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

June 11, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Jun-11 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 11 June 2003 Mercredi 11 juin 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ST ANTHONY'S PARISH

FIRE IN DELHI

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

IRMA BURMAN

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

SARS

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

BSE

TIM HORTONS CAMP DAY

VISITORS

ANNUAL REPORT,

INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

PIPELINE EXCAVATION SAFETY

AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

ET LA RESPONSABILISATION

RELATIVES À L'EXCAVATION

DE PIPELINES

MACDONALD-CARTIER

FREEWAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'AUTOROUTE MACDONALD-CARTIER

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

SMART GROWTH

NURSES

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HOME CARE

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

VISITORS

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

CITY OF WINDSOR ADMINISTRATION

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

INSURANCE RATES

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

HYDRO RATES

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Wednesday 11 June 2003 Mercredi 11 juin 2003

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ST ANTHONY'S PARISH

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): It's with a great deal of pride that I stand here today and offer our congratulations to St Anthony's parish on

its 50th anniversary celebration, la festa del cinquante anniversario. This parish has been the bedrock of consistency and comfort for people of all ages in Sudbury. The parish has provided

consistency, comfort, refuge and a place of spiritual guidance and renewal. For parishioners of St Anthony's, it has been the foundation and cornerstone of our faith, hope and the values we hold

dear.

Their celebrations start tonight with a tridium at the church. That will continue until Friday, when there will be the annual St Anthony's Festival. There will

be the mass and then the traditional distribution of the holy bread. On Saturday, they will celebrate their 50th anniversary with a mass and a gala dinner and dance at the Caruso Club. On Sunday,

we will have our traditional St Anthony's Festival. After mass, there will be a parade through the streets of Gatchell, and then there will be fun and games for people of all ages.

I'd like to congratulate Father Rodgers and Rita Verrilli, the chair of the parish council, for their hard work in planning this very special time. St Anthony's

community has helped build Gatchell and Sudbury and made it a very strong place. We are proud of what that community has done for our community, and so, together, all of us in this House and the

constituents of Sudbury say auguri, congratulations.

FIRE IN DELHI

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): On the evening of Tuesday, May 27, more than 50 firefighters from six Norfolk county fire stations

converged on Delhi as a warehouse blaze shot flames 200 feet in the air and filled the sky with black smoke. Firefighters, construction companies and others in the community spent the better part

of two days battling the fire, fuelled by 1,500 bales. Some 4,500 feet of irrigation pipe had to be laid to supply extra water.

In recent years, we've all been reminded of the selfless efforts and heroic dedication of our emergency service workers, and we're all grateful for the

protection they provide. We owe them a debt of thanks.

I'd like to point out that, as in many rural communities, our fire departments are primarily volunteers. I'd also like to make note that this past weekend marked

the retirement of a volunteer with the Vittoria fire department. Jim Melville is hanging up his suspenders after 36 years, give or take, of dedicated service.

At this time, I would like to express my sincere thanks to all those emergency workers, firefighters, police officers, county personnel, Ministry of the

Environment workers and private companies that were at the scene and involved in the battle, a battle that our local paper dubbed the "Delhi inferno." These people continue to ensure the safety of

Norfolk county.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): As the cost of dealing with unanticipated as well as expected health concerns continues to rise, as

disability pensions remain capped at 1993 rates, as the Ministry of the Environment scrambles to find enough staff and financial resources to protect the fragile ecosystem, as municipalities are

forced to raise property taxes and cut services to meet new burdensome costs from the downloading of provincial responsibilities, as nursing home patients are forced to pay even more for badly

underfunded services, the Eves Conservatives have an endless supply of taxpayer dollars to squander on self-congratulatory, blatantly partisan advertising on television and radio, in newspapers and

magazines, and on glossy self-promoting pamphlets mailed to every Ontario home. Whether warning people about the dangers of SARS or the West Nile virus, urging people to buy Ontario government

bonds, or promoting education or health programs, the Eves government injects a strong dose of partisanship into each and every ad and sends the bill to Ontario taxpayers.

Members of the Ontario Legislature will have an opportunity to put an end to this abuse of public office, an abuse of taxpayers, by passing the Preventing

Partisan Advertising Act, 2003, which I have presented to the Legislature to be debated and voted upon tomorrow morning. The Tory ad agencies that make millions of dollars from the taxpayers may be

disappointed, but hard-working Ontario taxpayers will thank this Legislature for passing my bill.

IRMA BURMAN

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding individual who recently passed away in Scarborough.

Irma Burman was born on April 30, 1917, on a farm in Thorold, Ontario. Her maiden name was Kuhnel and she was the youngest of five children, I am told. I am also told that Irma was always an

adventurous young lady.

Irma moved to Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1927 with her family, and returned to Canada in 1935, settling in Toronto, where she started a career in the

restaurant business and catering. She married Walter in 1947, and in 1949 their first son, Jon, was born. In 1955, Irma won the Irish Sweepstakes and used the proceeds, $2,000, for a downpayment on

the family's first home at 75 Fenwood Heights. Her son Bart was born in 1959, two years prior to the purchase of the family's current home on Centennial Road, more recently known as Tall Pines

Court.

Subsequently, throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, Irma worked tirelessly for the preservation of the Rouge Valley, Meadowvale pond and Centennial swamp. Back

in those years, it was an exploding community, with new homes and subdivisions. Irma's main interests were in planning and environmental issues. She was helpful throughout the years to her many

friends and neighbours and stayed active and interested in political issues that affected her friends and neighbours. Irma Burman was an outstanding individual and a role model for many.

I stand today to pay tribute to Irma and the many accomplishments of her lifetime. She will be missed.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): Contrary to the claims of Chris Stockwell, I don't believe it is common practice to use riding

association money to pay for family vacations. In fact, this is a complete abuse of a privilege members have, whereby riding associations can assist members with political expenses.

Fundraising is a necessary and, for me, the least-liked aspect of the political process, but I take the process very seriously. When supporters decide to offer

financial support, they do so because they believe in what I stand for and the issues that I work on. Their expectation is that the money they contribute will be used for direct political purposes,

primarily to fund political campaigns. When holding a fundraising reception, I explain how raising money is a necessary part of our democratic political system and I thank them for contributing to

the process. I believe that the expectations of my contributors are that their donations will be used to further my political career and will not be used for personal purposes. I can't imagine the

reaction if, after an event, after thanking everyone for their contributions, I let them know that it's my intention to use the money to finance a luxury family trip to Europe. I don't believe

anyone in the room would approve of that expenditure.

As elected officials, we have many financial resources available to us to carry out our duties. When any one of us abuses those privileges, it brings contempt

upon our democratic system. Shame on you, Mr Stockwell.

SARS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): SARS continues to wreak havoc on Ontarians and Ontario, yet not a penny from the federal Liberals in support

to aid in addressing the impact that SARS has had on people's lives and on communities here in Ontario. What do we get from the federal Liberals? A taxpayer-funded Rolling Stones concert. Let me

tell you, there are nurses out there who have been telling this government and telling anyone who will listen that they need adequate protective gear. There are nurses out there who have been loud

and clear about needing more staffing because nurses have been run ragged, along with other health professionals, as they respond front-line, at great risk to themselves, to the SARS crisis.

