr Justice Gans's decision

of April 19 of this year, which determined that the government does not have the legal authority to relinquish public control of the corporation by offering its shares for sale to private

investors.

I've read that judgment, Speaker, and I ask you to read it too, because one of the initial issues that Judge Gans had to resolve was the standing of the

parties, and that was in particular CUPE and CEP, the two trade unions, and Judge Gans of course found that they had standing. I submit to you that one of the considerations here and now is the

prejudice to them as parties as well as the prejudice to other parties, and that is the government, but it is also, I submit, by virtue of the role of this assembly, this assembly as well.

Until the government filed its notice of appeal, it had a choice. It could try to give itself the requisite authority through legislative channels or it could

seek legal redress by launching an appeal in the courts. The government chose to initiate these proceedings, because the proceedings that are being heard now are the appeal. Had the issue rested

with Judge Gans, there would be no argument to be made because there would be no ongoing proceedings. The trial would have been held, judgment made, and the government then would be entitled to

introduce its bill. We would be entitled to debate it. But the government consciously chose to appeal those proceedings notwithstanding the legislation that's before the assembly. So I put to you

that it's impossible to maintain the separation and mutual respect between the legislative and judicial branches of government if both bodies are seized of the same matter.

Following on Speaker Fraser's

interpretation of the sub judice convention, I put to you that it's therefore improper for the government to call a bill for

debate whose subject matter is before the courts. Indeed, and as I said, in this case it was the government that maintained the matter before the courts when there was no obligation on it to do so,

nor was it required to do so in view of the legislative alternative that it indicates it has by virtue of this bill.

I want to indicate that we acknowledge the sound reasoning underlying Speaker Lamoureux's judgment from the Canadian House of Commons on October 4, 1971. But

we submit to you that it is not applicable in this specific case.

Speaker Lamoureux argued, not irrationally of course, that if a legal proceeding could be permitted to prevent Parliament from discussing or initiating the

discussion of legislation, then "the whole legislative process might be stopped simply by the initiation of a writ, or legal proceedings in one or other of the courts of Canada."

Of course Speaker Lamoureux was right, because the broad

interpretations of the sub judice convention would suggest that the Judicature Act, the County Courts

Act, the Division Court Act, the Execution Act or any other act affecting actions of law could never be amended while actions were before the courts. We concede that. All members would agree with

Speaker Turner of this Legislature that such an

interpretation would be reductio ad absurdum.

However, in the case I'm putting before you today, we're not seeking such a broad

interpretation of the convention's applicability, by any stretch of the

imagination. We're not suggesting that no matter relating to Hydro can properly be put before the Legislature. On the contrary, questions relating to the pay packages and benefit packages of the

board of directors have very little to do with the very specific issue of enabling the government to sell off Ontario's electricity assets, which is the very specific issue in the litigation

currently before the courts, and a very narrow issue.

We're asking you to invoke the sub judice convention to prevent a single, clearly delineated matter from being debated in this assembly while that very same

matter -- the very same matter -- is before the courts.

Speaker, you're vested with the discretion to do that. Your predecessor Speaker Morrow confirmed your authority in this regard when he ruled, on March 30,

1966, that "Absolute discretion must be left with the Speaker to intervene at any time to stop any debate, even if the action has not been set down if, in his opinion, there is a real danger of

prejudice."

I would ask you as well to consider that prejudice must be interpreted broadly, being real or perceived, and that when the Speaker considers whether or not

there is prejudice here, it's not sufficient to say there's a lack of evidence regarding real prejudice. I put to you the matter of perceived prejudice on the part of any party to the ongoing

proceedings and indeed this Legislature being almost offensive in suggesting to the court that, to put it colloquially, it doesn't matter what the court does, because the Legislature's going to do

what it's going to do. That, I submit to you, is a very dangerous thing and something to which the Speaker should address his mind.

Former Speaker Turner of this assembly also indicated, quite rightly, I put to you, that "It is very difficult for a Speaker to know when a matter is sub

judice." He therefore concluded, "The Speaker must take direction and rely on information from members in this House." I've brought the information for your consideration today, sir.

I would remind you as well of comments made recently by the then-government whip, who has argued on behalf of this government that the separation of the

legislative and judicial branches can best be observed by prohibiting the former from commenting on matters being dealt with by the latter. Former government whip Frank Klees said this: "We on this

side of the House believe that it is important to respect this place and to conduct our business in accordance with respect not only to the rules of this House but for the judicial system in our

province. Under these circumstances no further comment, we believe, is appropriate."

Indeed, other ministers have echoed Mr Klees's concerns. I can recall Attorneys General Harnick, Flaherty and, yes, even Attorney General Young, declining to

respond to questions when the issue raised by an opposition member was one that was then before the court. It has become a frequent admonition by Attorneys General that this Legislature must not

deal with matters before the court.

Speaker, if you're inclined to concur with both Speakers Morrow and Turner that (

a) you have the discretion to stop the debate -- and I put it to you that that

in itself is not a difficult consideration; I believe it's clear that you have that discretion -- and (

b) you must take direction from members of this House in terms of what you rely upon to

exercise that discretion, then I submit to you that consideration of Bill 58,

An Act to amend certain statutes in relation to the energy sector, cannot proceed for debate in this House until the

court has ruled on the government's appeal. The government, as well, could withdraw its appeal, in which case the matter would no longer be before the courts and this would not even be a matter for

the Speaker to have to consider. So I put that to you, sir.

As well, on a second point of order with respect to the same bill, I put this to you -- and this is with respect to the issue of omnibus bills. I've been here,

as have you and most members of this assembly, when there has been a succession of rulings on omnibus bills. I'm well aware of the history of those rulings. There have been members from all three

caucuses who have had occasion to call upon you to rule with respect to omnibus bills.

You yourself, though, sir, noted that you've been put in a difficult position by omnibus bills. On December 2, 1999, the Speaker of this assembly said, "I have

found that omnibus bills cause me great concern.... The opportunities for members in this place to give due and sufficient consideration to legislation should be respected." I put it to you that it

flows from that comment in 1999 that this government has become much more up front -- I put this to you candidly, because the government has been much more candid -- about when it deems the

contents of a bill to fall within Beauchesne's requirement that there be a theme of relevancy among the contents of an omnibus bill.

I draw this bill to your attention because last Thursday the government introduced an omnibus bill. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities

delivered the written copy of her ministerial statement on the Post-secondary Education Student Opportunity Act, 2002, to members of this Legislature and the bill was called the post-secondary

education omnibus bill, so that makes it easy for you. The government has identified its bill as an omnibus bill. If the umbrella designation of the title is a catch-all, then it's pretty difficult

to rule that such a bill would be out of order, although it's still up to you to use your discretion. In other words, the government has been up front saying, "Yes, this is an omnibus bill." This

is a dog's breakfast, if you will, and it's acknowledged up front.

