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

September 24, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Sep-24 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 24 September 2002 Mardi 24 septembre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DÉRÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

PETER BARNARD

HYDRO RATES

ONTARIO WORKS

HYDRO DAMS

HYDRO RATES

DIONYSIA FOOD AND WINE FESTIVAL

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

JAY TRIANO

VISITOR

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

VISITEURS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAMILY HEALTH BENEFITS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES PRESTATIONS FAMILIALES

DE MALADIE

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOMELESSNESS

HYDRO RATES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

INVESTOR PROTECTION

INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE PROGRAMS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

VISITOR

PICOV DOWNS

STROKE STRATEGY

EDUCATION FUNDING

PUBLIC TRANSIT

LONG-TERM CARE

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

TOURISM

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

HOME CARE

LONG-TERM CARE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

LONG-TERM CARE

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERJURISDICTIONAL SUPPORT

ORDERS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES ORDONNANCES ALIMENTAIRES

D'EXÉCUTION RÉCIPROQUE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Tuesday 24 September 2002 Mardi 24 septembre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DÉRÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Je désire vous faire part du grand mécontentement des citoyens et citoyennes quant

aux augmentations déplorables du coût de l'électricité en Ontario.

Il va sans dire que je reçois des centaines d'appels à mes bureaux de personnes découragées qui ne savent plus quoi faire et qui ne voient

pas de lueur au bout du tunnel.

Au mois de juin dernier, le ministre de l'Énergie du temps était fier de nous dire que la déréglementation de l'électricité

était profitable pour le consommateur de l'Ontario. Si elle était profitable au mois de mai dernier, pourquoi aujourd'hui le consommateur doit-il faire face à une augmentation de

152 % depuis cette belle annonce du mois de juin ?

Voici ce que la déréglementation a causé chez le consommateur. Le mois dernier, le Marché Richelieu d'Embrun a connu une augmentation de

41,8 % comparativement à l'an dernier. M. Wilfred Marcelais, un vétéran de la deuxième grande guerre, vivant sur une petite pension, s'est vu exiger un dépôt de

400 $ en tant que locataire dû à l'augmentation du coût du kilowattheure. On a demandé à M me Denise Lacombe de St-Pascal un dépôt de 625 $.

M. Murray Allen, un agriculteur de Vankleek Hill, a reçu une augmentation considérable.

Pourtant, le gouvernement actuel avait bel et bien dit que la déréglementation de l'électricité serait à l'avantage de tous les gens de

la province. Que dites-vous maintenant aux gens de la province qui ne savent plus quoi faire ni comment s'en sortir ? Dites-moi, que dois-je répondre à mes concitoyens et

concitoyennes qui sont dans une grande incertitude financière ? C'est quoi, la réponse ? C'est quoi, votre promesse ?

PETER BARNARD

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Dr Peter Barnard, the CEO of Iter Canada. As the members may know, Dr

Barnard was the leader of those working toward bringing a multi-billion-dollar fusion energy research centre to Ontario.

Unfortunately, Dr Barnard died August 29. Regrettably, Dr Barnard did not see the outcome of his advocacy on behalf of Iter. However, he more than established

the foundation of Canada's bid for this international project. He put in place a dedicated team that will carry out his vision.

In my riding of Durham, the Iter community council is part of that team. Its members include community leaders such Gary Polonsky, Mayor John Mutton, Regional

Chair Roger Anderson, Ron Collis, Adrian Foster, Wally Hicks, Dennis Schmiegelow, Tim Whittaker, Frank Wu, Aileen Fletcher, Chris MacKenzie and Tom Tidey.

My riding of Durham is home to the Darlington nuclear generating station and the preferred Canadian site of this international project. Dr Barnard was an

important part of our community because of his vision for the Iter project and his commitment to working with the local community.

Our thoughts are with Dr Barnard's wife Despina, his sons Robert and Christopher, and his family. As head of Iter, he had a much larger family that included

those who shared his vision and dream. Many of these individuals are from my own riding of Durham. We will miss him, even as we resolve to carry out the great work that he began.

HYDRO RATES

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Families on Hamilton Mountain want to know whom the Tory restructuring scheme for Hydro was

supposed to benefit. They've asked me to tell this Legislature of their alarm, their shock and total dismay over the huge increase in their hydro bills.

People of modest means living in modest homes are expected to budget for hydro bills exceeding $400. Can this be right? Has anyone told the Premier that living

in Ontario is not supposed to be an episode of Survivor?

My constituent Debra Hughes certainly worries about how she will make ends meet. She is single, a working mother living in a townhouse on Hamilton Mountain.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Tell her to check the Web site.

Mrs Bountrogianni: I think you'll want to hear this, Mr Bisson.

Ms Hughes's little girl has just undergone a heart transplant. She requires air conditioning to survive. Her recent hydro bill was $449. She cannot sustain these

kinds of energy charges. We're speaking of a little girl's life.

Bev Rice, a few years from becoming a senior living on a fixed income, wants to know how the Premier expects her to live on a fixed pension if utility rates

continue to skyrocket. Her hydro bill is $583. She adds her voice to those of hundreds of my constituents who are not only concerned but are scared that they have no control in preventing future

energy increases.

Throwing Ontario families to the mercy of an energy market without consumer protection is creating tremendous hardship and insecurity. Is this where Ernie Eves

plans to take this province?

ONTARIO WORKS

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): The Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services has designated the District of Nipissing Social Services

Administration Board as the delivery agent for Ontario Works in Nipissing district. The board has recently brought to my attention an example of the success of the Ontario Works community placement

component. This story demonstrates how the interests and needs of individual clients -- dignity, respect and equality of opportunity -- and how self-esteem, decision-making and enhanced control

over their own future are supported through community participation.

I'd like to take this opportunity to read a success story to you, as written by its author, Ms Jennifer Blais of North Bay. She writes: "The Ontario Works

program is an amazing program for individuals who need to gain more valuable work experience. This program goes above and beyond to help people on assistance to get back into the workforce. Without

this program many people would be unemployed because they didn't have the opportunity to gain the skills needed to go back to work. This program has helped me tremendously. I have been given an

opportunity to expand my skills and knowledge as well. Ontario Works deserves an award for the great work that they have done and still are doing. Without them I wouldn't be where I am now....

"I have learned so much and I am so grateful that I have had the opportunity to use the skills I obtained from school.... I hope that others will get a chance

like me, to better their life and their skills.

"Sincerely,

"Jennifer Blais"

I personally would like to thank Bill White, Tolou Rouhani and all those who worked at the DNSSAB board in Nipissing. Well done.

Minister Elliott, you should be very proud of your ministry.

HYDRO DAMS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have today but one question to ask of the Ernie Eves government: if you don't want us to live in

small communities in rural northern Ontario, why don't you just tell us so?

In the deregulation or reregulation of Hydro, the dams on the Mississagi River, the dams that were sold from Ontario Power Generation to a Brascan subsidiary

have operated without sufficient or even insufficient supervision by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Those dams have lowered the water levels in those lakes to the extent that tourist operators

have been put out of business, that people who rely on the fishery as tourists cannot use them. Those peaking dams have been running 16 hours a day. The lake at the top of the chain, Rocky Island

Lake, might very well now be known as the Rocky Island desert. The water is gone.

This pattern of use has not happened before in Ontario's history. It is a direct result of the opening of the market. It is the direct result of the Ministry of

Natural Resources being absent without leave. It is of grave concern to my constituents in the Mississagi River valley and all those communities that are downstream. Where is the Minister of

Natural Resources in all of this?

HYDRO RATES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): The Tory Hydro privatization scheme is driving prices sky-high, and we're all paying the price. My

office has received dozens of calls from angry constituents complaining about the huge jump in their hydro bills, jumps of over 40%.

I have a Hamilton hydro bill here that lists eight different charges including an energy charge, a non-competitive energy charge, a debt retirement charge,

transmission connection charge, transmission network charge, viable distribution charge, fixed distribution charge and an administrative charge. These baffling charges are causing widespread

confusion, worry and anger. My constituents are seeing their hydro bills going up and up with no end in sight.

These outrageous increases hurt all consumers. Seniors, the disabled and others on fixed incomes are particularly hard hit. As well, rising electricity prices

are putting thousands of industrial jobs at risk and hurting companies like Stelco and Dofasco in my hometown of Hamilton.

Public power, not private profit, is the best way to ensure an affordable, reliable source of electricity for our citizens and businesses. For once, just once,

let's see this government stand up for consumers and pull the plug on the Hydro privatization fiasco now.

DIONYSIA FOOD AND WINE FESTIVAL

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I rise today to congratulate the Greek-Cypriot community of Waterloo region on the success of their

sixth annual Dionysia Food and Wine Festival, which was held on Labour Day weekend in Kitchener.

Six years ago the community's leaders had an idea of a family event that allowed all the members of the family to participate: children's games, an authentic

Cypriot café, arts and crafts displays, delicious Greek-Cypriot food and pastries and, of course, some of the best wine and beer you could have, all the way from the Mediterranean.

The highlight of the weekend event was a grape-crushing contest in which I was able to participate for the second year in a row. Last year I won, but this year I

finished second. But I do want to thank Minister David Tsubouchi for being there to assist me while I crushed the grapes.

The festival has the support of all the local MPPs. I also thank Minister Witmer for attending. Her busy

schedule still allowed for her to be there.

I want to congratulate the volunteers, the executive and the organizers of the Greek-Cypriot community for their sixth successful Dionysia Food and Wine

Festival. I wish them all the best in the future, and I assure them that I look forward with much anticipation to attending again next year. Opa.

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Many Ontarians know how much Bay Street Ernie loves to buy himself whatever he wants. Last year, Bay Street Ernie Eves

decided he wanted to be Premier, so he went out to his pals on Bay Street and collected every IOU he could. In total, Bay Street Ernie Eves spent more than $3 million to be Premier. Sure, there was

a limit of $1.5 million on spending, but when did the rules ever apply to Bay Street Ernie?