Yet the federal Liberals give us a taxpayer-funded Rolling Stones concert. I was shocked this morning to see that, yes, the province of Ontario has joined the

bandwagon, the Globe and Mail reporting that it's throwing $2 million into that hopper as well.

Let me tell you, where I come from folks have no interest whatsoever in this type of circus in response to real crisis. They have no interest in seeing their tax

money wasted on a Rolling Stones concert when those tax dollars should be invested in rebuilding the health care system.

By the way, I say to the government: Rolling Stones? Why don't you give Walter Ostanek a call, Canada's polka king down in St Catharines? You could probably

persuade him to do it for free, and he has had more Grammy nominations and awards than the Rolling Stones ever have.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to tell my fellow members about how this government is investing in fish and wildlife in my

great riding of Perth-Middlesex.

On behalf of the Honourable Jerry Ouellette, our hard-working Minister of Natural Resources, I announced $60,000 worth of provincial funding for projects which

will rehabilitate fish and wildlife habitats and encourage outdoor recreation. This funding was provided under Ontario's Living Legacy fish and wildlife protection and enhancement program.

The municipality of West Perth and the Mitchell wetlands committee are each receiving $15,000 to help rehabilitate the former Mitchell sewage lagoons. The

decommissioned sewage lagoons in Mitchell will be converted into approximately 50 acres of managed wetlands, which will create habitat for migratory shorebirds. As well, Local Outdoors

Opportunities Partners, known as LOOP for short, is receiving $30,000. This money will help fund a water study on Trout Creek, the only remaining cold water stream in Perth county, and the

reforestation of sites in Perth and Huron counties. As well, one third of LOOP's funding will go toward encouraging Perth county's youth to try fishing and outdoor activities at events like this

Saturday's Youth Day, hosted by the Mitchell Fish and Game Club.

These are just a few of the more than 800 fish and wildlife projects which have received funding from Ontario's Living Legacy, the largest natural heritage

program in provincial history.

BSE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): It appears as if our Minister of Agriculture is now taking lessons from the Chris Stockwell school of

deny everything, and if all else fails, call a reporter with a long-standing history of integrity a liar.

Monday morning's Canadian Press story by Colin Perkel regarding Ontario meat inspectors reports an interview with Dr Tom Baker, the head of the ministry's food

inspection branch. Dr Baker confirmed in this interview that at least one third of the inspectors in this province lacked specific BSE training.

The Minister of Agriculture has her people running around for two days figuring out how to spin this, and all she can come up with is to accuse Perkel of false

and inaccurate reporting.

The internal e-mails out of this ministry speak for themselves. I've got those e-mails right here. Cora Castro, project coordinator, meat inspection, e-mails out

to inspection managers on May 27, 2003, asking for names of inspectors who have not had the BSE training done a couple of years ago. This e-mail was marked high priority -- no kidding. Here's

another from an area inspection manager desperately trying to find out who hasn't had BSE training. They don't even know who has and has not been trained.

Colin Perkel is a tough but honest reporter who has taken shots at all of us. His integrity, though, has never come into question. Shame on the Minister of

Agriculture for suggesting otherwise. The evidence speaks for itself. Mr Perkel is not the one making false and misleading statements.

TIM HORTONS CAMP DAY

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): This morning I was able to spend some time in my beautiful riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. I was there to

participate in the Tim Hortons Camp Day. Today Tim Hortons stores are celebrating their annual Camp Day fundraiser. This is the single largest fundraiser for the Tim Horton Children's Foundation,

and spans more than 2,200 Tim Hortons stores in Canada and 160 stores in the United States.

Buy a cup of coffee today and help to send more than 9,000 kids, who could otherwise not afford it, on the camping adventure of a lifetime.

Last year, thanks to the support of their customers, Tim Hortons raised $4.8 million in 24 hours. This money has allowed more than 54,000 children and youth

since 1974 to attend a foundation camp, including the Tim Hortons camp in the Parry Sound district.

These children are selected from local communities by store owners, in conjunction with local organizations. The success would not be possible without the store

owners and staff.

Today I was at the store in Gravenhurst with the owners, Jeff and Patty Watson, and their staff to help pour coffee and greet customers. They had a great crowd

of people coming through the store supporting the event. The Watsons' store is one of many participating in this important event in my riding. Dave and Tim Gibson's stores in Parry Sound and Nobel,

and Larry Greenwood's stores in Huntsville and Bracebridge are also donating their entire coffee proceeds.

Tim Hortons Camp Day is a great event and I was happy to be there to help support this charity. I would like to encourage you all to support Tim Hortons and Camp

Day throughout the province today.

Congratulations and thanks to Tim Hortons staff for their dedication to a very worthwhile charity.

VISITORS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the gallery today is Helena Nielsen, who is the former school

trustee for Scarborough. She is joined by Anny Schmid-Gauss, who is the daughter of the former mayor of Braunsdorf, Austria, and is accompanied by her husband, Gunter Schmid, both visiting from

Austria.

ANNUAL REPORT,

INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today I've laid upon the table the 2002 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated June 11, 2003, of

the standing committee on government agencies.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

adoption.

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

Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting Tyndale College & Seminary (formerly Ontario Bible College and Ontario Theological Seminary).

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting the Society of Professional Accountants of Ontario, be not reported.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

Mr Conway moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 94,

An Act to amend the Election Act, 2003 / Projet de loi 94, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): With an eye to the political calendar here in Ontario, I thought it was time for me, and on

behalf of my friend Mr Bradley, to introduce a bill that is very simple. It would require that in future Ontario provincial general elections the ballot set out not just the names of the candidates

but the political affiliation of said candidates.

PIPELINE EXCAVATION SAFETY

AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

ET LA RESPONSABILISATION

RELATIVES À L'EXCAVATION

DE PIPELINES

Mr Sergio moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 95,

An Act to provide for greater safety and accountability in pipeline excavations and to amend the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000 to require

annual reports in the pipeline sector and to increase penalties for offences under the Act / Projet de loi 95, Loi prévoyant une sécurité et une responsabilisation accrues en

matière d'excavation de pipelines et modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes techniques et la sécurité afin d'exiger la présentation de rapports annuels dans le secteur des

pipelines et d'augmenter les peines imposées pour les infractions à la Loi.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): This bill calls for enhanced rules with respect to activities or excavations that may interfere with pipeline

that is used for transmission or distribution of oil and gas. This act would provide for greater safety and accountability in pipeline excavations and would amend the Technical Standards and Safety

Act, 2000, to require annual reports in the pipeline sector and to increase penalties for offences under the act. The

short title is the Pipeline Excavation Safety and Accountability Act, 2003.

This bill follows the tragic deaths of eight Ontarians as a result of an explosion at a Toronto west-end strip mall last April. The deadly explosion occurred

while a road crew was digging up a sidewalk and a backhoe accidentally struck a buried gas line. Within days, another person was killed in Windsor due to a powerful gas explosion and three other

victims were injured.

There needs to be a commitment to reduce the hazards that are often caused by human error or by digging too close to gas pipelines. I believe we have a

responsibility to protect the public and to make gas pipelines safe. If my bill is approved by the Legislature, we can reduce the chance of another incident and loss of lives.