So the government has adopted that strategy, and that in itself is not only fair, but good. But it suggests that a bill that is not designated as an omnibus

bill is not intended to be an omnibus bill. If the bill is not intended to be an omnibus bill, then it's imperative the government demonstrate the relevancy of theme referred to by Beauchesne. In

other words, the threshold of demonstrating a relevancy of theme is much higher in cases where a bill has not explicitly been designated an omnibus bill. So I submit to you that the threshold

articulated is not met by the contents of Bill 58, entitled

An Act to amend certain statutes in relation to the energy sector.

Bill 58 tries to deal with at least four discrete policy matters under the guise of one unified piece of legislation. The first, and to us most odious, part

allows for the wholesale privatization of Hydro One. A second, almost equally worrisome component of the bill deals with market surveillance. But then we get to two much less contentious sections

which deal with consumer protection and the assurance that hydro corridors will be owned by the province.

As you can tell by my description of various parts of the bill, it's impossible for our caucus, and we suspect others, to dispose of these issues with just one

vote.

Whereas we're vehemently opposed to some sections of the bill, others seem much more benign. It's inconceivable to us that we could only vote once with a single yea or nay to dispose of all

these disparate matters.

House of Commons Speaker James Jerome, May 11, 1977, noted that there is legitimacy to the kind of concerns that I'm expressing here today. Speaker Jerome

indicated "some very deep concern about whether our practices in respect of bills do in fact provide a remedy to the very legitimate complaint ... that a bill of this kind gives the government

under our practices the right to demand one decision on a number of quite different, although related, subjects." It's a very important ruling, that of Speaker James Jerome, May 11, 1977.

The time to address the issue is now. We've reached the appropriate stage in the life of Bill 58. The bill has been given first reading, so it's now that we

need to consider its orderliness and to determine whether this Legislature would be better served by splitting this bill into more manageable pieces.

I know there have been precedents at the federal and provincial levels to suggest that the severance of an omnibus bill is something that can happen. Indeed,

when the NDP was in government it agreed with the other two parties to divide Bill 29, a budget bill that was introduced June 1, 1993, as well as Bill 160, introduced on May 18, 1994, because there

were certain elements of those pieces of legislation that were contentious. The NDP listened to the concerns of the opposition parties of the day and accommodated them.

Severing those two bills was done through political accommodation. However, Speaker, there are precedents which exhort you to achieve the same end in instances

where the government of the day is not as accommodating as the NDP was then. There was a ruling made by the Honourable Lucien Lamoureux, Speaker of the Canadian House, who asked with respect to

omnibus bills, "Where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? (The honourable members) said that we might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session

for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That would be an omnibus bill with a capital `O' and a capital

`B.' But would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint."

But he continues, "There must be a point where an omnibus bill becomes more than an omnibus bill" -- more than an omnibus bill -- "and is not acceptable from a

procedural standpoint ... the government has followed these practices that have been accepted in the past, rightly or wrongly, but that we may have reached the point where we are going too far,

that omnibus bills seek to take in too much."

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. If the member could wrap it up, please; we have a good sense of it.

Mr Kormos: The point to which Speaker Lamoureux alluded in 1971 has now been reached by this Legislature. Lamoureux went further, that "It

should be the responsibility of the Chair, when such a bill is introduced and given first reading, to take the initiative and raise the matter for the consideration of the House by way of a point

of order." He advised that when another omnibus bill was proposed, "It should be scrutinized at first reading stage, where honourable members would be given the opportunity of expressing their view

and the Chair can express its view either that the bill goes too far or that it is acceptable...."

Clearly, you have the power to rule. I would also ask you to look at page 618 in the text of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states that

"The Speaker has expressed deep concerns about the right of members to make themselves heard properly, and so has occasionally felt the need to suggest what remedies members have to deal with the

dilemma of having to approve several legislative provisions at the same time."

Speaker Jerome, on May 11, 1977, stated that omnibus legislation "leaves some very deep concern about whether our practices" --

The Speaker: If I could interrupt the member again, if he could explain the relevance of those parts, we do have the books; we can look them

up. If you could explain the relevance to this particular incident, it would be very helpful.

Mr Kormos: It's about omnibus bills and the authority that you have. It's about precedents. But I'll tell you, then, the comments made by

Speaker Jerome on May 11, 1977, the comments made by you on December 2, 1999, here in this Legislature, where you expressed great concern -- I draw your attention to page 3 of Beauchesne, which

defines the principles of Canadian parliamentary law. I also ask you to consider standing order 1(b), considering the democratic rights of members and the cumulative effect on the democratic

functioning of the House if we allow Bill 58 to be debated in its current form.

I put to you that it is your prerogative and that we call upon you to address this matter, exercising your discretion to intervene in order to preserve the

very limited rights of members to fully address each of the discrete subject matters that the government is trying to consolidate in Bill 58.

I thank you very much for your patience with me, Speaker, and I thank you very much for your consideration of these two points of order. I put to you that

while, at first blush, precedent may seem to hold that Bill 58 stands and should stand, it's not the size of a bill that determines whether it ought to be effectively severed, but it's the content

of the bill. While there have been larger bills before this House that have been ruled not to be omnibus bills, there has not been legislation which so clearly contradicts and violates the rule

against disparate matters so grossly disparate as to create unfairness as Bill 58.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I generally have found in this House that the

weaker the argument or point of order, the longer the discussion. That's the longest I've ever heard, so that would rank it right up there as the weakest argument I've ever heard.

"The sub judice convention is first and foremost a voluntary restraint on the part of the House to protect an accused person, or other party to a court action

or judicial inquiry, from suffering any prejudicial effect from public discussion on the issue."

To go further, "Where criminal cases are concerned" -- and I want to highlight that for the member; he didn't seem to get around to that -- "the precedents are

consistent in barring reference to such matters before judgment has been rendered and during any appeal. Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before a criminal court,

not only in order to protect those persons who are undergoing trial and stand to be affected whatever the outcome .... "

Did you notice a couple of words in there consistently: "criminal court," "criminal matter," "criminal action"? I heard nothing from the member opposite with

respect to how he figures -- and he talks quite at length about "real and perceived." I mean, you're not even into real and perceived. It's a criminal action. You're into dreams. There's no dream

as far as these actions are concerned; it's a criminal action that you're talking about with respect to the convention. That has been spoken to by all those Speakers you quoted just recently in

your rather long-winded dissertation. Set that aside. I mean, that is a criminal action. This is not even close to being a criminal action.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Speaking of long-winded.

Hon Mr Stockwell: It is not a criminal action, and probably the person who ranks second just heckled me about being long-winded. This is a

criminal action we're talking about, so the convention doesn't apply and, Mr Speaker, I suggest you dismiss that readily.