Bay Street Ernie bought himself the Premier's office. He wanted it, and in classic Bay Street style he went out and bought what he wanted. Now that he has the

Premier's office, Bay Street Ernie doesn't know what to do with it. He hems and he haws and he dillies and he dallies but he has no vision. He even adjourns the House early.

The honour of serving the public can't be bought. The honour can only be earned through hard work, vision and a commitment to the people of Ontario. Only Dalton

McGuinty has the new plan and the new perspective needed to earn the privilege of serving in the Premier's office. After the next election, that's exactly what Dalton McGuinty will do.

JAY TRIANO

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): As the member for Niagara Falls and a former basketball player and coach at A.N. Myer high school in Niagara

Falls, it makes me very proud today to stand and congratulate Jay Triano, a Myer graduate who has just been named assistant coach with the NBA Toronto Raptors. Jay is the first-ever born-and-bred

Canadian to coach in the NBA.

For many years, Jay packed the gyms every Friday night at A.N. Myer, in the halcyon days of Niagara Falls basketball. He then went on to Simon Fraser University

in BC on a scholarship, where he was team captain and set many school records for four years. He was drafted by the Los Angeles Lakers and was the last guard cut in the Magic Johnson era. He then

served for 11 years on the Canadian national team, many of those years as captain under coach Jack Donahue. He returned to coach at Simon Fraser University and then worked for the Vancouver

Grizzlies and TSN. He was also recently named the national team coach, and demonstrated his leadership abilities in the 2000 Olympics, when Canada played exceptionally and ended with a five-and-two

record.

Congratulations to Jay, his wife and kids, to Mr and Mrs Triano and Jeff and Jody. The entire Triano family has always brought great pride to our community

through their many varied accomplishments. Jay's most recent success is no exception.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we continue, we have with us today in the Speaker's gallery Mr Alex Geiger, the Consul General of

Chile. Please join me in welcoming our honoured guest.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We also have with us, as you know, serving the third session of the 37th Parliament a new group of pages.

We have Émilie Arcand from Ottawa-Orléans; Philip Baker from Durham; Venessa Casey from Hamilton East; Isabella

Chau from Trinity-Spadina; Valerie Davis from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge; Drew Denny from Simcoe-Grey; Carley Gallagher from Peterborough; Paula Gilchrist from Whitby-Ajax; Kyle Gulab from

Scarborough-Agincourt; Edward Kuhn from Etobicoke Centre; Philippe Leroux from Nickel Belt; Sam Luong from Vaughan-King-Aurora; Megan McCrae from Halton; Curtis Ng from Scarborough-Rouge River;

Kevin Quach from Toronto Centre-Rosedale; Jonna Reaume from Windsor West; Thomas Schultz from Lanark-Carleton; Rachel Stark from Don Valley West; Matthew Steckly from Perth-Middlesex; and Ellen

Stephenson from Ottawa Centre. Please join me in welcoming our new group of pages.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that during the recess, the Clerk received the second and third reports of the standing

committee on government agencies.

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

VISITEURS

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): C'est seulement pour dire la bienvenue à deux visiteurs de Bretagne, Janine Chauvelon et Denise

Lemoine, qui viennent de la France visiter et observer notre parlement ici en Ontario.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I beg leave to present the first report, 2002, of the standing committee on regulations and private

bills.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Does the member wish to make a brief statement? No? I thank the member.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAMILY HEALTH BENEFITS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES PRESTATIONS FAMILIALES

DE MALADIE

Mr Martiniuk moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 176,

An Act to provide for some continuation of benefit plans of employees after the end of their employment / Projet de loi 176, Loi

prévoyant une certaine continuation des régimes d'avantages sociaux des employés après la fin de leur emploi.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): This bill amends the Employment Standards Act to provide that a person who has been employed for at least 12

months is entitled to have the employer provide, offer or arrange the benefit plan provided during that employment to be continued on an optional basis for up to six months when that employment

ends.

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

Mr Hodgson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 177,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act, 2001, the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 and other Acts consequential to or related to the enactment of the

Municipal Act, 2001 and to revise the Territorial Division Act / Projet de loi 177, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités, la Loi de 1996 sur les élections

municipales et d'autres lois par suite de l'édiction de la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités et révisant la

Loi sur la division territoriale.

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

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002, will include a number of

amendments to improve the accountability and efficiency of the Ontario municipal election process. It also contains a number of housekeeping measures related to the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Municipal Elections Act affects both municipal and school board elections. Among other things, this legislation would, if passed, help ensure that

candidates comply with the election finance rules. It would also make it easier for municipal clerks to run elections.

Two municipal elections have been held under the new legislation since 1996 when the Municipal Elections Act underwent a major overhaul. A review of the act,

in consultation with groups such as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers, has led to a number of proposed changes to make the

municipal elections process even more effective and transparent.

We are proposing changes to the election financing rules. The Municipal Elections Act includes deadlines for candidates to file financial statements after the

end of a campaign. Although most candidates have met those deadlines, some have not. We have introduced more stringent measures to encourage compliance with the rules.

The other part of the bill relates to the Municipal Act, 2001, the first real overhaul of the legislation in this province in 150 years. Municipalities have

been asking for an updated and streamlined act for many years, and they were extremely pleased with the new act. In general, the changes to this act are simply housekeeping amendments and good

government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOMELESSNESS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Deputy Premier. You will know that just a few hours ago the

police moved in and evicted the homeless people living in Toronto's tent city. You will also know that your government, the Harris-Eves government, walked away from its responsibility for social

housing a long time ago.

Government help for those with mental illness and addiction problems is woefully inadequate. Shelters are at 95% capacity today, to say nothing of what is

going to happen during the winter months. Tell me, Madam Minister, where are these people supposed to go? Who is going to help them pick up their lives and re-enter society?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I'm going to refer that to the Minister of Community, Family and Children's

Services.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I appreciate the question from my colleague across the floor. As

he will know full well, municipalities are responsible for providing homeless shelters and things of that nature in their local communities. The province is very pleased to provide the financial

support for that. If the city of Toronto determines that there is a need for more shelter spaces, then we will do as we have always done and fund these on an 80-20 cost-sharing basis.

Mr McGuinty: Thank you, Pontius Pilot. Our municipalities cannot possibly cope on their own with the problems connected with our homeless.

They need a partner. You are supposed to be that partner.

These people are going to move to public parks, they're going to sleep on sidewalks and maybe even move into people's backyards. What I want to know on their

behalf is, specifically, what are you and Ernie Eves going to do for these people? What emergency assistance are you now going to provide and what long-term solutions will you implement to make

sure these people get the help and the housing they need?

Hon Mrs Elliott: First of all, in an

article just recently published on this, Home Depot indicates, "We have worked closely with the

authorities to ensure that these people will have access to Toronto's social services support network." So no actions were undertaken until consultations had been made with the local

municipality.

I would point out to my colleague across the way that already the province of Ontario gives Toronto $74 million in support of homelessness programs. That's

just to the city of Toronto. Of course, we provide much more across the province as a whole in a variety of different kinds of programs and, again, if more is required, we will co-operate by

sharing 80-20.

Mr McGuinty: Much more is required, Madam Minister, and you should understand that. This is not an issue for Home Depot to address. The city

of Toronto cannot possibly undertake this on their own. The federal government has extended a very generous offer and you refused to take them up on that.

Here is your sorry record when it comes to the homeless in Ontario: you gutted rent controls; you walked away from social housing; you broke your promise to

bring in rent subsidies; you cut funding for addiction and mental health services, and you did all of this quite proudly while slashing welfare rates in Ontario. Why not admit it, Madam Minister:

your record is absolutely shameful when it comes to lending support to some of our most vulnerable and needy people.

I ask you again on their behalf, what specifically are you going to do by way of emergency assistance and, then, over the long term, what are you going to do

to find housing and other forms of assistance for our homeless?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I remind my colleague across the way that homelessness is a very complex issue that requires all levels of government to

co-operate to find a solution.

I would remind my colleague across the way that recently Ontario announced that it would donate the net proceeds from the sale of the former Princess Margaret

Hospital site to the city of Toronto to address homelessness.

Our contribution has never been greater. Some $58 million goes to the city of Toronto to help with emergency hostel service costs; $4.9 million in provincial

funds under the provincial homeless initiatives fund; $4.9 million under the emergency hostel funding program; $1.4 million for the Off the Street, Into Shelter program; $3.6 million for the

supports to daily living programs; and just under $1 million for the community partners program. We are doing our share to try and solve this very difficult and very complex problem.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): This is a question to the Minister of Energy. Our offices -- and I'm sure that you over on that

side of the House are experiencing the same thing -- are being deluged with complaints about skyrocketing hydro bills in Ontario. I want to allow you to address some very specific examples that

have been brought to our attention.

Ivan and Fran Foster are seniors living on a fixed income in Pefferlaw, Ontario. They write that their "monthly flat rate charge for ... hydro has increased

from $166 to $208 per month. This is a yearly increase of $504." They go on to write that "$504 is a considerable increase to pensioners on a fixed income. Our lifestyle has not changed over the

past 10 years; how do you justify this kind of increase?"

I ask you, Minister of Energy, on behalf of Ivan and Fran Foster, how can you possibly justify the kind of increase that they and so many other seniors living

on fixed incomes right across Ontario are experiencing as a result of your government's mismanagement?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): When the government announced our intention of going to

an open market for electricity beginning May 1, we knew that in some months the price would go down, as it did in the first two months of the market opening, and in some months the power charges

would go up, as in the third and fourth months. What we did notice was this past summer we saw the hottest summer in half a century. We broke records on more than five or six days, particularly in

the greater Toronto area, and obviously as the temperature rises people use more electricity. Obviously as the temperature rises there is greater demand, and that causes some fluctuations in

price.

I would indicate to the honourable member that he should give the market some time. He should give it a full 12 months to be able to look at the whole thing in

context. He should look at the substantial rebates that will be at least 50% to those people who qualify, if rates are indeed, at the end, above 3.8%, which would be at least 50% of the reduction.

Given that that is based on 3.8%, the market opened at 4.3%.