MACDONALD-CARTIER

FREEWAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR L'AUTOROUTE MACDONALD-CARTIER

Mr Lalonde moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 96,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act to officially recognize Highway 401 as the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway / Projet de

loi 96, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement des voies publiques et des transports en commun afin de reconnaître officiellement l'autoroute 401 comme l'Autoroute Macdonald-Cartier.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Highway 401 was named the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway in 1965 by Premier John Robarts to

honour two fathers of Confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George-Étienne Cartier. The name "Macdonald-Cartier Freeway" has never been formally designated in legislation.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): First, I'd like to congratulate francophone affairs for

being once again 100% from the privacy commissioner.

I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

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

Hon Mr Baird: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following changes be made to the ballot list for private members' public

business:

Mrs Boyer and Mr Colle exchange places in order of precedence such that Mrs Boyer assumes ballot item number 20 and Mr Colle assumes ballot item number 17.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. I'd like to return to the matter of your largest

fundraiser giving your largest donor highly unusual assistance with pension money.

But before I do, I have a question for you. Mario Cortellucci isn't just the biggest donor; he also happens to be a fundraiser himself. Minister, I'd like you

to tell us if you think it's appropriate for you to be the judge and jury in this case when you yourself raised over $128,000 at fundraisers held by Mr Cortellucci and his brother at his banquet

hall.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): First of all, I'm not the judge and jury here. The

fact of the matter is, the matter was reported back to me by my deputy minister, and a report came back from the general counsel. So we have looked at the process, we think it's appropriate, and

that's the end of the story.

Ms Pupatello: Minister, we know you've done well by Mario Cortellucci. Raising $120,000 is a lot of work, and perhaps you feel you owe him.

It's interesting that the Cortellucci hall is absolutely nowhere near Markham, which is your riding.

I know Ernie Eves and the PC Party have done well by Mario Cortellucci; more than $1 million is a lot of money. But I'd like to ask you about your top

fundraiser, Mr Don Weiss. So far you've refused to offer details about the operation of the Ontario Pension Board since you appointed Don Weiss as chair. Can you tell us why Don Weiss's salary was

increased by 67% in 2001, at a time when the pension board had its worst performance in five years?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, if we look at things on a rational basis, as I said before, the Ontario pension fund is the only major pension

fund that actually made money over their past performance, where the average loss of public sector pension funds has been in the neighbourhood of about 5%. So clearly the member is wrong in

that.

Secondly, with respect to process, which she was asking originally before she got on to this other stuff, frankly, the authority to make all these type of

investments -- I have been part of the process; I have talked about it. It's been that way since 1991 and there has been no change.

Ms Pupatello: The information is found in the annual report of the Ontario Pension Board. The pension board's annual report states that the

year after Don Weiss took over was the worst performance in half a decade, but he gave himself a 67% increase in salary anyway.

We know you appointed Don Weiss to head the pension board. We know he worked as a fundraiser for the PC Party while he was on the board. We know he lent

millions of dollars to your top donor. No one can explain the decision of the Ontario Pension Board about the operation of the pension board.

I'm wondering if you can explain something else. Why did Don Weiss, since he has become chair of the Ontario Pension Board, cut the spending on audits there by

40%? Why is there 40% less spending on the auditing of investments under your top fundraiser?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's nice if we could deal with some facts, again. Let's return to the facts for a second. The member again is talking about

whether the pension fund has been successful or not. Frankly, as I said, it's the only major public sector pension fund that actually made money.

If I can return to that again, if we look at the plan's 10-year rate of return to December 31, 2002, it averaged 9.86% per annum. Clearly the fund is

performing. Clearly we have processes -- I have been continually saying this for about a week -- with respect to the authority that actually makes these investments. I believe the process is there;

the process has been followed.

As much as the member over there wants to try to smear people, I would suggest that if she had any guts at all, she'd say that outside of the House. Maybe some

of the members of the media might ask her about her specific allegations outside of the House and let her explain those and stand by those statements.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is to the government House leader. Yesterday it was revealed for the first time that in fact your

family's expenses for the European trip were picked up by the riding association of Etobicoke Centre. You said yesterday, "It was a trip to Europe and they" -- the riding association -- "agreed to

pay. They raised the money." That's not what was said last week. Last week you said of your family's expenses, "I just paid for it myself. I paid them personally."

This is a serious discrepancy, and it strikes at the heart of the accountability and credibility of the story and of the minister. We get version 1 one week

and a different version the next week. What are we to believe?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): If you check the records from Hansard, I said the government

didn't pay. I can understand that to some degree it was confusing. I certainly apologize, but it was fully an intention that I pay for some personally, the riding association files and they pay for

others.

The only reason I didn't respond to that is because you didn't ask the question. Had you asked the question, I would have told you that.

Mr Bryant: Speaking of the Hansard, in one of the supplementaries I said that my "question is not about the attendance of your family. The

member said that he paid for those expenses, and I take the honourable member at his word." You said that you paid for those expenses, and I took you at your word. You did not stand up and correct

the record. I said in the supplementary that you paid for those expenses and I said that I took you at your word.

Why did you not correct the record? Everybody in this House was led to believe that you picked up those expenses, and I took you at your word. We have to be

able to take members at their word. Why, when I stated those facts, did you not correct the record?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I sincerely apologize for not correcting the member's record.

Mr Bryant: I say to the minister, clearly the people of Ontario were led to believe last week that the entirety of your personal expenses and

family expenses were picked up by you. Not only is this leaving facts out, but this is a matter of people being led to believe that your family's expenses were picked up by you, and that was simply

not the case. Now we hear corrections and apologies.

There is one way to begin to get to the bottom of this, and that is for you to release all your expenses and receipts so that we can see who paid for what on

this most infamous European excursion. If you duck this opportunity to release all the information and all the facts, it will speak volumes. Will you release the records?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I think the question is somewhat unfair with respect to correcting your record. I mean, if that's what you said -- you may

have said that; I didn't say that.

Secondly, you're talking about the expenses for my family with respect to a trip. Let me cast your mind back to June 25, 2002. Mr McGuinty, the leader of your

party, was asked about $17,000 he billed the taxpayers for his family travel. He billed $17,000 to taxpayers.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Let me finish.

He said he wasn't going to pay it back; he thought his family should be with him. I didn't quibble with him. I understand that this job can be demanding and

difficult. I did not quibble with the leader of the official opposition, and he spent $17,000 of taxpayers' money on family travel.

The difference between what I did and what Mr McGuinty did was that I didn't charge the taxpayers; I charged my riding association. So what I hear you saying

to me is, it's OK for Mr McGuinty to charge the taxpayers for his family travel, but it's not OK for me to charge the riding association for my family travel.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question?

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Minister of the Environment, yesterday's Hansard has you saying, "I paid those bills." The June 5

Hansard has you saying, "I said that because we had trouble connecting to Rome, and extended the trip, that's when we decided to pay." Yesterday, the Globe and Mail quotes you as saying, "I paid my

own hotel expenditures."

But, Minister, why is it OK to call upon taxpayer-subsidized funds, taxpayer political contributions, subsidized to the tune of 75% -- 75 cents on the dollar

-- to travel with your spouse and children through Europe?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I'm truly surprised by the question from the member opposite. I was here a couple of years ago when the very same situation

happened with the leader of the third party. He had what I would classify as an emotional meltdown in the lobby outside this House.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Oh, come on.