The omnibus argument is beyond a stretch. This is beyond even the credibility of the member opposite to make an argument that this bill, Bill 58, is an omnibus

bill and should be ruled out of order. I could only mention a few bills -- the social contract and others -- which had wide-reaching initiatives and touched far more in the way of legislative

reform that didn't relate to particular bills. Bill 58 isn't even close, isn't even in the ballpark, not even in the margins of being an omnibus bill that should be ruled out of order.

So, not wanting to take up too much time, Mr Speaker, I suggest that any reference to the sub judice convention that you will review will see it's a criminal

matter. And as far as the omnibus bill, well, that's hardly worth even debating. If this bill is an omnibus bill, Mr Speaker, and it's ruled out of order, then, my goodness, there is not a bill

that can touch two different statutes, two different acts or two different ministries that could in fact be ruled in order, because this will set a precedent that no government has ever held itself

accountable to and no government has ever lived through with respect to omnibus bills.

The Speaker: I will take this afternoon to reserve opinion on that and look up all of the precedents that the government House leader and the

member for Niagara have given me and we will have a ruling by the time the bill is called this evening.

It is now time for oral questions, and the leader of the official opposition.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Speaker, I understand the Premier will be here momentarily.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I fully expect that the leader --

The Speaker: Yes, a point of order. If we could put the clock back to the beginning.

Government House leader for some clarification?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Speaker, I don't think we were expecting such a long opening, so we will just find the Premier and get him in here as soon

as we can. We apologize for the delay and if --

Inaudible.

Hon Mr Stockwell: -- and we will undertake to let the full hour run.

The Speaker: I wonder if he is in the vicinity, or maybe we could stand down the first question. We'll give him a few moments.

VISITORS

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: May I take this opportunity to introduce the wonderful students of

Cardinal Leger Catholic high school of Brampton who are in the gallery today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We welcome our guests, and that's all the time we needed to have the Premier ready.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Much has been made, and quite rightly so, about the pay packages

for the executive over at Hydro One, and as a result of your negligence and incompetence you have had to introduce a bill today. That had to do, as I say, with Hydro One.

I want to address today the matter of Ontario Power Generation. Can you confirm for us, Premier, that the president and CEO of Ontario Power Generation is

receiving an annual salary of $2.3 million?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): No, I can't, but I presume that he will want to be voting for the bill that

was introduced by the Minister of Energy today with respect to Hydro One.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Next issue.

Hon Mr Eves: Excuse me.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the Premier take his seat. The member for Windsor West, come to order, please. He isn't up two seconds and

you're yelling at him. Would you come to order, please.

Sorry for the interruption again, Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: I seem to recall distinctly just a few short moments ago the leader of the official opposition leading into his question, talking

about Hydro One, talking about negligence, talking about this, talking about that. You should know by now that in question period, if you make your questions so long that you could talk about

anything from orange groves to Hydro One, as you mention it in your

preamble, you can answer anything to do with that question.

The issue is, the leader of the official opposition and his party have been yipping and yapping for over a week in this House about Hydro One. The Minister of

Energy has proposed a solution to the problem. Are you voting for it today? Yes or no?

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I take it from that that you are not aware that the president and CEO of Ontario Power Generation, Ron Osborne, is now

receiving an annual salary of $2.3 million. You brought in your bill in order, at least in part, to address an annual salary over at Hydro One, on the part of the president and CEO over there, of

$2.2 million. This president and CEO over at OPG is earning a salary of $100,000 more. You should be aware of this, Premier, because obviously your minister is not, and I will now tell him that

this information is in fact available publicly. It was made available when Ontario Power Generation filed their annual information form with the Ontario Securities Commission.

My question for you, Premier, is, if $2.2 million was inappropriate and worthy of a bill to fire the board of directors, what are you going to do in the case

of a salary of $2.3 million?

Hon Mr Eves: Is the leader of the official opposition going to deal with the Hydro One issue today or not?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I believe it was the Premier who had the floor.

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition has made a great to-do about Hydro One compensation packages, especially the severance

package of the CEO. That is what he has been pointing to and talking about in this Legislature for weeks.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the Premier take a seat, please.

The member for Hamilton East, the member for Kingston and the member for Sudbury, come to order, please. I'm not going to keep getting up. This is your last

warning, for all three of you. I'm going to pick up very quickly. I've been up and down two or three times. We'll just remove you if you can't behave. I apologize, Premier. I don't know if you were

done. Yes.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I can understand why you are very, very concerned about the consequences of your negligence and incompetence over at

Hydro One and the fact that ratepayers are going to be burned with those outrageous compensation packages. I can understand why you're very concerned about that.

But I want you now to have a look at something else, Premier. That's what I'm asking you to do. I'm asking you to take a look at Ontario Power Generation; I'm

asking to you take a look at public documents; I'm asking you to pick up the phone and phone Ron Osborne and ask him how much he's making on an annual basis. We have learned that he's making $2.3

million. Over at OPG it's the same thing as at Hydro One, Premier. You appointed the board, you excluded both boards from sunshine laws and then you either tacitly or explicitly approved of these

compensation packages. I ask you again: if $2.2 million warranted a bill that would fire the board and turn back the clock when it came to salaries, what are you going to do for a salary of $2.3

million?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member might want to turn the clock back to December 12, 2001, and have some time to think about some decisions he

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier, take a seat, please. This is the last warning to the Minister of Environment and Energy. We're not going to continue to

have you yell across. You've got a bill tonight. I suggest that you be here and don't get thrown out. I guess you're back for this evening, but I would suggest that this is your last warning as

well. If you want to answer the question, you can answer the question. If not, it's the Premier's turn.

Hon Mr Eves: Speaking of turning the clock back, the leader of the official opposition might want to go back to December 12, 2001, when he was

in favour of privatizing Hydro One. Then he said, "Well, I made a decision too quickly. I actually should have some time to think about it." Now, six months later, he's thought about it and he

wants to do something different.

No doubt if we did exactly what he wanted today, six months from now he would change his mind yet again just so he could be on the opposite side of the issue.

Leadership is about a little bit more than that.

We are dealing with the situation at Hydro One. We have proposed a solution to Hydro One which, I might add, won't cost the taxpayers one red cent more.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just before we begin the next question, the member for Windsor West is on her last warning too. If I have to talk to her again,

she'll be removed.

Mr McGuinty: Let me say at the outset, I don't need any lectures from the king of flip-flops when it comes to Hydro One.

Premier, let's take a look at the cost to Ontario ratepayers for senior management over at Hydro. At Hydro One, we're paying the president and CEO $2.2 million

annually; at Ontario Power Generation, we're paying $2.3 million annually, for a total salary package of $4.5 million.