Mr McGuinty: Ivan and Fran Foster and other seniors like them around Ontario don't have time for your markets to somehow work themselves out

and have some kind of an impact when it comes to lowering hydro rates. They need help now. They're looking to you for assistance now. Our offices are being deluged with calls and letters about your

policies that are causing their hydro rates to skyrocket.

Here's the case of Debra Hughes from Hamilton. She is a single working mother living in a townhouse. Her daughter has undergone a heart transplant. She

requires constant air conditioning for health reasons. Air conditioning is not a luxury for her; it has become something that is essential. Debra's most recent hydro bill was $446.38. I'm asking

you on behalf of Debra Hughes and her daughter, what specific assistance are you going to give them, because they're facing a hydro bill of $446.38 as a result of your government's policies?

Hon Mr Baird: What would have been done in the past is rates would have remained stable and they would have just borrowed more money on the

backs of hydro customers right across the province of Ontario. So they would get one bill now and one bill later. We saw what those policies by successive governments of all three political parties

did, and what it meant was a $38-billion deficit. To put that in context, that's more than $3,000 for every man, woman and child in the province. It's more than $10,000 for every family.

We couldn't continue to operate the system the way it had been operating in the past. That's why we're taking some action to ensure we have a competitive

market and we can do everything we can to ensure prices would be lower than they otherwise would have been. That's our plan and that's what we're moving forward on.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, if only you had brought the same dedication and commitment to ensuring that Eleanor Clitheroe had a fantastic salary

and million-dollar severance package -- if only you had brought that kind of commitment and dedication to standing up for hydro ratepayers right across the province of Ontario.

Your government's policies were going to mean good things for hydro ratepayers. They have obviously been a complete, abysmal failure.

What are you going to do for people like those whose situations I've raised here today and the many more we are going to continue to bring into this

Legislature until you assume your responsibilities, or until at least somebody over there assumes their responsibilities and stands up for the people of Ontario who are getting ripped off today

through their hydro bills?

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite takes one month's bill on what was the hottest summer in 50 months. Next thing you know, the Leader of the

Opposition is going to be standing in his place and suggesting that somehow we're colluding with Mother Nature as part of our hydro reforms. Nothing could be further from the truth.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. As people across Ontario --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the member take his seat? Order. The leader of the third party now has the floor. The leader of the third

party, opening question.

Mr Hampton: As people across Ontario open their hydro bills, we learned today that Great Lakes Power, the company that hit the people of Wawa

and Algoma district with 44% hydro rate increases, gave $25,000 to Premier Ernie Eves's leadership campaign. The parent company of Great Lakes Power, Brascan, gave a total of $100,000 to the Ernie

Eves leadership campaign. In return, the Brascan companies, including Great Lakes Power, profited immensely from the hydro price hikes this summer due to deregulation. Your hydro dirty deal just

gets dirtier every day.

Minister, is this your government's message: give big bucks to Ernie Eves, get big profits and let the people of Ontario pay through the nose?

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

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The accusations the member opposite makes are patently

absurd. For the member opposite to stand in his place and somehow make accusations of that nature I think demeans this place and it demeans him and the role that he has played in this place in the

past.

What we do see in the situation with Great Lakes Power in Wawa is a ruling by the Ontario Energy Board -- not by Ernie Eves, not by Elizabeth Witmer, not by

Jim Flaherty, not by Chris Stockwell and not by Tony Clement but by Floyd Laughren -- with respect to the transmission and distribution separations and changes which have taken place there. Rather

than asking for cross-subsidization of one consumer cost to another, rather than looking to the people who are supported by Sault Ste Marie public utilities, rather than looking to certain classes

of customers by Great Lakes Power, people are paying the actual costs rather than others subsidizing them. That was a decision of the Ontario Energy Board and the member's former colleague Floyd

Laughren.

Mr Hampton: I gather the energy minister thinks it's OK that Brascan gave the Premier $100,000 for his campaign and then hiked the rates by

44%. But there's more to this story.

As part of your hydro privatization scheme through Ontario Power Generation, you sold Great Lakes Power and Brascan four hydro stations on the Mississagi

River. This summer, Brascan and Great Lakes Power, trying to make as much money as they could out of peak hydro prices, literally drained the reservoir, Rocky Island Lake. Tourist operators were

forced to close. The lake ecosystem was disrupted and fish spawning grounds were destroyed. I brought a photograph of what the lake used to look like. That's what it used to look like.

The Speaker: Member, put the prop down, please. Continue without the prop.

Mr Hampton: I'll send you over a copy of the picture.

The question is this: is this the message from hydro privatization and deregulation: give $100,000 to Ernie Eves and the Conservative government and they'll

even let you drain a lake to make profits from hydro privatization?

Hon Mr Baird: I don't want to let the premise of the member's question go unaddressed. I do find it regrettable that the member opposite seeks

to advance his own political career by engaging in character assassination and somehow making some outrageous allegations with respect to electoral support and public policy decisions. If the

member opposite has any single shred of evidence to suggest, he should put it on the floor of this House right now, right here. But I think the reality is that he's only interested in character

assassination and seeking to further his own political interests, and I find that incredibly regrettable.

With respect to the situation he speaks of, we know the NDP doesn't like nuclear power. We know the NDP doesn't like fossil fuel power. Now they're actually

getting upset -- what are the hydroelectric generating stations using? They're using water. How does he expect hydroelectric power to be generated in Ontario? There's a dam, they drain it. There

are plans that can be filed with the Ministry of Natural Resources on proper environmental protocol, and I encourage any concerned citizen to take those concerns to MNR to be followed.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I think the paper trail speaks for itself. Give $100,000 to Ernie Eves's leadership campaign and you can hike the hydro

rates and you can drain the lake to make more money.

The representative of Great Lakes Power, when he was asked about this, said, "The new energy market is changing how things are done. Generators are more

responsive to pricing signals. They don't give a damn about the environment."

front of your government saying, "Bought for and sold"?

Hon Mr Baird: No.

Mr Hampton: I'm disappointed, Speaker. The Minister of Energy doesn't want to answer the question.

INVESTOR PROTECTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Minister of Finance, people all across Ontario are getting some very bad news in their mail,

and I don't just mean their hydro bills. People are also opening their monthly RRSP statements and getting a sickening feeling in their stomachs because their hard-earned retirement savings are

melting away. Many Ontarians have watched their savings literally depreciate by 25% over the past two years.

In response to the Nortels, the Enrons and the WorldComs, I actually put out a paper this summer that raised the issue of better protection of people's

savings, better protection of their investments.

Minister, what is your government going to do to protect those people whose pension plans are at risk, whose life's savings are at risk as a result of the

Nortels, the Enrons and the WorldComs?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I think every member of this House shares the desire to make sure that the markets in this country are

fair to consumers, are good investments and are well protected, and this government certainly appreciates that. That's why we've had a review of securities legislation going on in this province.

Purdy Crawford just did the draft report this year. We'll be moving forward this fall with some legislative changes to make sure that markets here in Ontario are well protected, that investors and

consumers know that when they invest in a company here in Canada their money is protected.

Mr Hampton: First and foremost, what happened in many of those scandals was in effect an accounting scandal caused by inadequate regulation of

the public auditing industry. As you know, the US government has recently passed the most sweeping investor protection laws seen in the United States since the Great Depression, with tough new

rules reining in out-of-control accounting industries.

Key to our discussion paper No Enrons in Ontario is a proposal to end public auditing self-regulation in this province

and create a true statutory public-oversight board for Ontario's public accounting industry. We're proposing tough new laws which would end the Arthur Andersen type of conflict of interest and make

it illegal for firms such as KPMG and others to do auditing and then consulting for the same company.

Minister, will you finally crack down on the out-of-control accounting industry that brought us the Enron and WorldCom disasters?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I think it's important to note for investors here in Canada that those so-called scandals that he talked about happened in

another country. Those issues happened in the United States. What we in Canada are doing is making sure that they cannot happen here, because people, whatever their age, when they put their

hard-earned money into a mutual fund or stocks or invest it in any way, need to know that money is protected.

What the honourable member may well be interested to know is that the audit industry in Canada, the national audit body, the Canadian Public Accountability

Board, has already put in place stronger standards. The Attorney General will be coming forward with stronger standards under his legislation. I myself, as the Minister of Finance, will be coming

forward, as I said earlier, with stronger legislation based on the reviews from the Purdy Crawford report.

We agree that protecting investors' money is one of the primary things that we must ensure happens here in Canada. We already have rules that are much more

extensive than the United States. For example, we have a continuous disclosure policy here to make sure that companies are putting information out there. We need to continue to make sure that those

things that happened in the United States can never happen here.

INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE PROGRAMS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. Minister, as your government's advocate for

human rights and as your responsibilities would make you a champion of diversity, I want to ask you about the international language programs offered by the Toronto District Board of Education.

The international language programs have been said to be on the chopping block. That was some of the advice put forward by the auditor, and I understand the

supervisor is now actively considering that. My question to you is simple: do you agree that these international language programs should be eliminated? Yes or no?

Hon Carl DeFaria (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I'd like to refer the question to the Minister of Education.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): Our government has long recognized that students must have very strong language

That is an increase of 50% since 1998-99.

Mr McGuinty: I'm going to return to the minister, who is, I would argue, shirking his responsibilities. I'm not talking about the

different languages. I'm talking about building a solid foundation in a knowledge economy for doing business with the world. That's what I'm talking about.

I'm asking you, as minister responsible for citizenship, as the champion of diversity within your government, are you prepared to stand up and allow some

supervisor or auditor to shut down international language programs in Toronto, yes or no?

Hon Mrs Witmer: It is this type of fear-mongering that creates anxiety.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Don Valley East, come to order. Minister, sorry for the interruption.

Hon Mrs Witmer: It is extremely important that we all keep in mind the funding increases that have been provided to the Toronto District

School Board: an increase of $51.8 million in 2002-03, an increase of 2.7% while enrolment is only going up about 0.6%. I would suggest that we work together to build on the strengths of our public

school system in Ontario and that we refrain from the fear-mongering that you've been doing.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Over the summer, I had the opportunity to speak with a

number of farmers in my riding of Durham concerning a number of support programs. I appreciate the input from farmers such as Dale Mountjoy, Dave Frew, Trevor Nesbitt, Gail and Arnold Kerry, Steve

Selby and others. But more importantly, I appreciate the time you took to speak with them directly when you visited for the 150th anniversary of the Orono central fair.