Hon Mr Stockwell: He did. And I'm not suggesting he shouldn't have. All I'm saying is, he was questioned on how come, in his words, his young

family travelled with him at taxpayers' expense. So he said he thought it was OK for his family, at taxpayers' expense, to travel with him. Now you're saying to me, "You did not use taxpayers'

money. You used riding association money to pay for your family to travel." I ask you, why is it OK for taxpayers to pay for your leader's family to travel with him, and it's not OK for my riding

association to pay for my family to travel with me?

Mr Kormos: Minister, your family travelled with you on a luxurious, five-star tour of Rome, Paris, London and Glasgow.

Why did you say, "I paid those bills," when in fact those bills weren't paid by you but were paid by your riding association with taxpayer-subsidized

dollars?

Hon Mr Stockwell: You ask me this question. Why don't you ask your own leader?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Take your seat. The member for Windsor West, come to order, please.

Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I realize that this is a touchy situation for the opposition, because here you are asking me about my riding association

paying for my family to travel with me on a business trip to Europe, and your leader submits expenses in the tens of thousands of dollars -- and I'm not complaining -- for his young family to

travel with him. The difference is that yours is taxpayers' money and mine is riding association money.

If you have a concern with my riding association paying for my family, you must have an immense concern with the taxpayers paying for your leader's travel.

Mr Kormos: Minister, yesterday you said -- and you're quoted in the National Post -- "If you think I'm the only person that does that, I'm

not. It happens all the time."

Tell us about what that means in terms of riding associations paying for travel through Europe for members' families.

Hon Mr Stockwell: My belief is that riding associations are there to serve the member.

During this period of time, I was Minister of Energy, Minister of the Environment and government House leader. I was working extremely hard and very long. I

will take the same defence as your leader took; that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to defend myself the same way your leader did: I'm very, very busy, and if there's time to spend with your

family, you take it.

My riding association offered to pay the way for my family. I am not apologizing for that. I don't get enough time as it is in the job that we work with. I

will not apologize.

Further, I will say this: I have no truck or quibble with the fact that taxpayers paid for your leader's family to travel, but on the other hand, if you think

that's acceptable, then you must accept the fact that a riding association should be able to do the same for the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Energy and the House leader.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Kormos: Minister of the Environment, I took note of your observation that it happens all the time, and I took a look at the filings that of

course are available in the library and which are well-handled now, but 24 hours after your revelation, and I found a number of instances. Indeed, Lanark-Carleton Conservative riding paid out

$16,500 in living expenses to its member over the course of the last three years. Indeed, Durham riding association: a mere $500 in member's expenses. Oh, and St Paul's: $3,500 for member's

expenses. Toronto Centre: $2,000; $5,000; $3,000. Hamilton East --

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the standing

orders are fairly clear that questions may be asked during question period to ministers based on their portfolio. I don't see that this is in compliance.

The Speaker: I'll give him some latitude. He's going to lead up to it, I'm sure. His time is running out.

The member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Kormos: Hamilton East: over $800 in high-priced meals. But they're pikers compared to you -- $25,000-plus in taxpayer-funded money to take

your wife and kids on a European tour.

Why do you think it's right that taxpayers subsidize your wife and children travelling through Europe, staying in the most expensive hotels and undoubtedly

eating at the finest restaurants that Rome, Paris, London and Glasgow have to offer?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I was working. I was working on business for the province of Ontario with respect to energy matters in Europe.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I say to the member opposite, I'm not really sure you should be heckling about what you pay back and what you don't pay

back. I will say that to him.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister of Finance, come to order. The minister is very capable of answering for himself. He can't even answer because you're

yelling across. I'd appreciate some order. The minister is very capable of answering for himself. Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I was working. I was working on business in Europe at the time, representing the province of Ontario. My riding association

offered to pay the bill for my family to attend, as the taxpayers pay the bill when your leader and your caucus member travel; they take and pay the bill for family members. I have no truck with

that. I have no complaint. I'm trying to make the point, and it seems very clear to me. If you think it's acceptable for taxpayers to pay for family travel for your leader, why are you upset when

the riding association, which is not the taxpayer, pays for family travel for a minister?

Mr Kormos: You were gifted over $25,000 in riding association monies, which are subsidized by the taxpayer up to 75%. There's no record of

your declaration of that gift under

section 6 of the Members' Integrity Act, as you're required to table that gift with the commissioner. Members' spousal travel is within Ontario. You visited

Rome, Paris, London and Glasgow and stayed in some of the most expensive hotels on the taxpayers' tab. Why do you think it's right for the taxpayers to subsidize your spouse and children's travel

through the most expensive capitals of Europe?

Hon Mr Stockwell: First of all, that's not true. It was the riding association that paid, and that's the way riding associations work. That's

how they raise the money and that's how they spend the money. My executive of the riding association was in total agreement with respect to how this money was spent. That's a decision made between

me and my riding association. They were quoted in the paper as saying, "Yes, this is the way we think we can support the minister."

Further, I will say to the member opposite that the decision you're taking here is that this is taxpayers' -- not. It is not taxpayers' money. It is raised by

the riding association. Finally, if you're so concerned about families travelling with members, why is it you say nothing when tens of thousands of dollars are spent by your leader with his family

travelling with him? I don't know how you can square this circle.

The Speaker: New question?

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I'd say, as another Toronto member, I find it a bit incredible that you'd bring into question

the reputations of members on all sides of the House taking advantage of in-Ontario travel to keep their families together. In attempting to disparage my leader and the leader of the NDP, you've

done the same thing to past leaders of your party and current members. The real issue here and what you should apologize for is that you can't keep your story straight.

This isn't the first time that you've used other organizations to hide costs. You did a similar thing as a Metro councillor. In 1989, you spent four days in

London and three days in Paris and charged the bill to the taxpayer. But instead of billing it to Metro council, where it would have been public and beside your name, you put the bill through the

O'Keefe Centre. A media report at the time stated that under the current policy, the trip --

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to ask the member to withdraw the word "hide." I'm afraid he can't use the words "hide costs" like that.

Mr Smitherman: I withdraw that. And to show your expenses --

The Speaker: I thank the member.

Hon Mr Stockwell: This is just ridiculous.

Mr Duncan: Oh, no, it's not.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Oh, yes, it is. At the time I was travelling, I was chair of the O'Keefe Centre board. I don't even think the question is in

order, quite frankly. I was chair of the board for the O'Keefe Centre. I went there on behalf of the O'Keefe Centre and actually worked on behalf of the O'Keefe Centre, and the bill was paid at the

O'Keefe Centre. This is bloody ridiculous.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): So stand up and

apologize.

Mr Smitherman: I'll not do that, Madam Minister. In fact, I think that most Ontarians looking in at this situation --

The Speaker: It's the last warning again for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I'm not going to have her yell out like that. You

start it up every day. I would appreciate your co-operation. Sorry for the interruption, member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale.

Mr Smitherman: The ridiculous part of this is that there's a pattern here that's been going on and on and on in the form of that member making

expenditures outside of the norm.