Over in Quebec, they are paying $407,000 to have both jobs done; in BC, $466,000 for both jobs. Why is it that with all your Bay Street savvy and financial

acumen, here in Ontario ratepayers are paying 10 times what they're paying in BC and Quebec?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition has a chance to do something today that he very rarely has a chance to do. He has a chance

to be part of a solution to a problem that he has raised in this House consistently for about a week in a row.

Are you going to do the right thing today, Dalton, and be part of the solution to Hydro One compensation or not? Yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Come to order, please. Sorry. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: The way the Premier is so effective at putting these questions, he's going to make a fine leader of the opposition.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): That's if he holds his seat.

Mr McGuinty: Assuming he can hang on to his seat.

Premier, it doesn't end there. There's also Mr Osborne's severance package, which I'm sure you'll be very interested in learning about. It's a minimum of $2.3

million and, depending on the circumstances, it will double to a payout of $4.6 million. This is on top of a $12-million golden parachute over at Hydro One.

Let's remember: you appointed the board. You excluded them from sunshine laws. You either tacitly or explicitly approved of these compensation packages. The

problem here is, this is not a case of one wild rogue board; this is a case of systemic incompetence and negligence. What are you going to do about that?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition has an opportunity to resolve a situation on Hydro One today in this House, or is he going

to let it go on for a protracted period of time? You can pass the bill today. I'm sure you'd want to give unanimous consent to resolve the issue at Hydro One today. Are you going to do that? Yes or

no?

Mr McGuinty: Premier, if you are asking me whether I am going to move expeditiously to get you out of the mess that you created for yourself,

the answer is no. Besides that, you're going to need an omnibus bill to clean up all the messes you've been creating. This bill only deals with Hydro One. When are you going to bring in the bill to

deal with Ontario Power Generation? When are you going to disclose all of the salaries and all of the compensation packages for senior execs over at Ontario Power Generation?

I come back to my original thought. The real problem here is not these boards, not these directors who were appointed by you, not the ability that you extended

to them to create these compensation packages; it has everything to do with you and your standards and your failure to stand up for ratepayers.

You introduced this bill today. It is too --

The Speaker: The leader of the official opposition's time is up.

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the leader of the official opposition knows very well that I did not appoint the boards. He knows that but he keeps

on repeating it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat. Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: We on this side of the House are not afraid of confronting a problem when it arises and solving the problem.

The leader of the official opposition has said several times today and last week -- last week he said in the scrum, as I recall, the horse was out of the barn.

The taxpayers would have to pay anyway. People would sue. They'd be successful, obviously. He was going to give up. We just had to pay the millions of dollars.

I'm telling you, this bill will not cost the taxpayers of Ontario one red cent. Will you support it or not? Yes or no?

The Speaker: New question.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. I've had a chance to read

section 8 of your proposed legislation. It

says, "The board of directors of Hydro One Inc shall negotiate with each of the designated officers for a new employment contract."

So far as we can tell, over the last three weeks your government has apparently been negotiating with the officers over at Hydro One. The only thing we've

noticed is that the payouts and bonuses and severance packages become more generous.

Premier, what does this legislation do, other than just allow you to negotiate, which is exactly what you've been doing for the last three weeks while the

situation gets worse?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the government is not negotiating with anybody. The government, through the Minister of Energy, directed the board

of Hydro One to do the right thing and renegotiate inappropriate amounts of compensation and severance packages for certain officers of Hydro One. That is what the government asked the directors of

the company, Hydro One, to do.

Mr Hampton: So, Premier, all that the operative

section here does is say that you're going to continue negotiating with these same people,

Eleanor Clitheroe and company, who have suggested to you that they deserve these incredible salaries, bonuses and severance packages.

This bill doesn't set any wage structure. It doesn't. I've put forward a private member's bill today that says that Hydro One salaries should be pegged to

salaries at Hydro Quebec and BC Hydro, essentially $500,000 or less.

So I'm saying to you, Premier, if you're serious about this, if you're really serious about getting these salaries in line, will you include the

section of my

private member's bill that says the salaries shall not be higher than the salaries at Hydro Quebec and BC Hydro? If you'll do that, then we might get somewhere.

Hon Mr Eves: I understand where the leader of the third party is coming from at least, and I understand the philosophy he has with respect to

these things. He believes that government should impose salaries, all kinds of things, on all kinds of people, through all kinds of legislation.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): You're the shareholder. Of course you should.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: We are not going to dictate salaries to people in corporations incorporated under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario. That

is what boards of directors are there to do. When boards of directors act inappropriately, then shareholders are left with no option but to take the appropriate action with respect to the board,

and that's what we're doing today.

Mr Hampton: Premier, for all of your huffing and puffing, all this bill would allow you to do is to continue doing what you have been doing:

negotiate. Negotiation has gotten you nowhere other than increased packages, increased severance and increased bonuses and payouts.

I've done the legislative drafting for you. Hydro One is a smaller company than Hydro Quebec. It is a smaller company than BC Hydro. If you're serious about

this, put a

section in this bill. You can adopt the

section out of my private member's bill that says the salaries will be in line with Hydro Quebec and BC Hydro.

If you're willing to do that, then we can get somewhere. Will you do that, Premier? You're the shareholder for the people. Are you protecting the people's

rights or are you still protecting your friends over at Hydro One?

Hon Mr Eves: I doubt that I have any friends over at Hydro One, today especially.

The way the Business Corporations Act acts is that the directors of any particular corporation determine the remuneration and compensation of employees of the

company.

We are exercising, through this piece of legislation, our rights as shareholders --

Mr Sorbara: Subject to a unanimous shareholders' agreement.

Hon Mr Eves: -- to (

a) remove the current board of directors because we feel that they acted inappropriately --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Vaughan-King-Aurora, this is his last warning as well.

Premier, take your seat. This is the last warning for the member for Vaughan-King-Aurora. We can't continue to have you shout across at him.

Is the Premier finished? New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Premier, in fact you had prior warning of Hydro One because, when you were Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance in charge of

Ontario Hydro, you put up the name Sir Graham Day to be the chair of the board at Hydro One.

We presented evidence that Graham Day, when he privatized the electricity network in Great Britain, did the same thing there. He increased the salaries of the

executives in Great Britain to the point where it was a public scandal. We told you that. You ignored it.

This is your doing, Premier. You are the people who put Graham Day and his cronies in charge, even though they have a track record of increasing executive

salaries to outrageous proportions. You are the people who made the executive salaries over there immune from the freedom of information act. You are the people who were told about this at least

six months ago and have done nothing. Now you present legislation that is simply going to allow you to negotiate.

If you're serious, Premier, put in the clause that says the salaries should be the same --

The Speaker: The member's time is up.