It was obvious from discussions you and I had with the community that due to market and weather conditions we need to deliver immediate assistance to those in

need.

Minister, can you inform the farmers, not just in my riding of Durham but indeed across the province, of recent initiatives that you've undertaken to assist

this vital sector of the Ontario economy?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'd like to thank the member for Durham for the question. As the member recognized, this

government signed the agricultural policy framework in June. At that time we made a commitment to match the federal government's transition money by putting forward our 40% share of the bridge

funding. Since that time, at the International Plowing Match, the Premier and I have honoured that commitment and the Premier announced that we would put $72 million into the agricultural community

to ensure that they receive the funding and investment they deserve from the Ontario government.

We followed the requests of the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council to ensure that we put dollars where the agricultural community thought it needed them.

In so doing, we used the market revenue insurance program to put the bulk of the dollars, and the balance into the NISA program. I think it's important to recognize that the farm groups asked for

us to put it into those specific areas. We complied with their decision and we're happy to follow through as quickly as possible to ensure that valuable investment in agriculture comes through.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for that very comprehensive response, Minister. I would also like to applaud you publicly not just for this announcement

but for visiting my riding and being throughout Ontario this summer, watching the crops, watching the farmers do their business to grow the safest food in the world.

I certainly appreciate the assistance announced last week at the International Plowing Match at Glencoe. I know how positively you were received.

Minister, it's very clear that the Liberal opposition has abandoned farmers and doesn't recognize their desperate situation. Could you tell the House today

what you are hearing from the commodity council and other agricultural businesses in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say that the agricultural community is happy that these dollars are beginning to flow and the way in which they are

flowing. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture suggested in its news release last week that they were happy that the cash was flowing out, as opposed to being put into a NISA program, where they

wouldn't be able to get the dollars. They also suggested that it was getting easier to deal with the provincial government and that we needed to keep up this working relationship so that we could

continue to work in partnership. It's very important, as we go down the road in the agricultural policy framework, that we work together to be able to ensure that we get the best deal for Ontario

farmers so that they have a sustainable agricultural environment.

I tell you, I give my commitment to the agricultural community, as the Premier did in the last few weeks a number of times that he is prepared to work with the

agricultural community, to be a spokesperson for the agricultural community and to be there for the agricultural community as we move forward on very important initiatives that will strengthen

rural Ontario.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would you stop the clock for a moment?

We have a visitor joining us in the Speaker's Gallery: Mr Peter MacKay, member of the House of Commons for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough in Nova Scotia.

PICOV DOWNS

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): My question, to the Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation, is about your relationship with Picov

Downs, the smallest racetrack in Ontario. At the final meeting of the old cabinet, your supporter Tim Hudak forced through approval for up to 800 slot machines at Picov Downs.

If slots were awarded in proportion to the amount of wagering at a track, Picov Downs would get one and a half slots, not 800. Gaming industry experts cried

foul. Fingers were pointed at you. You and the owner are old friends. Hudak was your supporter. The slots were issued moments before the new government took office.

Last night we learned that Picov Downs and Picov Farms greased the wheels of your campaign with at least $80,000 -- that's $80,000.

What role did Picov Downs's $80,000 donation play in their receiving an inappropriate number of lucrative slot machines?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): On a point of order, the government House leader.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock.

The government House leader?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): With great respect, obviously the minister is in charge of what

the speaker opposite addressed. What this has to do with his ministry and what his ministry does today, I am not certain. May I ask for a ruling?

The Speaker: I thank the member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

The government House leader will know that

preambles lead up to questions, and quite often a question will lead into his ministry. I am listening. I also will

check and see, because I'm not sure now who has responsibility for gaming; that may have switched. The Attorney General, I'm being told.

Members will know they have to ask a question relating to his portfolio, and I'm sure the member will do that. I will listen very carefully to the question. If

it does not, I will rule it out of order.

Interjection: What are you hiding over there?

The Speaker: Order.

Or the minister responsible may choose to answer it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

At the end, the wrap-up, I didn't hear the exact question. I was dealing with another issue; I did not hear the question. I will allow the question, and the

member may answer it as he chooses or have the minister responsible answer it.

I will be listening very carefully in the future, particularly when it relates to questions relating to the financing of campaigns. Members opposite will know

there is a way to ask that question and get it in there, but if you simply ask a specific question, I will rule it out of order.

The minister may answer.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): The question, insofar as it relates to gaming, is properly in the realm

of the Attorney General. But since the member opposite has asked a question which reflects on my personal integrity, I will answer.

The entertainment complex that is envisioned on the Picov property in Ajax not only is supported by the council of the town of Ajax and by Durham council, but

is also supported by the board of trade and by community groups. It is supported by me, as the member of provincial parliament for Whitby-Ajax, and I daresay is supported by my colleague the

Minister of Finance, as a member of provincial parliament for Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge.

I welcomed the support that was given to me by Mr Picov and by his supporters in Durham region when I sought to be the leader of my party in this Legislature.

I welcome it. It's the right thing to do. There were many contributions to all the campaigns. People should contribute to political campaigns across Ontario. They did the right thing. It's good for

my community, it's good for my region and I support it.

Mr Kwinter: With all due respect, what I've just heard is an Eleanor Clitheroe explanation.

Let's talk about the mathematics. According to gaming experts, a slot machine in the Durham area should generate between $500 to $600 a day. If you had 800

slot machines at $500 a day, 365 days a year, that would generate $146 million.

After costs are figured in -- purses, capital, refurbishment, taxes -- 800 slots at Picov Downs would generate approximately $14.6 million to the owners every

year. When you consider that at the present time the total wagering at their track -- listen to this: the total wagering at the track, not the profits, was $280,000 in 2001. So here they're going

from a profit that is less than $280,000, because they're not going to take all of the money, and they're looking at generating a profit of $14.6 million --

The Speaker: Order. The member's time is up. Take your seat. There was no question there. The member has up to a minute to answer.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The question now appears to be about gaming revenues and I refer it to the Attorney General.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I'm not going to comment on the fanciful allegations that have

come from the member opposite, although I must say, sir, that I am disappointed that a member with your reputation would stoop to this level.

I will tell you -- and if I may, Mr Speaker --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Will the Attorney General take his seat. The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, come to order. Sorry for the interruption.

Attorney General.

Hon Mr Young: Indeed, I thought what I would do in this discussion is introduce some of the facts. No decision has been made as to how many

slot machines will be placed at Picov Downs, if any. What is happening now is that there is an application to the racing commission, and after that application a decision will be made as to how

many racing days Picov Downs will have. Then the OLGC will review the matter, decide what an appropriate business case is, and then it will be submitted to the government.

I want to stress that the OLGC is an independent, arm's-length agency, as is the racing commission, and after they give us recommendations, we will consider

this matter. No decision has been made to date.

STROKE STRATEGY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for my friend and colleague, the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health and Long-Term

Care. As most people are aware, strokes claim thousands of lives in Ontario every year.

Interjection.

Mr Johnson: If I can have a little quiet from the member for St Catharines, I'll continue with my question.

I understand there was an announcement made today regarding increased access to stroke prevention and care across Ontario. I'd like to ask the minister to

explain the impact of today's stroke strategy announcement and how new initiatives will be of benefit to stroke victims and their families across Ontario.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for Perth-Middlesex for a very appropriate question,

because today I was delighted to announce the creation of 10 new stroke centres across Ontario, bringing the total number to 16 in the province.

What these 16 centres mean to the people of Ontario is an increased focus on prevention programs to combat high blood pressure and high cholesterol, designed

to dramatically reduce the rate of strokes in our province by as much as 80%. It means new drugs and new technologies that make it possible to reverse or halt the damage caused by stroke, and that

will be made available closer to home. Finally, it means more doctors and nurses will have the tools they need to provide better stroke care and better stroke therapy, all to the benefit of the

people of Ontario.

Mr Johnson: Thank you very much for your response. Speaking on behalf of all my constituents, I wish to thank the minister for his ongoing

commitment to providing quality health care to the people of Perth-Middlesex and all the residents of Ontario. This will be a very progressive program for the Stratford General Hospital.

I'm aware that today's announcement is an important part of Ontario's overall strategy on stroke prevention and treatment. I'd like the minister to update the

House on the progress that has been made since the stroke strategy program was announced in the year 2000.

Hon Mr Clement: Indeed, today's announcement means that we have new centres in rural and urban hospitals such as Grey Bruce health centre, St

Catharines General Hospital, Windsor Hotel Dieu Hospital, Stratford General Hospital, Lakeridge health centre, Sarnia General and Grand River, located in Kitchener.

Since the year 2000, this government's stroke strategy has been an annual investment of up to $30 million a year to enhance the care to stroke victims and also

to promote stroke prevention initiatives. We have invested $1.6 million in five secondary stroke prevention clinics.

We have also provided $2.29 million for six pilot projects aimed to improve outreach services, home-based rehabilitation and improve the coordination of our

rehabilitation services, all of which means that we have the programs in place for prevention, for quick action, and that means better survivability of strokes and fewer strokes in the first place,

all of which is good news to the people of Ontario.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I would just like to state for the record, since the

opposition has been so interested in besmirching the integrity of members on this side of this House, that the MPP for Durham, the MPP for Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge and the Ajax --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Take your seat, please. Minister take her seat.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Will you take 30 seconds off the clock? Whenever we do points of

privilege --

The Speaker: You're wasting a lot of time. We'll keep it going as long as you want. I work with both sides on this but I'm not going to be

stepped to the clock. You pushed the question to the line; now you want me to step in and give you more time. I'm not going to do it. I wish I hadn't been interrupted, because had I not been, I

might not have allowed that question. I'm going to listen very carefully and if you do go beyond the scope of a minister's responsibility, you simply won't get the question and we'll move on.