Last year, you were sensitive about expenses after having to pay back thousands of dollars in bar tabs, so you get OPG to cover your expenses. You were a sharp

critic in 1989 of other councillors' travel, so you put your own expenditures through a third party, instead of through your own account.

Minister, your trip in 1989 might not have broken the rules, but it did set a pattern. Why don't you just admit that you have a really bad habit of spending a

lot of other people's money, mainly taxpayers', on your habits?

The Speaker: I'll interrupt. As you know, the question needs to relate to the minister's portfolio. What he may or may not have done as a

Toronto councillor, I'm afraid, is totally irrelevant. I will give you an opportunity very quickly to rephrase the question; otherwise I'm going to have to move on.

Mr Smitherman: I would ask the minister, why is it that after what went on last year, when serious questions were raised about your habits

related to other governmental expenditures, you sought to find yet another loophole to make sure that someone else -- taxpayers, at the end of the day -- paid for your travel habits?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Let's just see what the Integrity Commissioner says. You can make all the allegations, slandering and smearing comments you

want. I think I'd like to see to what the Integrity Commissioner has to say; that will be interesting.

I also ask you, if you're so concerned about taxpayers' money being spent, how come you haven't talked to your leader about $27,000 he spent at an image

consultant in Chicago and Washington? Do you think that was a fair and reasonable expense? Has he paid that back? Do you think that was government business? It's a rather selective approach that

you take. You'd better not throw stones when you live in glass houses. This guy blew $27,000 on an image consultant in the United States. What possible benefit to the taxpayer could there be?

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): My question is for the Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, responsible for rural affairs.

Minister, you've spoken in the House recently about your ministry's rural economic development programs that are making a real difference to the folks of northern and rural Ontario through OSTAR

RED.

More work needs to be done, but as a colleague of yours, I know you won't rest on your laurels. Could you tell this House how you can further help our northern

and rural communities?

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I want to thank the honourable member from Nipissing for the

question. Ontario's smaller, rural and northern communities sometimes lack the resources needed to drive economic development. We listened to these concerns and responded with a powerful,

interactive tool called REDDI.

REDDI stands for rural economic development data and intelligence. This Web site is a cutting-edge, practical, Internet-based tool that gives rural communities

access to the province's huge database to help them create local rural development solutions.

REDDI addresses barriers to economic growth that were identified in the Premier's task force on rural economic renewal chaired by my friend the Honourable Doug

Galt, including improved access to relevant information, data and resources, as well as improved capacity for economic planning. We have given Ontario municipalities that and more. Communities can

also use the site to understand competitive advantages, identify local strengths and analyze current conditions and trends affecting their local economies.

Mr McDonald: Minister, that is excellent news for our municipal leaders. But do you have to be an expert or a Web master to use the REDDI

system effectively?

Hon Mr Hardeman: REDDI was built and tested to ensure easy access by everyday people like you and I and the member. Essentially it's a

treasure map with detailed instructions on how to use it, with guides posted every step of the way to help find the critical information that can strengthen rural and northern economies. The

program is accompanied by an in-depth tutorial, which takes the user through an example analysis and provides detailed explanations of terminology used.

REDDI is a practical, easy-to-use tool, and another example of the Ernie Eves government's plan to strengthen rural and northern communities. We have a plan

and a strategy for rural prosperity. Our plan is working, and we will ensure that we meet our commitments to all the good people who call rural and northern Ontario home.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is to the government House leader. The Ontario Power Generation expense was $5,000 to $10,000, as I

understand it. If the expense had been submitted through the Ministry of Energy, the public could see it through a freedom of information act request. Because the expense came from Ontario Power

Generation, there is no way to obtain the expense from Ontario Power Generation, so we don't know whether it was $5,000 or $6,000 or $7,000 or $10,000. That's a pretty big discrepancy, and we don't

know exactly what it is because you've never disclosed that information.

Will you make public the Ontario Power Generation receipts?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): (

a) I don't have them, and (

b) it's been referred to the Integrity

Commissioner. I'm certain the Integrity Commissioner will review it and make his comments.

Mr Bryant: I don't understand how the Integrity Commissioner got them if you didn't have them. You presumably gave them to the Integrity

Commissioner. Who gave them to the Integrity Commissioner? No, no, here's my question.

Interjections.

Mr Bryant: Close. Will Ontario Power Generation disclose the expenses?

Interjection.

Mr Bryant: No, he's just too quick to answer a question. Will Ontario Power Generation disclose the expenses? Will you disclose the expenses?

If the Integrity Commissioner got them, they had to get them from somebody. Are we supposed to believe that the person who gave them to the Integrity Commissioner has disappeared? I don't care who

has them; we just want them made public. Will you, as the government House leader, as the former energy minister, as a member of the executive council, have the OPG expenses disclosed to the

public? Period.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I can only say this: I turned it over to the Integrity Commissioner. The Integrity Commissioner is investigating --

Mr Bryant: Then you have them.

Hon Mr Stockwell: No, I turned the matter over to the Integrity Commissioner.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I never had them.

Let me start again. The OPG paid the ground transportation. I never got the bill. I've never seen the bill. I asked --

Mr Bryant: But you gave it to the Integrity Commissioner.

Hon Mr Stockwell: No, I asked the Integrity Commissioner if they would investigate the matter. I'm quite certain that when the Integrity

Commissioner --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. You've asked the question. He listened intently for your question. It's only fair that you let him answer

as well.

Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I asked the Integrity Commissioner to investigate. I presume the Integrity Commissioner will talk to OPG. I presume he will get all the relevant information he

needs to make the decision. It's in the hands of the Integrity Commissioner. I have great confidence in Justice Coulter Osborne. I'm sure he's done this before and I'm sure he knows what to do.

SMART GROWTH

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, last week our government took an

important step in making the Smart Growth vision a reality. The announcement is over half a billion dollars of funding to support public transit in central Ontario, a major boost, I might say, to

reducing my constituents' commuting time, as well as the important issue of gridlock. I know leaders in my community like Ron Hooper, Ron Hope and Bob Malcolmson and others have a great interest in

this area.

This kind of announcement is critical to planning our future as we look forward 30 years into the future to three million people in southern Ontario. I'm

hoping you can provide more details on this announcement. Could you tell us which parts of the province will benefit and how the action will build on Smart Growth principles?

Hon David Young (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I would start by saying that I share the member's enthusiasm for this

announcement and this big step forward in improving transit across the province. I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to thank Mayor McCallion for all her hard work as the chair of the

central panel of Smart Growth but also, over the last short while, in helping us implement some of the very important recommendations, some of the very important advice that came forward. I should

say that my colleague Minister Frank Klees has shown great leadership in this regard as well.

Last week, as the member noted, there was a very significant announcement: $453 million to improve GO Transit in the GTA-Golden Horseshoe area. It included the

modernizing of the track and signal infrastructure in Union Station; GO train service to Barrie; increasing track capacity in the Georgetown-Milton area; new commuter services in Peterborough,

Cambridge, Niagara Falls, Guelph and Kitchener-Waterloo; upgrading the Toronto --

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

Mr O'Toole: Our government's commitment that you have outlined not only helps the taxpayer, but also helps the economy. You know the

principles of sound planning today are what we need, looking into the future, for a strong economy. Our government's commitment is followed up not just by the Smart Growth panels' hard work, but

also is demonstrated by the funding that's attached to it. The Smart Growth panels are working in all parts of the province under your guidance and leadership. Obviously the challenges facing other

parts of the province are different and the solutions will be different as well. I'm hoping you can provide the House and those listening today with what work is being done by the other Smart

Growth panels across Ontario to help all our constituents, regardless of whether they're member-held ridings or in other parts of the province.