Hon Mr Eves: I refer the question to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): Since you've three or four times brought up this letter

that you claim to have sent in November, we have searched all the files in the Ministry of Energy two months before the alleged letter was sent, two months after the alleged letter was sent. We can

find no record of any letter that you've ever sent the Minister of Energy outlining any of these concerns.

To go one better, I then had my office phone your office and ask them to provide me a copy of the alleged letter, which they never did. So, once again, reality

and perception and dreams. Maybe you dreamt you sent the letter, but you never sent it because dreams don't happen. Your caucus go to bed every night dreaming you're not their leader, and every day

they show up in here, you still are.

Mr Hampton: The Premier might want to know as well that some of the other people he appointed to the Hydro board -- and I'm talking first of

one Radcliffe Latimer, who also had a track record of giving himself a $1.8-million severance package when he left TransCanada in 1985. You would also know that one of the other people on the Hydro

One board is a Mr Sakus, who sat together with you on the corporate board of BCE Emergis. You know most of these people very well, Premier, and they have a track record.

I'm simply saying to you, knowing these people, knowing what they've done previously -- Mr Graham Day, Mr Sakus, Mr Radcliffe Latimer -- the fact that they've

done this kind of thing before, why did you appoint them to the Hydro board? If you're so interested in doing something about this, why won't you put the clauses in the legislation that set the

salaries?

And I'll say to the Minister of Energy, I'll provide you with another copy of the letter and I'll provide you with the Hansards where I raised the questions as

well.

Hon Mr Stockwell: If you're going to provide me with another copy of the letter, you better write it this time.

Secondly, you know you just went through your concerns with respect to the members of the board for Hydro One and you're saying you've got concerns with

respect to their being the members of the board of Hydro One. So do we. That's why we introduced the bill today calling for the board of directors to be changed. All we're looking for from the

opposition, the third party and the Liberals, is that after weeks of you haranguing and harassing and being concerned, we've taken initiative. We've taken direction. We've taken action. The bill is

before the House. You don't have a tough decision to make. All you have to do is say "yea." That's it, just say "yea." When we ask for unanimous consent, just say "yea" so we can get on with the

fact that we want to clean up this problem at Hydro One. We want to save the taxpayers money, and the longer you wait, the less chance there is of that. Just say "yea."

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): But that it could be so easy. The government knows very well that this billion-dollar botch-up by this

government is going to cost the taxpayers of Ontario millions of dollars in litigation costs. You said this won't cost one red cent, Mr Premier. Are you off your rocker? You've just left a very

fine law firm. You've been advised by the Attorney General as to what litigation costs are going to ensue here. This is going to make the Pearson airport fight look like a Small Claims Court

matter. Will you tell us now, how many millions of dollars are the taxpayers going to be left with as a bill after you've finished royally screwing up this file?

Hon Mr Eves: I'm not so sure that was a question. That was a statement. The member for St Paul's is obviously the most articulate, intelligent

lawyer that's ever been invented on the face of the planet. Obviously we'll have to defer to his legal knowledge and expertise.

Mr Bryant: No, no, no, no, no. You laid the mine field. A moment of modesty. You laid the mine field. You're the shareholder. You appointed

the board. You authored the articles of incorporation. You laid the minefield. The board helped you lay down the minefield. It is a legal minefield and now you've walked into it. Boom. Boom. There

are boardrooms of lawyers across this province right now that are very excited about this.

This government has not only botched up the Hydro One file, this government has not only commissioned the yacht, appointed the captain and set sail for

privatization with the good ship Hydro One, but now it's sunk the ship. There are going to be litigation costs and taxpayers are going to be on the hook for them. I say to you again, Mr Premier,

how many millions of dollars of litigation costs is this going to cost the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Eves: If the members who are being disposed of through this legislation that's proposed here in the House today have any decent legal

advice at all, it won't cost the taxpayers of Ontario one red cent.

ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is also to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, a group of citizens in my riding has been

working for a number of years on concerns over storage and spreading of biosolids and other materials throughout my riding. This group is called Protect the Ridges. It's been looking specifically

at the impact of materials on groundwater and wells, as well as air quality, and on the land itself. I appreciate the fact that staff in your ministry are committed to following up on these

concerns; however, Protect the Ridges is disappointed that the previously promised testing and release of information have been slow, if at all.

Two of the major issues raised by the group are the monitoring of SoundSorb paper sludge at the Oshawa Skeet and Gun Club, as well as composting at the Harmony

Road site.

My question to you, Minister, is: could you advise my constituency on what progress has been made and what commitments you're prepared to make in the

future?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): I'm very happy to answer a question from a member who's

prepared to protect the taxpayers with respect to the Hydro One bill that was introduced in this House.

We are releasing a report within the next two weeks which discusses test results of SoundSorb samples from the Oshawa Skeet and Gun Club, arranging for the

installation of test wells by this July at the gun club and nearby composting facilities to assess the potential impact of the berm on the groundwater in the area and awarding a contract by the end

of June to study the potential of SoundSorb to generate harmful bio-aerosols. The ministry is also currently reviewing the exemption of SoundSorb from the Environmental Protection Act and

regulation 347.

I can assure you that this review will consider the findings of the above studies. I want to also assure the member that we take this issue very seriously. I

want to thank you for working very diligently with this, and also the other members from Durham, talking to me with respect to the issue and where we stand on it. I can give you an undertaking that

we will deal with it in the very near future.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for that comprehensive response, Minister. I'll certainly be sharing it with my constituents at a public

meeting on Wednesday night.

Do I have your assurance that this information received from the testing will be shared very promptly with the residents and we will continue to work with

Protect the Ridges in resolving this important constituent issue?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Yes, I assure you that the Ministry of Environment will be happy to meet with concerned citizens' groups, including Protect

the Ridges, to discuss the findings of all the analytical testing. We encourage the member to go out and meet with these people. If any support staff are necessary from the Ministry of Environment,

we'll be more than happy to send the support staff.

Let me just say that these kinds of issues are brought forward in the technological world and decisions are made, sometimes without the advance knowledge of

what impact these decisions have. This is one of those situations where a decision was made in the past and now we have to deal with the issue because of the advanced technology. We should be very

forthright and diligent in dealing with it, but we should also be very thankful that there are members like the member for Durham, who can represent his constituency, carry the ball in this House

and also deliver this public hearing and the message back to people, because they know he's working in their best interests.

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Premier. As you can tell, Mr Premier, Ontario electricity ratepayers and

many members of the Legislature are quite interested in these executive compensation arrangements that your successor hydro companies have made with people like Eleanor Clitheroe and, we learned

today, Ron Osborne.