In terms of the time on the clock, the time is yours; you can do what you want. If you want to yell and scream, we'll continue to go on. The member for

Trinity-Spadina can sit and wait. The time will go on and if you want to fool around, we will sit here the entire time and there will be no question period.

The member for Trinity-Spadina.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I have a question to the Minister of Education. Yesterday the public learned that you're spending

education dollars on spin doctors instead of textbooks and special education. Today we learned that the PR firms that got the jobs are very close and generous friends of yours. The spin doctors

working for the Hamilton and Toronto supervisors are connected to Enterprise Canada Group Inc, which donated $29,000 through two companies to the Conservative Party since 1998. More telling, this

company donated $8,000 to your Premier's leadership bid. Let me understand this, Minister: you're willing to steal money from boards that are starving for cash in order to pay lucrative contracts

to public relations firms --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The government House leader.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, the member just accused the government of stealing

money. It's got to be out of order.

The Speaker: Take your seat. While the member was speaking, one of his own caucus members was up speaking to me, interrupting me. I am not

going to speak to members during question period. He was talking about times. I would thank the members to stay in their seats. I'm going to listen very carefully and if members come up and I have

to be impolite, I will be. Stay away from the chair during question period. You can come afterwards or come to my office. I cannot do two things at once. I cannot listen to members complaining

about the time from a party at the same time the member is up giving a question.

The member for Trinity-Spadina has the floor. I will be listening. I say to all members, you'd better behave in the questions and not cross the line, or I am

going to rule them out of order.

Mr Marchese: Minister, let me understand: you're willing to shuck away money from boards of education that are starving for cash in order to

pay lucrative contracts to public relations firms so that you can look good?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I'm really quite surprised at the question because the information that I read

in the paper not too long ago indicates to me that the member in question in 1985 voted in favour of a massive salary increase, 33%, at the board of education. In 1989, he voted again in favour of

an 86% salary increase, and then again raised taxes. This is a member who didn't care about the kids; he cared about his own personal salary.

Mr Marchese: All I can say to the minister is that she's a real loser.

The Speaker: Order. You have to withdraw that. The member is going to have to withdraw it or go out. He cannot call people losers in this

House --

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: I withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker: -- or you're going out.

Mr Marchese: I ask a question --

The Speaker: Member, I did not hear it through the yelling. I want to hear him say, "I withdraw it."

Mr Marchese: I withdraw. I said it.

The Speaker: I didn't hear it. While I'm up, I would ask all members to caution about the language in here. It doesn't help anybody. We have

school kids who come in here to watch. People being called losers and other names doesn't look good on any of us. I know tempers get up here in this House. It's little wonder people have disrespect

for the institution when we're standing up and calling people losers in this House. I would ask all members to think about what they're doing in this institution.

Mr Marchese: I'm not surprised, Minister, that you don't answer questions, because you never do. I'm willing to debate that very clearly with

you, but to go back to something else other than the question that I asked you -- it's deplorable. Answer the questions I'm asking you.

You are using dollars that should be going to textbooks and special education to play politics, to reward your friends. That's the question: $8,000 to your

Premier's leadership bid and $29,000 for your party to get propaganda contracts. You've been caught lining the pockets of your friends while kids don't have soap and toilet paper in their

schools.

The Speaker: The member is going to have to withdraw that. You cannot say that. I ask you to withdraw it or you will be thrown out.

Mr Marchese: Withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker: I just caution the member. You can ask questions. You're crossing the line. You're going over it. You're at the line. I would ask

you to place your question. Your time's up. You've been over the time now. I'm going to give you some leeway. Please place your question now and please make sure it's parliamentary.

Mr Marchese: Will you, Minister, pull the plug immediately on the supervisors and PR consultants and put that money back where the kids really

need it? Will you do that?

Hon Mrs Witmer: That's exactly what our government has chosen to do. That's why we introduced the funding formula: in order to ensure that the

money did not go into salary increases of the type that I mentioned, in order that it would go into the classroom.

I would just hasten to add that the communication advisers have been hired in order that they can communicate the measures that have been undertaken to the

parents and keep the local community informed as to what is happening.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. My clean air plan is going to give two cents

of the gas tax to cities for investment in public transit. By getting people out of their cars and into public transit, my plan's going to clean up our air and fight gridlock. Gridlock, as you will

understand, Minister, is strangling the GTA. It's costing the economy billions of dollars, and it's robbing families of precious time together.

I've got a plan to fight gridlock and clean up our air. Minister, where is your plan?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Transportation): I don't think there's any government in the history of Ontario that has indicated more

support for transportation, be it public transit, building new roads or new transit corridors. This government has committed itself to a $3.25-billion program to improve public transit in this

province. We also recently took back GO Transit, saving municipalities some $100 million each and every year as they go forward, in spite of the fact that they got tax credit for that when we made

the changes back in 1997.

I could go on and on about this government's commitment to public transit. There is no other government that has put forward a promise that this government

has, and we're proud of it.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I honestly don't know how you could have said all that with a straight face. I'm not sure any government has ever done

less to act as a partner for our municipalities when it comes to supporting public transit.

As for this fantastic $3-billion promise over the course of the next 10 years, you're never going to come anywhere near to delivering that because we're going

to replace the government in about eight months.

Here's the truth, when it comes to your plan for public transit. Four years ago, you told municipalities that they were on their own. They said they couldn't

possibly cope on their own. You essentially said, "Tough luck." Now you've gotten back into the field, and it's too little too late. I'm talking about doubling the investment. I'm talking about two

cents of the gas tax being transferred to our municipal partners. I'm talking about attacking, in an aggressive way, both gridlock and dirty air. I've got a good plan. I say to you again, Minister,

where's yours?

Hon Mr Sterling: I don't know how the Leader of the Opposition, talking as a Liberal, can talk about investment in transportation when our

federal government, over the past seven years, has given less than 1% of the money that we have invested in our highways and in our public transit infrastructure.

Recently, in our own backyard, we gave the city of Ottawa $12 million for 57 new buses for the city of Ottawa. We have invested in transit stations with regard

to the subway here in Toronto. We have invested $1 billion in the subway on Sheppard Avenue when the federal government has put in nothing, absolutely nothing.

If you look at all our investments, they would far outstrip the two cents per litre of gasoline that the Leader of the Opposition would like to see. I

challenge the federal government to come forward and match the $3 billion that we are investing in public transit. Get David Collenette to put his money where his mouth is.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question today is to the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I'm often

asked by my constituents in the great riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale about what steps our government is taking to meet the needs of Ontario's growing aging population.

In the last couple of weeks, I've heard members of this House and the media comment on the review and changes to our government's bathing regulations for all

long-term-care facilities in Ontario. Minister, for the benefit of my constituents, could you please explain how this regulation has changed and what this means for seniors in long-term-care

facilities in our province?

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the hard-working member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale for his

question. I'm proud to say that the commitment of the Ernie Eves government to meeting the challenges of Ontario's growing aging population is clear and strong. It is clear because we've taken

steps such as an unprecedented $1.2 billion in the expansion of long-term-care beds across our province, and it's strong because this funding represents the largest-ever investment in health

services in Ontario's history.

Yes, we have reviewed the regulations for all long-term-care facilities. On July 31, we announced those changes, along with the largest infusion of funding for

nursing and personal care in the province's history, an unprecedented $100 million. We made these changes because we wanted to ensure that the bathing regulations were clear and that they were

consistent, regardless of whether you lived in a municipal home for the aged, a charitable home or a nursing home. I'm pleased to tell this House today that the amended regulation ensures that all

residents receive the care they need, when they need it and on a daily basis.

Mr Gill: Minister, I know you've been working very hard to fulfill our government's commitment to this important sector, a commitment that

will benefit Ontarians in every region of our province, including my constituents.

I was very pleased to hear the minister speak to our government's $100-million investment in nursing and personal care services in the long-term-care sector,

an investment that will mean even better care for residents. Could you please explain how the whole new bathing regulation you discussed will mean better quality of care and personal hygiene for

seniors in long-term-care facilities across Ontario?

Hon Mr Newman: To put it simply, the new bathing regulation will mean better care and personal hygiene in long-term-care facilities because

they recognize the individual needs of each and every long-term-care facility resident. The fact is that while some residents may be mobile, there are others who may be bedridden, and the needs of

each resident are different. The new regulation ensures that, regardless of their health condition, their personal hygiene needs are met.

Others agree with what the government has done. In fact, Karen Sullivan, the executive director of the Ontario Long Term Care Association, recently said that

her organization thinks the new rules are significantly better, that these new rules are much better than what was in place before.

I'm proud to say in this House today that the change reflects our government's ongoing commitment to ensure the best quality of care for each and every one of

the 61,000 residents in all of Ontario's long-term-care facilities.

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, we had an opportunity to ask you questions about the

private MRI clinics -- is the minister coming?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would you stop the clock for a minute?

Interjections.

The Speaker: His books are still here. He may have just stepped out. We'll allow some leeway for the member to start over.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health. Last week, we had an opportunity to ask this minister many

questions regarding the private MRI clinics that he's intending to introduce in Ontario. Apparently, there is an RFP process that should be available. This announcement was made in the late spring,

early summer.

What I have for the minister is a list of 18 hospitals in Ontario that have already submitted their requests, that have already raised the money to have their

own MRI machine at the hospital. Minister, I'd like to know today -- and please tell all of these 18 -- why you have not moved forward to approve hospitals that have already raised the money to

have an MRI and are just waiting your approval. Why are you moving forward on a private clinic front when 18 hospitals have already raised the money?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): If I may say so, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, this government,

the Ernie Eves government, is not only expanding diagnostics through independent health facilities, but we are expanding the funding for MRIs that already exists in our publicly funded hospitals by

90%. That is in our budget. That is from our throne speech. This is the commitment this government has to publicly funded services being accessible and available.

I say to the honourable member opposite, I beg to differ. Of course we want to support our MRIs in existence, MRIs that we put in place by and large as a

diagnostic services for the people of Ontario.