Hon Mr Young: I thank the member again for raising this important issue, an issue that will help us plan not just for this year and next year,

but for the next three decades in this province. The central panel reported about six weeks ago. I subsequently received the northwestern and northeastern panels' reports. There are five separate

Smart Growth panels. A decision was made by the Premier and Minister Hodgson, as he then was, to have different Smart Growth panels in different geographical regions of the province in order to

reflect the different challenges that exist. In northern Ontario, for instance, the challenge is keeping young people in their communities, keeping jobs and attracting new jobs, and attracting new

residents to those areas. In southern Ontario we have the tremendous benefit of having great growth, both in terms of population and business, but we must ensure the infrastructure is there to

accommodate it.

Premier Eves has taken action in relation to the northwestern recommendation. The panel suggested that we need an excellent --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up. New question?

NURSES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. We have another cluster of possible SARS cases today at

Lakeridge Health. Health care workers at the Oshawa and Whitby sites, like health care workers everywhere in Ontario, have been working very hard and putting their lives on the line for SARS. They

are heroes.

We understand that 25 registered practical nurses from the Oshawa and Whitby sites of Lakeridge Health have received their pink slips. More than half of these

nurses are actually in quarantine this week. They have put their lives at risk and have worked very hard to provide high-quality health. This week, more than half of them were in quarantine as they

received their notices. What are you going to do to guarantee that these workers, as a reward for their work, are not going to lose their jobs?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I have no knowledge of what she speaks. I'll look into it.

Ms Martel: If I might provide some additional information, we've got 14 nurses who will be laid off at the Whitby site. All of those are

actually in quarantine right now. Eleven nurses are being laid off at the Oshawa site. They are the same nurses who worked in the emergency room where the SARS clinic is. They are the same nurses

who were also working in the dialysis unit in Oshawa, the same unit where 12 dialysis patients are now showing signs of SARS. I say again, these RPNs worked very hard at Oshawa and Whitby before

this outbreak. They have worked extremely hard to deal with the outbreak. More than half of them are now in quarantine. It seems their reward for their work is to be laid off. Are you going to

guarantee in this House today that these nurses are not going to lose their jobs?

Hon Mr Clement: I have no knowledge of the information she seems to have. I'll look into it.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is to the Minister of Energy. You're the sole shareholder of Ontario Power Generation. Will you go

out there and pick up the phone and call Ontario Power Generation and ask them to disclose the expenses that Minister Stockwell incurred in Europe last summer?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): In conversations with management and with executives at

Ontario Power Generation, I didn't have to ask. They voluntarily agreed that they would be 100% co-operative with the investigation being conducted by the Honourable Justice Coulter Osborne, just

as you would expect.

Mr Bryant: That's a no. The Minister of Energy, the sole shareholder of Ontario Power Generation, will not release these expenses to the

public. I say to you, this is extraordinary and unusual, that the government would not want to just disclose the expenses. One minute Minister Stockwell said that he gave the expenses to the

Integrity Commissioner; the next minute he said he never had them. Now we're supposed to believe that, in fact, the Minister of Energy has no problem with not disclosing the expenses.

I'm going to ask you again: why would you not disclose the expenses of Minister Stockwell so that we can get to the bottom of the amount of the expenses --

$5,000 to $10,000 -- and exactly what they're for? This is starting to sound very suspicious, and you can fix that by disclosing the expenses.

I'll ask you again: in the interest of clearing this matter up, will the minister and sole shareholder for Ontario Power Generation pick up the phone and get

those expenses disclosed to the public?

Hon Mr Baird: As I indicated to the member opposite, I had had recent conversations with senior management at Ontario Power Generation. Before

I could even raise it with them, they indicated their complete, 100% willingness to co-operate completely with the review being conducted by His Honour Justice Coulter Osborne. If you want to

debate this issue -- I don't think there is a debate. I think the issue will be settled by His Honour Justice Coulter Osborne. I think he's probably uniquely able to follow a process that's

outlined in legislation. He's uniquely capable, in that he was appointed by all members of the Legislature. He's someone of outstanding integrity, and I have a lot of confidence in him that he'll

conduct an appropriate review and that Ontario Power Generation and the Ministry of Energy will be completely co-operative in any way possible.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is to the Minister of Energy. With the summer hopefully fast approaching, I

know many of my constituents in the great riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale are concerned about the province's electricity supply. Last summer we saw incredible demand for electricity in

the record-high extreme temperatures. People are concerned about what will happen if we face similar conditions this summer.

Minister, what can you tell my constituents about Ontario's electricity supply outlook?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): We're undertaking a comprehensive plan to increase the

supply of electricity in the province of Ontario. Since this past summer, we've seen a 500-megawatt plant open in the Sarnia area, which is good news for consumers in the province of Ontario. We've

seen a significant new hydro plant opened in northern Ontario. We see Huron Wind, the first commercial wind farm in the province of Ontario. That is all good news.

In the coming weeks, we'll see new supply come on-line from our nuclear reactors at Bruce, where more than 1,500 megawatts of clean energy will be on the grid,

followed by 500 megawatts at Pickering. This is an incredible increase in the amount of electricity available year over year. That will be good news, not just for taxpayers in Ontario, but it will

be good news for the price for consumers.

Mr Gill: I thank the minister for that answer. In addition to the immediate concerns, I'm sure that my constituents would be interested to

know about the other initiatives the government is undertaking to ensure the province's supply of electricity over the long term.

Minister, can you please tell them what actions our government is taking to ensure a supply of safe, reliable electricity now and in the future?

Hon Mr Baird: I should also note that we have an additional 800 megawatts of new, clean energy that's already on-line that wasn't available

last summer with unit six at Bruce B. So Huron-Bruce county and the incredible team in that community are doing yeoman service for the people of the province of Ontario.

We have substantial plans underway. We have under construction today a significant new generation plant in Windsor. We're moving forward with the Portlands

facility. Both of those are combined-cycle natural gas, which is very good for the environment when you compare it to conventional fossil fuels. The member for Niagara Falls is pushing quite hard

for the third tunnel at Niagara Falls, which we believe would add some significant new generation to the province.

In addition, I had a very good conversation with the Minister of Energy for the province of Manitoba, about Ontario and Manitoba working together on the

Conawapa project.

What we need is the federal government, though, to assist us in these regards by making hydro power a recognized form of clean energy. Rather than sending

money to Russia to buy credits there, we can make important investments that will have a material impact on the environment in Ontario today.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): My question is to the government House leader. You've had a bit of difficulty, it seems,

keeping your story straight. It seems things change from here to there. I want to go back to a question that has been asked before which relates to the question, what was the exact amount that

Ontario Power Generation picked up for you for your ground transportation costs while you were on your European tour?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I don't know.