Can I just ask this question? The chairman of the board at Ontario Power Generation is none other than Bill Farlinger, who is well-known to the Ontario

provincial Progressive Conservative Party. The vice-president of corporate relations at Hydro One is Deb Hutton, who is well-known to all of us here and very closely associated with the Ontario

Progressive Conservative world of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves.

My very specific question to you, Mr Premier, is this: in the last five months, at any point have either Bill Farlinger or Deb Hutton talked to you, as the now

Premier and the former leadership candidate, about the executive compensation arrangements involving Ms Clitheroe and her colleagues and Mr Ron Osborne and his colleagues?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Absolutely not.

Mr Conway: So you are asking the Legislature to believe that these people -- I'd just ask people, do you remember the opening day of the Ernie

Eves Legislature? The person sitting between Mr Harris and Mr Eves was none other than Bill Farlinger.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): What are you saying, Sean?

Mr Conway: I'm saying that there are no two better-connected Ontario Conservatives than Bill Farlinger and Deb Hutton. Deb Hutton was writing

members of the Legislature, garden variety members like myself, in the middle of April telling us about concerns about executive compensation over at Hydro One. It was a very interesting

letter.

Are you, my good friend Mr Eves, asking me to believe that your close associate Ms Hutton and your close associate and friend Mr Farlinger at no point over the

last while said a word to you about the executive compensation issues involving Ms Clitheroe and colleagues at Hydro One and Mr Osborne and colleagues at Ontario Power Generation?

Hon Mr Eves: I have never spoken to Mr Farlinger or Ms Hutton about executive package compensations either at OPG or at Hydro One.

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the minister representing Huron-Bruce. Many of my

constituents in Perth-Middlesex watched the progress of Bill 81 and the hearings into the Walkerton inquiry with great interest because of the high level of agricultural activity in my riding. I

understand that the proposed Nutrient Management Act will be extremely important in the implementation of many of Commissioner Dennis O'Connor's recommendations.

I also understand there have been those in opposition benches who have been critical of Bill 81, saying this legislation is too enabling. Of course those are

the same members, particularly the member for Ottawa South, who on December 12 said, "I changed my mind. I honestly believe I never said that. I didn't recall at the outset that I said what I

said."

Minister, considering the recommendations put forth by Justice O'Connor, should this government amend this bill before it's passed so the recommendations can

be better implemented?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Let me say that Bill 81 is an integral part of what we on this side view as a clean water

strategy that is going to be led by the Ministry of the Environment. Because of the complexity of the recommendations that were made by Justice O'Connor, we needed time to study those

recommendations.

After going to the hearings and listening to what people said, I made the decision that we needed time to look at the decisions that Justice O'Connor has made.

I took his advice that says on page 138 of his report, "The Act" -- that's Bill 81 -- "if passed in its present form, would certainly provide the province with the authority to create the tools it

would need to develop the farm water protection planning system that I am recommending." We took his recommendations and we'll take them when we move forward in the regulations if and when Bill 81

gets passed by the House.

Mr Johnson: It does seem irresponsible and unwise to tie our hands by introducing specific amendments to Bill 81 at this time.

I am pleased to know that Justice O'Connor believes this bill to be a reliable tool to ensure the safety of our drinking water. That is, of course, if it's

consulted upon properly. I know many farmers and farm groups in my riding have ideas as to the specific regulations. Minister, who shall be consulted in the production of these standards and

regulations?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say that Bill 81 is the bill in this House that has had the most consultation of any bill. It has been out after first

reading; we had discussions after second reading. My colleagues Mr Galt and Mr Barrett ran consultations early on. The former minister, Brian Coburn, also had lots of consultations in the office,

and we intend to follow that history and work on consultations.

It says in the report from Justice O'Connor that the Ministry of the Environment and OMAFRA need to work together. A number of things need to happen. We need

education, training, enforcement, and we need to do those things in consultation with one another, and of course we will continue to do that as we move forward to get Bill 81 passed through third

reading and we start to work on the regulations.

HEALTH SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. The crisis in waiting times for radiology exams is poised to

get a whole lot worse, and that is because the proposals coming from the relative value schedules committee make it clear that changes in radiology codes could reduce professional fees for

radiology and nuclear medicine from between 35% and 50%. Radiologists have made it clear that that would prompt a mass exodus of existing and new graduates out of the province at a time when

Ontario is already short 150 radiologists.

Minister, you have two members who sit on this committee. Why are they, on your behalf, considering changes that would cause such an exodus and such a shortage

of radiologists, which could only lead to even worse waiting times for diagnostic services?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I can certainly inform this House that if one compares on a number of different

levels the amount of service that is being offered and the amount on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario that we're spending in these areas, the amount has gone quite substantially up. In the year

1995-96, OHIP payments for CT services were close to $30 million; now they're close to $56 million -- a 91% increase. For MRI services, the OHIP payments were $4.9 million in 1995-96; now they're

$19.3 million -- a 294% increase. So I'm not sure what the honourable member is talking about, but that's the reality of the situation.

Ms Martel: Minister, the question had to do with a shortage of radiologists and how that would be impacted by the proposals that are coming

forward from the committee. Those proposals have been made public as of September 2001. They say very clearly that changes in radiology codes will result in a decline of professional fees in the

order of 35% to 50%.

The Ontario Association of Radiologists has polled its new residents regarding the changes, and it's clear to them that 95% of new graduates will not stay in

Ontario if this proposal remains unchanged. We already have a shortage of 150 radiologists. This shortage, in conjunction with your government's underfunding of medical imaging equipment and your

ongoing clawback of technical fees, will mean that thousands and thousands of Ontario's residents who need timely access to X-rays, mammograms and CT scans are going to see those waiting lists

dramatically increase. That will have an impact on patient care.

What are you going to do to ensure that the province does not face a mass exodus of radiologists, which will impact directly on patient care?

Hon Mr Clement: I hope the honourable member will understand when I decline to involve myself in discussions about remuneration on the floor

of the Legislature when we have a perfectly good forum in which to do so. So I am not going to take the bait. I'm not going to engage in the discussion so that she can be the collective bargaining

agent on behalf of the radiologists. I'm not going to do that, but what I will say to this House is that when they were in power there were 12 publicly funded MRIs and now there are 43. Since we've

been in power, when it comes to mammograms, we have been lauded by CIHI, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which indicated that women in Ontario per capita are receiving more access to

mammograms, and we were lauded for that. So those are the facts that the people of Ontario care about, and those are the facts that we care about.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health and it's in regard to the diagnostic imaging access report that

was released this morning.

Radiologists have been telling you for some time that patients, people, are having woefully long waits for treatment and diagnosis of their disease. In

Hamilton, people are waiting 16 weeks for a CT scan. In Kitchener, people are waiting 15 weeks for a CT scan at the Grand River Hospital, and 30 weeks at St Marys. In Sault Ste Marie, a seven-week

wait for mammography; in Windsor, a 12-week wait for mammography. Minister, this is the difference, potentially, between a lumpectomy and the removal of an entire breast. If you don't want to talk

about fees for doctors, maybe you'll talk about why people have to wait this long for diagnosis in Ontario.