Mrs Pupatello: Minister, you are on an ideological bent to introduce private MRIs in Ontario even if they don't make sense. Last week at

estimates committee, you acknowledged that there is the likelihood that this government will also be giving capital money to private companies for the purchase of their equipment. When this

Minister of Health was asked that question, he would not deny it even though it was asked of him.

We'd like you to tell us, without all the semantics of money, if you are in such dire straits to introduce new MRIs into Ontario, to the point of allowing 20

private clinics, why will you not today approve the 18 in Ontario that have already raised the money to have their own MRIs? But this is in the public system; it doesn't make sense. Answer the

question: if we need more MRIs, and you've announced 20 privates, why will you not give approval for 18 in the public system that have already raised the money?

Hon Mr Clement: Let me state for the record that when the PC government came to power in 1995, there were 12 MRIs throughout the province of

Ontario. This year there are 51 MRIs. That was this government -- this government. We have a commitment from the Ernie Eves government to increase the amount of time available for these MRIs by

If the honourable member wishes to know where the next MRIs are going to be -- I'd be happy to take her advice, just as I take the advice of my caucus

colleagues who are representing their constituencies so well to make sure we have in Ontario accessible diagnostics as close to home as possible to end the waiting lists, to end the jam in the

system which means that diagnostic services are not where we need them. We are putting our money where our mouth is and we will continue to do so.

TOURISM

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Right at the end of question period yesterday I asked the lead question to the Minister of Tourism and

Recreation regarding a recent

article in the Toronto Star that had suggested the declining state of tourism spending here in Toronto. I appreciate the minister's first response, but I wanted to

take an opportunity to ask a follow-up question because it's just as important to look at the spending on tourism across the rest of Ontario.

Tourism is an integral part of our overall economy. The research I've done says that one out of every 12 jobs in the province is related to this sector.

Post-September 11 the province stood alone in spending $14 million, as I recall, to make sure that tourism marketing efforts were buttressed and to try to make

sure that Americans in particular knew that we were a safe place to visit.

My question to the minister, though, is this: a recent National Post

article highlighted the inequity in the federal spending that Quebec gets. I want to ask

the minister what steps he's taking to make sure Ontario gets its fair share and that tourism all across Ontario is promoted by his ministry.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): We've been waiting for five years to have a meeting with the federal minister of

tourism, and Allan Rock picked the city in BC, he picked the day, and then, five days before, he cancelled yet again.

The message we wanted to give to the federal government is that Ontario continues to promote festivals and events, many multicultural in nature.

The member for Scarborough-Rouge River was concerned when we in Ontario gave $350,000 to Caribana, or the Caribbean

cultural festival, and the federal government didn't give a penny -- didn't give a penny -- to support international relations and multiculturalism. Perhaps the federal government is sending us a

message: We get $4 million; Quebec gets $24 million -- six times more. But they did find $350,000 for the Just for Laughs festival in Montreal. So comedians got more money than the Caribbean

community in this province.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'd like to inform the House of my complete dissatisfaction with the

response from the Minister of Health. I've submitted the appropriate papers requesting a late show.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member for that advisement, and make sure that she gets the paperwork done.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities by 15% or $7.02 per diem

effective August 1, 2002; and

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

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the increase in the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day;

and

"Whereas according to the government's own funded study, Ontario ranks last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a resident for

nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

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

"We demand that Premier Eves reduce his 15% fee increase on seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities and increase provincial

government support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

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

HOME CARE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Conservative government has greatly restricted the eligibility criteria for Hamilton home care clients, causing drastic reductions in the amount,

duration and quality of services available to frail, sick and elderly people" in our city;

"Whereas home care clients deserve the provision of adequate government funding for home care services as their needs grow increasingly complex in the face of

continued government cutbacks to home care;

"Whereas the Conservative government shifted the costs of home care services on to the backs of the most vulnerable people in our communities;

"Whereas home care services are more cost-efficient for the health care system because they are dedicated to serving families in their homes so that more

costly institutional care can be prevented or delayed;

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

We demand "that the Conservative government review and change the criteria eligibility so that appropriate home care services can be provided to the most

vulnerable in our community when the need arises."

I support my constituents in signing this petition and add my name to theirs.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities by 15% or $7.02 per diem

effective August 1, 2002; and

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

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the increase in the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day;

and

"Whereas according to the government's own funded study, Ontario ranks last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a resident for

nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

comfort in this province;

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

"We demand that Premier Eves reduce his 15% fee increase on seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities and increase provincial

government support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

After I sign it, I will give this petition to Kyle, who will bring it to the table.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I'd like to draw to the attention of the assembly petitions that I received this summer with respect to the

long-term-care increase. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Conservative government increased fees paid by Ontario seniors and other vulnerable people living in long-term-care facilities by 15%, or $213 a

month, instead of providing adequate government funding for long-term care;

"Whereas the Conservative government has therefore shifted the costs of long-term care on to the backs of the frail elderly and their families;

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario;

"Whereas in 1996 Ontario abandoned its minimum requirement of 2.25 hours of nursing care per nursing home resident;

"Whereas the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day;

"Whereas, according to the government's own study, government cutbacks have resulted in Ontario seniors receiving just 14 minutes a day of care from a

registered nurse, less than half the time given to residents in Saskatchewan;

"Whereas the report also found that Ontario residents received the least nursing, bathing and general care of nine other comparable locations;

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

"We join the New Democratic Party in demanding the Conservative government eliminate the 15% fee increase for residents of long-term-care facilities, increase

the number of nursing care hours for each resident to a minimum of 3.5 hours per day, and provide stable, increased funding to ensure quality care is there for Ontario residents of long-term-care

facilities."

This is signed by hundreds of residents, specifically from my riding, and I agree with them.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care

facilities by 15%, or $7.02 per day, effective August 1, 2002; and

"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable" -- and their families, I would add -- "more than $200 per month; and

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the increase in the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per day; and

"Whereas, according to the government's own funding study, Ontario ranks" dead "last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a

resident for nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

affordability -- "of this province;

"Therefore,

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

"We demand that Premier Eves and his government reduce his 15% fee increase on seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities and increase

provincial government support for nursing and personal care services to adequate levels."

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

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a petition to the Legislature that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government's plan to privatize and deregulate Ontario's electricity system will lead to higher rates because private owners will sell more

power to US customers whose rates are typically 50% higher than Ontario's; and

"Whereas selling coal plants like Nanticoke to the private sector will lead to more pollution because the private owners will run the plants at full capacity

to earn full profit; and

"Whereas electricity deregulation in California has led to sky-high rates and blackouts; and

"Whereas Ontario needs a system of public power that will ensure rate stability, environmental protection and secure access to power;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the undersigned call on the government to scrap electricity deregulation and privatization and bring in a system of accountable

public power. The first priority for such a public power system must be incentives for energy conservation and green power. Electricity rates and major energy projects must be subject to full

public hearings and binding rulings by a public regulator instead of leaving energy rates to private profit."

I support these constituents and I also add my name to the petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

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

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

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

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

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

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

for nursing and personal care;

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

need;

"Whereas government needs to increase long-term-care operating funding by $750 million over the next three years" to raise the level of care in Ontario to the

same as Saskatchewan in 1999; and

"Whereas this province has been built by seniors ... who should be able to live out their lives with dignity;

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

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

provincial government provide adequate funding for nursing and personal care to a level that is at least the average standard for nursing and personal care" in the other jurisdictions.

I've also signed the petition.

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): This petition is regarding the Ontario disability support program.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas people with disabilities who rely on Ontario disability support program payments are facing rising costs; and

"Whereas people unable to work because of serious disabilities have had no increase in support since 1995; and

"Whereas with loss of rent controls their rents have skyrocketed, placing huge financial strains on many ODSP recipients;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to bring fairness to the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, by amending

it to provide regulations requiring annual cost-of-living adjustments to income support payments."

I affix my signature to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Conservative government increased fees paid by Ontario seniors and other vulnerable people living in long-term-care facilities by 15%, or $213 a

month, instead of providing adequate government funding for long-term care; and

"Whereas the Conservative government has therefore shifted the cost of long-term care on to the backs of the frail

elderly and their families; and

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas in 1996 Ontario abandoned its minimum requirement of 2.25 hours of nursing care per nursing home resident; and

"Whereas the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day; and

"Whereas according to the government's own study, government cutbacks have resulted in Ontario seniors receiving just 14 minutes a day of care from a

registered nurse -- less than half the time given to residents in Saskatchewan; and

"Whereas the report also found that Ontario residents receive the least nursing, bathing and general care of nine other comparable locations;

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

"Join the Ontario New Democratic Party in demanding the Conservative government eliminate the 15% fee increase for residents of long-term-care facilities,

increase the number of nursing care hours for each resident to a minimum of three and a half hours per day, and provide stable, increased funding to ensure quality care is there for Ontario

residents of long-term-care facilities."

As I'm in support, I also sign this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERJURISDICTIONAL SUPPORT

ORDERS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES ORDONNANCES ALIMENTAIRES

D'EXÉCUTION RÉCIPROQUE

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 23, 2002, on the motion for second reading of Bill 131,

An Act to facilitate the making, recognition and variation

of interjurisdictional support orders / Projet de loi 131, Loi visant à faciliter le prononcé, la reconnaissance et la modification des ordonnances alimentaires d'exécution

réciproque.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we start the debate, pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Windsor West, as she advised

us, has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to the question given by the Minister of Health concerning MRIs. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Debate? The member for Simcoe-Barrie-Bradford.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am pleased to join in the debate with respect to Bill 131,

An Act to facilitate the making,

recognition and variation of interjurisdictional support orders. It is with great pleasure that I speak today. The legislation is further proof of our government's commitment to protecting

Ontario's children.

The Interjursidictional Support Orders Act will make it easier and less costly for families to register, establish and vary support orders when parents live in

different jurisdictions. As you know, there are different jurisdictional laws with respect to this type of situation in terms of family law across each and every province.

These changes will also affect spousal support. We want to ensure that children and families get the money to which they are entitled. We believe that no child

should ever go without simply because one parent has left that province.