Mr Smitherman: You're a powerful minister in the government over there. In response to why OPG should be out there providing these costs, you

said that you're the shareholder. You clearly are a person who has exercised a lot of influence within the government, and we know that you have capacity, that it's well within your reach, to get a

handle on this very important piece of information.

I would ask you again: given the fact that your stories have been seen as somewhat inconsistent -- and some people would go further on that point -- why don't

you do what is well within your reach, which is to seek from your ministerial colleague to get from Ontario Power Generation the exact amount of the ground transportation costs that they picked up

for you on your European tour?

Hon Mr Stockwell: My business trip to Europe.

I thought I did the right thing. I don't believe I've done anything wrong and I thought I did the right thing. The minute this question was raised through a

story in the paper, I immediately contacted the Integrity Commissioner and I asked the Integrity Commissioner to investigate. I didn't get the bill. I haven't had the bill. I have no idea what the

bill was or the amount the bill was for.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Don't you see anything wrong with that?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Well, if you see something wrong, I understand that. There are a lot of things that you people think are wrong that I don't.

What I am prepared to do, and what I'm very happy to do, is to have the Integrity Commissioner, who has done this on a number of occasions, investigate as to whether or not this was acceptable or

the process or policy is acceptable.

I can only say to the member opposite, I know you have great, great respect for Justice Coulter Osborne. So do I. I honestly think, in the best interests of

all of us, we should let him do his job.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for my honourable friend the Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation.

Recently the minister announced funding for the Ontario Research and Innovation Optical Network. I was pleased that the University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo and Conestoga

College were included as funding recipients.

Will the minister take a moment to tell members of this House about this announcement and this leading-edge initiative?

Hon David Turnbull (Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): I'd like to thank the member for Waterloo-Wellington for

this question.

I recently announced a $5.8-million enhancement to the post-secondary institutions participating in the Ontario Research and Innovation Optical Network,

otherwise known as ORION. Our government is investing a total of $32.3 million for this very important five-year initiative. It will create a province-wide, high-speed fibre optic research network.

ORION will link some 43 post-secondary institutions as well as over 50 publicly funded research organizations in this province.

Over five years, the total public-private investment will be $78 million. This very much builds on our government's initiative to ensure that Ontario remains

at the forefront of global research and scientific discovery in medical research.

Mr Arnott: I want to thank the minister for his answer. I would add that members of this House know that our government has displayed an

unprecedented commitment to fostering the development of science and technology in Ontario. By supporting areas such as biotechnology, we are recognizing the value of innovation and cutting-edge

technology in the 21st century.

Can the minister expand on some of the exciting initiatives that our government is taking to bolster science and technology here in Ontario?

Hon Mr Turnbull: Our government recognizes that R&D is very much the fuel that drives innovation and economic growth. We've placed a

priority on investments which can help to create a culture of innovation in this province. Since 1997, our government has spent $4.2 billion on science and technology. That is more than either of

the two parties across the floor. In June 2002, we announced a $51-million biotechnology strategy. Its goal was to make Ontario one of the three top biotech centres in the whole of North America.

In addition, we've made further commitments, including $20 million to the Medical and Related Sciences Discovery District, otherwise known as MARS, $1 billion to the Ontario Innovation Trust, $1.25

billion to the Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund and $100 million to the Ontario Cancer Research Network.

HOME CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): My question is to the Associate Minister of Health. Minister, the cuts that your Manitoulin-Sudbury CCAC is

making to homemaking services will have a devastating impact on seniors and the disabled.

Nicole Ristimaki of Hanmer is a single mom with two sons. She's completely disabled. Her five hours a week of help with laundry, meal preparation and

housekeeping is being cut off. Carmelle Pelletier of Capreol was receiving two hours of help every second week with laundry and cleaning; it's gone. She is booked for more surgery on June 26 and

could really use that then. Her income is $10,000 a year, so she can hardly afford to pay for these services herself.

I ask you, Minister, what are you doing to ensure that Carmelle, Nicole and hundreds of other seniors and the disabled in our communities are going to receive

the housekeeping and homemaking services that they need?

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Helping Ontarians receive quality home care is a priority for our government

and an issue that we take very seriously. I can tell the member opposite that the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has been in contact with the Manitoulin-Sudbury Community Care Access Centre

and has been assured that the most important services that keep clients in their homes and allow them to maintain their independence are not affected by changes to homemaking services. These

services include personal support such as bathing, help with eating and dressing and also caregiver respite, which includes support for family members living with and caring for clients with a high

level of dependency.

As well, I want to tell the member opposite that not all homemaking tasks are changing. Essential meal preparation and laundry services for existing clients

will continue. In fact, 150 clients are keeping their homemaking services, and clients who have been receiving homemaking services more than once a week are maintaining those very important

services.

Ms Martel: Look, Minister, when your government took over control of CCACs with Bill 130, you took over control of CCACs. You appoint the CCAC

boards, you appoint the executive directors, you determine what information is going to be distributed to the public and you hold the purse strings. This problem in Sudbury is your problem,

Minister, and you've got a responsibility to fix it. We've got hundreds of seniors and the disabled who need homemaking services and are having them cut off. I related two cases to you today. I

related two different cases to you last week, and I have many more. These people cannot afford to pay for these important services themselves.

I ask you, as the minister responsible for CCACs, what are you going to do to ensure that the disabled and seniors in our community get the homemaking services

they deserve and need?

Hon Mr Newman: I want to say to the member opposite, what we did when we formed the government was to increase home care funding in this

province. In fact, in the Manitoulin-Sudbury Community Care Access Centre area, funding has increased by 22% since 1995. There is 22% in additional dollars going to home care and community care

right in the Sudbury-Manitoulin area. In fact, last year alone, funding for the Manitoulin-Sudbury Community Care Access Centre increased by almost $190,000. We're putting our money where our mouth

is with additional dollars to home care and community care in this province.

I want the member opposite to understand that there is indeed an appeal process in place for clients, as per the legislation that was passed in this House.

Clients can appeal their individual case to their case manager, to the supervisor and ultimately to the executive director of the Manitoulin-Sudbury Community Care Access Centre.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I have a question to the government House leader. We have a number of different versions, Minister, as to what

happened with the OPG expenses. One version was that you received it and then gave it to the Integrity Commissioner. That's what you said, but apparently that's not the case, you tell me now. Now I

take it what you're saying is that you presume, as you put it, that OPG will send the expenses over to the Integrity Commissioner.

You will know, Minister, that under the opinion letter you have sought from the Integrity Commissioner, there's absolutely no basis and no means by which OPG's

expenses would be sent to the Integrity Commissioner.

This is not, for the 10th time, an inquiry into a member involving submissions and evidence and investigation -- this isn't. He's going to look at your letter,

and he's going to send it back to you. He's not going to pick up the phone and call OPG. The only one who can do that is you, the government.

So I'm going to ask you again, why will you not pick up the phone and get Ontario Power Generation to disclose these documents that will never otherwise become

public?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I don't think you're right. I think you're wrong. I think your

version of the events is wrong. I never said I had received the bill -- ever.

Mr Bryant: Yes, you did.

Hon Mr Stockwell: No, I didn't. I said I turned over the investigation. That's what I said.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: It doesn't change. Your version of the story changes -- your version. So this is just patently absurd. I have never said

anything of the sort.