Hon Mr Clement: I'd be happy to review those statistics. I can tell you again that when it comes to investment in this area, certainly the 91%

increase in CT services and the 294% increase in MRI services tell the story about the fact that we, on this side of the House, have recognized the importance of diagnostic services. These amounts

of investments have been made directly available to the people of Ontario.

Again, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, an independent body, a national body, has released a comprehensive report recently. They indicated that

women in Ontario, per capita, are receiving more access to mammograms than anywhere else in the dominion of Canada, to potentially identify breast cancer risks earlier. That is the record that we

are proud of on this side of the House, that is the record that we are going to continue to invest in, and that is for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

Mrs Pupatello: Minister, don't be proud. Rather, explain the five-month wait in Peterborough for bone density tests for osteoporosis; 10 weeks

for a cardiac test in Peterborough. Explain the seven-week wait for mammography at the Rouge Valley health system, the eight-week wait in Windsor for colorectal cancer checks. Explain the 13-week

wait in Stratford for a CT scan. You've removed $200 million over the last seven years from testing. That represents 90% of all the tests ordered. That's besides the MRIs. Ontario is short 150

radiologists. Almost without exception, the diagnoses are longer today because people can't get tests on time; therefore, treatment is late. That means more cancer growth, more bone fractures.

Why, Minister, in your Ontario, is the treatment worse today than it was before you took office?

Hon Mr Clement: Let me quote from the Toronto Star; I can't believe I'm actually doing this, but I am.

It says, "A shortage of trained technicians has sparked a crisis in cancer treatment, forcing some patients to wait for life-saving radiation therapy,

hospitals say." When was that quote? Oh, June 22, 1989. "Princess Margaret announced yesterday it will refuse to treat new patients for six weeks after September 30, 1989." That was the record of

the Liberal government. That was the record that we had to fix after we came to power.

One of the most well-respected coordinators of radiating treatment said, "What we've actually seen in the last few months is that the waiting times have

started to come down. We've been working very hard at cancer centres, but the waiting lists have come down." That's our record compared to the record of the Liberal government, and I would compare

those before the people of Ontario any day of the week.

YOUTH CRIME

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, I want to ask you about a very

disturbing story that appeared in yesterday's Globe and Mail. The story profiled an alleged case of bullying in a school in Halton that went on for a number of years. According to the claim filed

by the plaintiffs, one of the bullies told the victim that a young offender's conviction for assault would be "well worth it to see you unconscious."

Minister, I ask you, what does that say about our youth criminal justice system when abusers feel that the penalties for serious crimes like assault are

literally something to laugh off?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Let me start by saying that I cannot and I will not comment on

the particular case that my friend referred to. I am in a position, though, to say to you that I have, on numerous occasions, dozens of occasions over the past year, gone to Ottawa, spoken to my

federal colleague, spoken to my counterparts in other parts of this country, to indicate that we are not satisfied with the youth criminal justice system in this country or with the new act that

has been brought forward by the federal Liberals.

They brag about being tough on crime, but indeed they are anything but that. What they have brought forward is

an act that is three times as long as the Young

Offenders Act, five times as complicated and 10 times as costly to administer. The federal Liberals have failed the people of this country for some considerable time, and it appears as though that

will continue.

Mr Gill: Thank you, Minister. Clearly there is a need to reverse this trend toward weaker treatment of young offenders. Every violent crime,

regardless of whether it is committed by an adult or a youth, deserves to have serious penalties attached to it.

People of every political stripe recognize that improving the youth justice system is long overdue. I think every member has been confronted with a case in his

or her riding where the community was outraged by a young offender receiving far too lenient a sentence. We need to change the way we deal with young offenders.

Minister, in regard to the federal government's Youth Criminal Justice Act, what success have you had in pressuring Ottawa to back down on or modify their

flawed legislation?

Hon Mr Young: Indeed, we did go forward with what I believe to be a hundred meaningful, constructive amendments that we suggested the federal

Liberals insert into their proposed legislation, and at the end of the day we would have

an act that is responsive to what the people of this province and indeed the people of this country want.

Some 72% of Canadians have said they have little or no confidence in the current Young Offenders Act. I say to you they will have less confidence in the new act that the federal Liberals have

passed when it is proclaimed next year.

The only measure of success we have had in speaking for the people of this province, and indeed the people of this country, in many respects, is that we have

convinced the federal Liberals to delay the implementation of this new legislation. Every province and every territory asked for that, because indeed it is complicated, costly and cumbersome and it

will not serve the interests of the people of this great province or the people of this great country.

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Do you believe that the $2.3-million compensation being awarded

this year to Mr Osborne as president and CEO of Ontario Power Generation is appropriate?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I understand that the Minister of Energy has an answer to this question.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): If he was getting $2.3 million, I would say no. But the

fact of the matter is that your slipshod Liberal researchers put you in a pickle December 12 that you had to try to wiggle your way out of outside here by claiming that when you make quick

decisions, you get yourself into trouble. Once again you got a quick decision on your hands and you got yourself into trouble. Thank God you don't have your finger on the button, because six

million people would be dead if every time you made a quick decision, those kinds of decisions came out.

Am I upset? Yes, because you're maligning a member of the public who is working at OPG. No, it's not accurate. No. If it was $2.3 million, it would not be

acceptable. The total isn't. You're counting in accrual, an amount of money set aside in a pool that is accrued year after year. You're counting it --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Let me finish. You're applying that money to one year, and one year each and every year. I know this is complicated, but

it's not accurate. You did lousy research. If you had it on good research, you would have known that was wrong. So, no, $2.3 million is not acceptable.

Mr McGuinty: I'm going to recommend to the minister that he quite simply pick up the phone, contact Mr Osborne and ask him what he is making.

I will also ask him to check the publicly filed documents which provide that he is receiving a total compensation package this year of $2,337,692.

Minister, given that Ms Clitheroe's package of $2.2 million was inappropriate, I'm asking you whether or not you consider this package of $2.3 million to be

inappropriate.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Good question.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Good question? What are you talking about? You must be Pavlov's dog. The minute he sits down, you just yell, "Good

question."

What we have here is an accrued amount. The accrual runs over three years. If you had read the report that you got off the Web site, it says right in it,

"Actual LTIP payouts for performance periods, which commence January 1, 1999, were paid out at the end of the year 2002."