This legislation, if passed, would streamline the process for obtaining or varying an interjurisdictional support order. For example, the current complex

two-stage hearing process would be replaced with a single hearing process. Under a single hearing process, persons seeking to establish or vary a support order would complete the application

package, which would be sent to the reciprocating jurisdiction for support determination. This means that a hearing would only need to be held in the receiving jurisdiction, with it no longer being

necessary for the court in the originating jurisdiction to hold a provisional hearing as currently required.

We believe that simplifying the process makes sense for the families involved. The proposed act would recognize the challenges presented by an increasingly

mobile population by allowing for greater coordination among the provinces and the territories.

Our proposed bill would affect thousands of families and children. At any given time, there are over 7,000 Ontario support orders being enforced in other

jurisdictions, and that's an astounding figure. In addition, Ontario enforces over 5,000 support orders from other jurisdictions. The proposed legislation would replace the Reciprocal Enforcement

of Support Orders Act, which governs support cases where one party lives outside of Ontario.

Under the current legislation, Ontario has arrangements with all the other Canadian provinces, all US states, and many other countries to register, establish

and vary support orders when the parties are living in a different jurisdiction. Those agreements will continue under the proposed legislation.

Finding more and better ways to protect our children was a topic of discussion for provincial leaders at the 2001 annual Premiers' conference in Victoria, BC.

They recognized the importance of acting together to help secure healthy and prosperous futures for our children. To that end, the Premiers committed to introduce effective reciprocal family

support orders legislation in all provinces and territories.

Premier Eves reiterated his commitment to this legislation at the annual Premiers' conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, this summer. Ontario and other provinces

are doing their part to help children and families obtain or vary support orders in the most streamlined and least costly manner possible. It is now up to the federal government to do its part.

Our government had urged Ottawa to enact parallel legislation by amending the federal Divorce Act by the summer of 2002, but the federal government has yet to

move on this issue. This measure would streamline the process for establishing or changing support orders issued under federal rather than provincial law. It is important for governments to work

together to ensure healthy and prosperous futures for our children.

One must also understand the jurisdictional issues with respect to the breakup of a family in this country through our constitutional powers wherein the

federal government has jurisdiction with respect to divorce and custody orders arising out of that and the provincial governments have jurisdiction with respect to dealing with property matters

arising from a family dissolution.

The commitment to introduce uniform family support orders legislation was just one piece of a multi-pronged child protection agenda agreed to by the Premiers

at their August 2001 meeting. Provincial leaders also called on the federal government to follow Ontario's lead and establish a national sex offender registry for the sole use of the police. The

Premiers believe that the establishment of a national sex offender registry is required so that all Canadians know they can live in secure communities where children's safety is a high

priority.

I think all of us have been affected during the last summer with respect to the number of child abductions that occurred, especially in the United States, some

in very difficult to accept situations purely in terms of child abuse and other situations where the child was abducted and was part of a situation involving a family dissolution. Certainly we saw

both types of situation occur in California, and the measures the police have put in force with respect to dealing with child abductions are being looked at in this province at the municipal level

and through our police forces. It is a very difficult issue, and that's apart from dealing with family support orders and sex offenders and basically dealing with the abduction of children in the

situation and having what you want as a quick response to deal with that situation through our police forces and coordinated agencies.

Something was going on in terms of greater awareness of children missing and children being abducted. The media were playing a much greater role during this

past summer than I think I've witnessed in a long time. It really is a sad commentary on what's happening out there with respect to our young children and the protection they need.

In February this year, after much pressure from our government and others, the federal government agreed to implement some of the key features of the Ontario

sex offender registry. The government of this province is now calling on the federal government to move on this commitment and introduce legislation to implement a national registry. When we talk

about a mobile population and the technology that is out there with respect to how people communicate with each other, certainly that's something that could be done very easily in terms of dealing

with the protection nationally of children: set up a process in which we can work together from province to province and with the federal government.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I may be wrong and you'll tell me, but I believe that the rules indicate

that you're supposed to speak to the matter that's been called -- in this instance, Bill 131. The speaker seems grossly off-topic, and I believe that's out of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): That is of course a point of order, and I'm sure the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford will relate

his comments to the subject at hand.

Mr Tascona: I'm trying to look at the big picture. I'm looking at children in general in terms of this difficult situation. I can understand

the member from Thorold-Welland maybe having a little difficulty grasping that, but I'll continue to deal with this issue.

At the 2001 meeting, provincial leaders also called upon the federal government to help stop Internet luring of children and youth prostitution. That's

something we also were made very aware of this past summer. Ontario believes that swift action is required to shut down child pornography Web sites and stop cyber predators who use the Internet to

lure children. I think we've heard of some very serious situations this past year with respect to that type of activity. We're pleased that the federal government recently passed legislation to

make luring of children through the Internet a criminal offence.

On the issue of youth prostitution, our government has recently passed legislation that would rescue children from prostitution and other forms of sexual

exploitation.

That's the big picture in terms of dealing with children. Obviously, if we don't have a system in place with respect to support orders being enforced, it puts

a family that has been broken up in a very difficult situation. It puts pressure not only on the parent who has remained with the children, but also pressure on the children themselves in terms of

the framework they have to deal with in terms of, in certain situations, limited economic means.

The Rescuing Children from Sexual Exploitation Act permits police and children's aid workers to remove children from a range of dangerous situations, including

street prostitution, massage parlours, adult entertainment facilities, Internet sex lines and the pornography industry. This legislation will also allow the province to sue pimps and others who

sexually exploit children to recover the costs of treating their victims. This is yet another case where we had developed legislation that keeps pace with the changing times.

Protecting Ontario children, all Ontario children, is a priority of this government. The proposed legislation being debated today will further protect

Ontario's children, and that's what's important: making sure that we can work in as non-partisan a way as possible to deal with the protection of Ontario's children. It will help ensure that they

have the best and the brightest future possible.

The act which I have been speaking to and the other measures with respect to protecting children are a serious issue. It's not something that is in a vacuum;

it's something we deal with day to day. We have a lot of success stories and we have a lot of horror stories in terms of different means that are used to get at children.

One of the most fundamental things is, when you bring a child into this world, it certainly is a responsibility when you're dealing with two individuals that

they're going to raise that child in a responsible manner. Where one of the individuals leaves that family and puts the family that they've left behind in economic straits -- and everybody knows

that's out there. It's a very difficult situation where they've left the province, they've left the country. How do you enforce those orders? The order is in place. The system works with respect to

getting the order. It's understandable in terms of what the process is, in terms of the court process, in terms of getting that order and what's needed for that family. That's already been

predetermined.

Then we get into the issue of enforcement, and that is a very challenging issue. We have to simplify the process. We have to make it more expeditious. We have

to make it more timely in terms of dealing with this type of situation, because what we're talking about here is an order of the court. It's a court order that the individual who is trying to evade

it -- even if they don't want to pay it, they've got a court order that they have to respond to, and they decide to leave the jurisdiction to make it difficult for that order to be enforced.

What happens in the interim is, it's the family that was left behind that is facing a situation where there was an expectation, a trust in the court system

that they would be protected, and that doesn't happen. So what happens is a situation where a family has significant pressures on them, not only economic but social, and we have to, as a society,

be there to assist them. But at the end of the day, the integrity of the court system with respect to what a support order means has to be enforced. Otherwise it is just a meaningless process. To

leave the province, to leave the country, evading an order of the court, is something we have to be very, very aware of in terms of how we're going to react. I think the Attorney General has moved

in that direction and in terms of enforcement, making sure that these interjurisdictional support orders -- because it may be that the individual did not leave the province for any reason other

than to find other work; maybe not to evade that particular order. By the same token, that individual, because of the court order, has certain responsibilities, certain obligations that have to be

met. The family that is left behind is put in a very difficult situation in trying to enforce that in terms of the time lag that is left behind.

This piece of legislation is, quite frankly, very complex. It's not an easy situation to go into other jurisdictions that have different laws and to get them

to respect the order that was put in that province. The numbers that I indicated today -- 7,000 orders that we're looking to have enforced in other provinces, 5,000 orders that are being sought to

be enforced in this province -- are very significant numbers. Those are significant numbers that require a lot of court time, a lot of effort and certainly a streamlining of the process, which is

being proposed here.

It's something that has to be done, because if you're dealing with support and the social network that we want to have in place, if the families were expecting

that type of support and it has no effect because someone has left the jurisdiction, or the time lag that goes in there in terms of the amount of money -- and we've read it in the newspaper, where

you've seen figures in excess of six figures, where the arrears of those support orders are staggering. You wonder how the families can cope with that, in terms of the expectation that they felt

they would be, not necessarily what we call "looked after," but they could trust the court system to be relied on in dealing with a very difficult situation, which is a family breakup, and the

responsibilities that they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. They have to live day to day. They have to deal with the situation they've been dealt.

The integrity of the court system in this province, let alone in all the provinces and that of the federal government -- when you're dealing with either a

divorce or a separation or dealing with a situation where there's an agreement reached out of court that now has to be enforced through the court system because that support is not there.

So you're looking at some very challenging situations here. Obviously, the system needs to be addressed because of what we have before us here today. The

intention is to make the process more streamlined, to make sure it works and to make sure the provinces and other countries are a part of the process and that they understand it. It can be very

difficult for the practising lawyer who is trying to deal with another jurisdiction, or you have to get a lawyer from another jurisdiction to look into that situation to get through a lot of the

red tape to understand how that particular state, if it's in the United States, or that other province, works. They all have their own unique systems.

What we're looking at here is to say, "OK, we have an order from Ontario; we want that enforced here" -- it's very simple -- and for the judge to say, "OK, I

have the jurisdiction to do this," bang, and it's all over with in terms of making sure that order gets enforced in that particular province and they locate that individual and they make sure that

person pays. That's not an easy process because you never know if the person decides they're going to leave that province and go to another province. It just becomes a game of cat and mouse in some

circumstances; in others, it's just a basic situation where they're found and they have to make their payments.