The fact is, the money is not applied year in and year out. You've got to get somebody back there who can give you accurate information. Yesterday you stood in

this House and claimed that we're hiding the numbers for all the OPGs. You went on the Web site and found them all. Today you're making allegations that they get paid this much -- completely,

actually, undeniably inaccurate. Get some crackerjack people back there. The whiz kids did a better job in their spare time than these guys do full-time.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Ontario boasts a diverse collection of provincial

parks. Not only the people of Ontario but people from all around the world can enjoy these beautiful parks, with such recreational activities as fishing, camping and canoeing.

Not only do these parks serve as a great outdoor experience, but they also provide an economic boost to the local economies. In my riding of Parry

Sound-Muskoka my constituents are able to enjoy many of these parks, which are close to home, including Arrowhead Provincial Park, Oastler Lake, Massasauga, Algonquin, Killbear and Restoule -- many

beautiful parks in my riding.

Due to the OPSEU strike, there were many delays in the parks opening this year on Victoria Day weekend. Minister, could you please comment on the delay in park

openings and give me an update on the status of these Ontario parks?

Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): Our parks are some of the best in the world and we pride ourselves on the level of

service that we provide in those parks.

Even though we were a bit behind

schedule on the long weekend in May due to the OPSEU strike, our staff worked diligently to ensure that our parks were safe

and ready to open as soon as possible. I am happy to inform the member that currently all the provincial parks that should be open and ready to accommodate our campers are open except for one.

On that note, I'd like to thank the hard-working staff who were able to accommodate and relocate campers over the past few weeks. They have demonstrated their

professionalism and commitment to our parks system by once again providing the level of standards that our campers have come to expect.

Mr Miller: Thank you for that answer. I know the level of service in our parks provides something we can all be proud of. I have also heard

that you are an avid camper, and I hope you will take the opportunity to visit one of the many beautiful parks in Parry Sound-Muskoka.

However, the recent weather conditions this spring have been fairly cool and wet; certainly not as nice as last year's warm and dry conditions. Minister, can

you update me on the status of the reservations at Ontario Parks for this year and let us know how the reservations are going for the year?

Hon Mr Ouellette: It is no surprise, as last Monday I did list during the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act how I have been a regular attendee

at the parks, along with my wife, Dianne, and sons Josh and Garrett.

Due to the poor weather conditions, our parks have experienced lower visitation than normal. However, the publicity that has surrounded the parks issue has

broadened the scope of our core group of campers and subsequently has allowed more people out of the province an opportunity to learn about our parks.

Up to now, the use of the reservation service continues to be strong, and there have been more reservations processed to date than at this time last year.

Ontario Parks anticipates more than 300,000 reservations this year. Although there is still room in many of the parks, I would urge the people of Ontario who wish to camp to make a reservation as

soon as possible, because some of our more popular campsites are already full for the summer. To find out more information, you can make a reservation on the Web site at Ontarioparks.com.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You signed a housing deal with the

federal government last week, a much ballyhooed agreement. In effect, though, that deal has downloaded the cost to municipalities, churches and charitable groups. People who have looked at this

deal have given your government a D as a grade and, in some places, they've even said an F, or worse than an F. There is almost no commitment from the province to give any monies whatsoever to the

building of affordable housing.

Mayor Hazel McCallion of Mississauga has said she will not participate in your deal. She will not do so because it's on the backs of the ratepayers to the tune

of $9.7 million. Mr Minister, will you make funds available to municipalities so that the housing can be built, so they don't have to back away as Mayor Hazel McCallion has just done?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I think the member of the third party wants to be clear on this. What we're

asking municipalities to do is waive fees that are a barrier to creating affordable housing, which are passed on in the rents and make them higher.

For example, in Toronto, when you were on council, you voted for a multi-residential rate four times higher than the condominium rate. We're asking that that

be rolled back for 35 years. That is not costing the fiscal plan in Toronto one dime. It's just because they're getting zero revenue from your decision to have four times the taxation on rental

units as on condos. That's what we're asking for. That doesn't cost the fiscal plan of the city of Toronto anything, because they're getting zero today.

That's a partnership that we think is practical. Remove the barriers and affordable housing will be built. We're not going to block the federal money from

coming into Ontario for the first time in 10 years.

Mr Prue: For the edification of the minister and those opposite, I believe my vote was in the negative on that particular item, as were those

of a great many members of municipal council. Perhaps he should do some research on that.

My second question --

Interjections.

Mr Prue: Perhaps if the honourable members would just listen --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order.

Mr Prue: Many other cities and charities are crying foul. They are saying it is not fair. They cannot raise the amounts of money that are

necessary. There is a very real risk of failure. That risk will put more people on the streets, exacerbate the problem of the homeless and increase the waiting lists.

I ask you again, notwithstanding what some vote of the city of Toronto may have been, will you make the funds available to the municipalities that want to

participate so they don't have to put the monies on the backs of the ratepayers?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I don't think he understands the program, but to answer his question, we did do a little research. When you were on the city

of Toronto council, you supported a motion that maintained the multiresidential tax rate at 4.7 times that of the residential rate. That minute was 4.15, C.1 A.2, April 23 to May 2, 2001.

The second thing you did while you were a member of the city of Toronto council was support a motion in 1998 to create a new multi-residential property tax

class. You're on the record for this. That has meant that every rent in Toronto has gone up 15% to 20% because of your actions. We're trying to get affordable rents in this province, particularly

in the city of Toronto, over your objections.

PETITIONS

HYDRO ONE

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition to stop the sale of Ontario Hydro.

"To the Ontario Legislature:

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

economy;

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

"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 help 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 to halt the sale of Hydro One until the government has a clear mandate from the owners of Hydro One -- the people of

Ontario."

I have also signed this petition.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I'm very proud today to present three petitions signed by hundreds of my constituents living

in communities like Pembroke, Eganville, Renfrew, Calabogie, Arnprior, Petawawa, which petitions read in part:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Conservative government is planning to close the children's cardiac surgery services unit at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in

Ottawa by April 2003; and

"Whereas the Ontario Conservative government is planning to centralize all children's cardiac surgery services in Toronto; and

"Whereas the many residents of Renfrew county (including Canadian Forces Base Petawawa), eastern Ontario, western Quebec and the city of Ottawa rely on the

specialized care of the children's cardiac surgery services unit at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario; ...

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

"To cancel all plans to centralize children's cardiac surgery services in Toronto and to keep open the children's cardiac surgery services unit at the

Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa."

I'm delighted to be able to sign and endorse these petitions and present them to the Clerk and to the table on behalf of my constituents, the undersigned.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is from the College Student Alliance Partners in Learning. It's a petition concerning the double

cohort and quality in education. The petition is 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 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."

I affix my signature to this petition as I'm in agreement, and I give it to Douglas to bring to the table.

HYDRO ONE

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition. It's entitled "Stop the Sale of Hydro One."

"To the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the Conservative government of Ernie Eves 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 sel