I'm pleased to speak on this bill and I certainly hope it would be supported in a non-partisan fashion in the House.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I did appreciate the member's comments about the importance of the exploitation-of-children act. I

certainly agree with that. That legislation was first presented in a private member's legislation by my colleague from Sudbury and we were very pleased to see the government bring it forward so

that it could in fact be passed last spring.

We were hoping that Bill 131, the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, which was also on the agenda last spring, might have been brought forward by

government in a timely way so that it too could have been passed, so that the support it now offers to children, or will offer when it's passed, would have been in place for the summer period. If

the government had been able to get its act together on its legislative agenda last spring, we might not be having to spend the days debating something now which we all know to be supportive of

children and families.

As we offer our support for this particular piece of legislation, I would hope that the government members are not intending to spend the debate period patting

themselves on the back for the kind of support they're providing to families and children who are trying to see court support orders enforced. This is the exact same government that has made such a

mess of family support order enforcement, that continues to be unable to see enforcement of court support orders, that it would be impossible for this government to think they were taking anything

but a small step with Bill 131.

The auditor who reviewed this file said the government had nothing in place to enforce court support orders when it shut down the regional offices that were

doing a very adequate job of ensuring that support orders were being enforced. The auditor said the government had nothing in place to do that. Three years later he reviewed the file and said they

still don't have their act together when it comes to having real enforcement for court support orders.

My office, and I'm sure it's true for every member here, spends more time helping families get court orders enforced than on any other issue. It's time for the

government to get its act together on family support on the large scale.

Mr Kormos: It's been almost a year since I spoke to this bill. It was on first reading, November 8, 2001; that's almost 12 months ago now. I

indicated then on behalf of this caucus that the legislation was in the largest

part inoffensive and should receive due consideration by this assembly and should be subjected to the committee

process.

This government dawdled, dragged its feet, puttered around -- I'm being very careful because the Speaker earlier today

admonished members of this assembly about the kind of language they used, so I'll leave it at merely "puttered around" -- and finally we have second reading. Well, good. Let's carry on with this

debate and let's get this bill out to committee so people from the family bar can assist this assembly in fine-tuning and tweaking and making improvements where the bill should be improved, based

on their day-to-day practical experience.

But the government's missing the mark. The urgency isn't here. The urgency is in access to the courts. The urgency is in access to legal representation to

lawyers because of the ongoing trashing of legal aid that this government has engaged in since 1995. The fact is -- and I'm going to speak to this in about an hour's time -- most Family Court

litigants can't get legal counsel because the cap on legal aid certificates makes it impossible for any responsible lawyer to adequately and properly represent that person, inevitably women with

children.

So we've got to talk about the Family Responsibility Office, which now, six years later, has still not been fixed, leaving women and kids hungry and without

the support payments due them. We'll be talking about that in due course.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I'm pleased to support this bill, but like my colleagues before me I'm wondering why it's so long

overdue. This should have been instituted a long time ago.

The largest number of calls I get in my office are about housing and FRO, quite often from the same constituents, because obviously these issues are related.

When you don't have money from your former spouse, you have trouble paying a reasonable rent for a reasonable apartment.

My concern here is enforcement, as the member just mentioned. Is this going to be another Brian's Law, where on paper it looks great, but if you don't have the

resources to enforce it, if you don't have the mental health services out there for people you can report who need the help, nothing happens? That's my concern with this as well.

I was speaking to our critic for community and social services, and she brought up a good point in our discussion: first, we should be cleaning up Ontario and

then looking at other jurisdictions. We have people right here in the province whom we can't track down or have trouble tracking down and, once we do, forcing them to fulfill their responsibility

as former spouses and as parents. We pay for that. We pay for that in years and years to come when these kids don't have the very basic needs: good food, being able to go on a school trip -- very

basic needs.

The stress it causes the parents also increases the possibility and the probability of abuse in the family. I am never, ever going to defend any parent for

abusing their child, but it is a fact that the more stress in the family, the more you increase the possibility of child abuse. So there are links here.

We will support this bill, of course. We think it's long overdue. We think there should be enforcements in place so that it doesn't just look pretty on paper

but does nothing out there in the real world.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I wanted to take this opportunity to express a few comments, particularly to the member for

Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, who has a particularly effective way of putting across his points. He makes them very clearly and very sincerely, and it's very gratifying to hear him put forth our

government's proposal on this very effective and very worthwhile bill.

I wanted to compliment, more than go off on any extraneous comments, like some others may have, about other policies and other things that have been done, both

by this government recently and their governments in the past. I think it's a very worthwhile bill. It will put our Ontario laws in conformance with those of other provinces. It'll make it a lot

easier. One of the other members mentioned the problems some families have in coming up with resources and money for legal counsel and so on. This will rectify that by making it less costly and

more effective to get into the system that gets them the benefits and the results they deserve. It will help that.

I think anything we do of that nature is very worthwhile, and I just wanted to commend the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford for the way he put across the

points and spoke to the bill and made those suggestions on how we should move forward and get this piece of legislation voted on and passed.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mr Tascona: I'm certainly pleased to respond to the comments made by the members from Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Niagara Centre, Hamilton Mountain

and Perth-Middlesex. There seems to be a consensus that they support the legislation in a non-partisan way, and that is good.

This is a national problem requiring national attention. The federal government is not listening with respect to dealing with this issue. As I stated earlier,

we've urged Ottawa to enact parallel legislation by amending the federal Divorce Act, but the federal government has yet to move on the issue. They're responsible for divorce, the breakup of the

marriage, the custody orders that follow, and support. They have done nothing to deal with this process, to streamline it and to get support orders issued under federal jurisdiction enforced.

That is the issue. It's one thing to go to court and get yourself an order, be it through a divorce proceeding, be it through support, with respect to family

matters through the provincial jurisdiction. It's another thing to enforce it. When you're dealing with a mobile population and with people who are in other provinces -- as I indicated earlier,

there are 7,000 orders that we're looking to get enforced in other jurisdictions, other provinces across this country, and 5,000 orders from other provinces to be enforced here -- it's a national

problem requiring national attention. The federal government has chosen not to treat this as a priority issue. They have jurisdiction with respect to dealing with divorce and the orders that follow

through there. So it is a difficult problem. It requires enforcement, and that's what we're doing.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I'm happy to rise on behalf of the official opposition to express our support for this bill.

The process that led to this bill is one that has really been underway for many years. It commenced in the 1980s under the leadership of one of my legislative

heroes, Ian Scott, and others.

We have a federalist system, so obviously, on paper, it might be difficult to get a court order in one province enforced in another. We live in an increasingly

global world, making the importance of ensuring reciprocity even greater. The principle of reciprocity, legislated in the name of achieving and enforcing justice for the protection of victims of

deadbeat dads and deadbeat spouses, is one which obviously has the support of Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals. Justice delayed, as they say, is justice denied. Having these support orders

without the ability to enforce them makes the right to such spousal support, without a remedy, useless. This bill seeks to achieve reciprocity in that regard.

We're pleased that the bill is now before the House. It is a bill that was first introduced in November. The province of Manitoba, among others, has similar

legislation before their House. It has passed in the province of Manitoba. The time has come to pass it here in Ontario.

Some important work must be done, obviously, in committee to deal with the details in this bill. All bills, I think, are subject to that observation, but this

bill more than ever. We need to hear from the experts to ensure that there are no loopholes for deadbeat dads and deadbeat spouses to jump through.

I'd like to think this bill is currently before this House also in part because of the efforts of members of this House

who have tried to hold this government to account when it comes to the output, or lack thereof, of the Family Responsibility Office. I've spoken about the subject of the Family Responsibility

Office and deadbeat dads at length in the past, and will continue to do so. I know that my colleagues -- and I'll be sharing my time with the members for York South-Weston, Kingston and the Islands

and Windsor West in just a moment -- will be speaking to that as well. But, in a nutshell, it goes without saying that having 75% of the cases before the Family Responsibility Office unsolved does

not exactly represent a crackdown on deadbeat dads, which means that the promise made by the Harris government in 1995 and 1999 that there would be such a crackdown turned out to be a promise

broken.

Perhaps to some extent this bill is before this House as a result of that criticism in an effort to hold the government to account, and that would be a good

thing. As I said, it's also before this House as part of an effort undertaken by all provinces to try to ensure that we have reciprocity of these orders.

I do look forward to exploring this bill in greater detail before committee. I also look forward to seeing other justice bills promised by Attorneys General

present and past from this government on matters of access to justice. I look forward to debating issues with respect to legal aid. Reference has been made to it by Mr Kormos. I look forward to

working with the Attorney General in the coming days and weeks in addressing the very important issue of access to justice under the specific subject of contingency fees.

The time has come -- the Court of Appeal for Ontario has said, as has the bar, as now has the bench -- to legalize and regulate contingency fees in Ontario so

that our brutally accessible justice system receives access to all, or to more, so that what is now the practice of many counsels in Ontario is in fact regulated and that we join the rest of the

provinces in legalizing and regulating this.

I look forward to this debate in the future and to discussing as much with the Attorney General. For now we are going to deal with the bill before us. I'll be

sharing my time with the members already mentioned.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I just want to comment very briefly on Bill 131. As my colleague before me has suggested, we will

support this piece of legislation. We believe, to reinforce what he has said already, that achieving reciprocity with other jurisdictions is important. Again, it's a question of the lack of

enforced orders that we're dealing with. Enforcement is a theme that runs throughout this issue and has for many years. The resources are simply not there to make certain that there is

enforcement.

I would suggest this is a theme that runs through most of what this government does: the lack of enforcement, lack of inspection, whether it's dealing with the

environment, and we've seen the outcome of that, or whether it's dealing with other very important matters. The whole question of accountability was mentioned as well when it comes to dealing with

the government's laying before the public what it's supposed to know and being transparent about what it is doing with very important areas. The Family Responsibility Office is an area of concern

that the opposition has raised repeatedly. So in order to ensure that there is accountability, the government has to dedicate greater resources.

An area I am very concerned about now has to do with SuperBuild. There the government is failing to provide the accountability that's necessary and failing to

make proper disclosure. We're seeing this happen repeatedly with the government on a number of fronts. It's because this government has cut back so drastically on these m