Secondly, I have done what I thought you were supposed to do in this place: I asked the Integrity Commissioner to investigate.

I talked to the Office of the Integrity Commissioner yesterday after you claimed I was abusing the office. They assured me they didn't feel abused. They

assured me they didn't feel put upon. In fact, they assured me this is exactly what they're supposed to do. When you have an issue like this, you give it to the Integrity Commissioner.

So I can only say to the member opposite that the versions didn't change. I spoke to the Integrity Commissioner's office. They don't share your view.

Mr Bryant: This is really convenient. The government of Ontario will not release the Ontario Power Generation expenses. The claim is made that

the Integrity Commissioner is going to release the expenses, but we know the Integrity Commissioner doesn't have any statutory power to engage in that investigation.

In the midst of this shell game, now we have Minister Stockwell claiming that Hansard is also torquing the facts. Hansard is not torquing the facts.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Read it.

Mr Bryant: You said it here, and you said it out there. You said that the expenses --

Hon Mr Stockwell: Read it.

Mr Bryant: Just grow yourself a skin, OK? You said your expenses from Ontario Power Generation went off to the Integrity Commissioner. I say

to you that what we want is one thing and one thing only -- it's really, really simple: disclose the OPG expenses so I can stop asking for them in this House.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I am sorry I shouted out that he should read that quote that he claims I said I had the expenses. I asked him to

read it; he didn't. Do you know why he didn't read it? Because he doesn't have it.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: You didn't read it. If it was there, why didn't you read it? Because you don't have it.

Secondly, I know what's going on: you do not want to have an impartial third party review this. That's what's going on. You don't want Justice Coulter Osborne

to review this. You want a band of jackals in the opposition to review this. You don't want the second-highest jurist in the province of Ontario to review it.

I asked the Integrity Commissioner to review it. OPG has said they will co-operate 100%.

We know what's going on, on this side of the House: you want to try this in public without any reasoned or thoughtful review. Justice Coulter Osborne will do a

reasoned and thoughtful review, and that's what you're scared of.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Listening to the Liberals opposite,

you'd think there were no issues facing the people of Ontario today, but there are many. One of those issues is about student and youth employment.

Our government believes that in order for students to succeed, they need encouragement, training and resources. Our youth employment initiatives help students

build character, confidence and a sense of responsibility. By working at a summer job, students develop the skills necessary to meet life's challenges.

Minister, can you tell me what programs your ministry offers to provide students with the training and skills they need in order to succeed in today's

economy?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): I want to thank my colleague

for the question. Obviously, the member from Niagara Falls has always been interested in youth. All you have to do is go down there and see the opportunities young people have in his riding. So I

want to thank him for the question.

We need to ensure that all of our young people have many opportunities. The programs are numerous. They're not only numerous in our secondary schools and our

elementary schools, but they're numerous in our colleges, our universities, our apprenticeship programs and what we call our community-based programs. Many of these programs are for young people

who do not choose to go on to college or university. Our most successful one is Job Connect where, in 2002-03, the ministry helped approximately 92,000 youth find jobs. This is an important message

to get out to our constituents: 92,000 youth. Eighty per cent of the young people who go into those programs in the beginning either get a job or go into more training. It's extremely important

that we celebrate this success story.

Mr Speaker, there are other jobs, but I can see --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I was doing it slow enough that she couldn't see me. Supplementary?

Mr Maves: Thank you very much, Minister, for your answer. You're right: things in Niagara are booming, although we've had a bit of a tourism

setback so far this year. The member from Erie-Lincoln and I, along with the Minister of Tourism, will be conducting a tourism round table consultation process this Friday to see how we might be

able to get the entire community to help kick-start the tourism season in Niagara Falls and make sure our youth have those summer jobs that they've always come to rely on.

As you mentioned, our youth opportunities Ontario strategy will provide students with work experience that will hone their skills and teach them about the job

market. Our summer jobs program helps young people 15 and up find work from April to September, offering a range of services including a $2-per-hour wage support for businesses and community

organizations that hire young people for up to 16 weeks.

Can you tell the youth of Ontario what opportunities are available to them and how these programs can help them acquire the skills they need in order to

succeed?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'll speak a little more quickly. I hope all the members in the House have this brochure about Ontario summer jobs,

Ontario Summer Jobs Ahead 2003. It describes all the different types of summer jobs. This one I hope you're all using.

The Ontario summer jobs program had its most successful year in 2002, with more than 60,000 students receiving assistance or finding jobs. Over the past seven

years, our Ontario summer jobs program has doubled, from 24,230 jobs to 60,444 jobs. What's important about that? We invest about $53.1 million over the summer in these young people. Some of them

have $2-per-hour wage supplements. It provides them up to $3,000. Some of them are starting their own business. They're entrepreneurs. If anyone is interested in the hotline, it's 1-888-JOB-GROW.

Refer this to everyone who talks to you in your constituency offices right across the province of Ontario: 1-888-JOB-GROW. You should have this memorized. It's very important. It's a non-partisan

issue. Have it memorized: 1-888-JOB-GROW.

VISITORS

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like the House to welcome in the west gallery today Tim and

Freda McCallum and Tim's parents, John and Jean McCallum. Welcome to Queen's Park.

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

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

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

"Therefore,

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

"

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

"

(2) Instruct Associate Minister Dan Newman to accompany MPP Rick Bartolucci to a town hall meeting to hear stories about what will happen when homemaking

services are cut off."

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is indeed my pleasure to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on behalf of my constituents

in the riding of Durham as follows:

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

independent schools; and

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

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to say that this is the very subject of debate in the House tonight, and I endorse this petition.

CITY OF WINDSOR ADMINISTRATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly that was gathered by Al Nelman of Windsor, Ontario.

"Whereas the citizens of Windsor, Ontario, have seen the greatest period of sustained growth and resulting prosperity in the city's history;

"Whereas the citizens of Windsor have been presented with a plan which acknowledges a debt of $225 million by the year 2005;

"Whereas city council has been unable to control the city's administration, leading to unauthorized multi-million dollar contracts;

"Whereas the mayor and a majority of councillors have failed to provide communal services and infrastructure maintenance efficiently and at the lowest possible

cost;

"Whereas the mayor and city council have been reckless in the use of land expropriation, leading to the loss of millions of tax dollars;

"Whereas city council has used in-camera meetings to excess, thereby depriving the citizens of Windsor of important public information;

"Whereas city council has arbitrarily reduced public meetings from weekly to biweekly, coupled with a five-minute limit for delegates to make a presentation,

drastically reducing public scrutiny and input;

"Whereas city council continues to enter into further unmandated risky commercial undertakings, the pursuit of which continues to divert tax dollars from

necessary expenditures;

"Whereas there have been cases of criminal behaviour by members of the administrative staff which have been dealt with under a cloak of secrecy, denying

citizens their right to know the extent of the damage they have sustained;

"Whereas taxpayers in the city of Toronto have benefited from a forensic audit, the taxpayers of the city of Windsor believe that an arm's-length investigation

is essential;

"Whereas a significant number of the citizens of Windsor no longer trust city council to take care of their interests;

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

"Request the Minister of Municipal Affairs to immediately undertake a forensic audit of the city of Windsor's finances and administrative procedures."

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm again presenting a petition from constituents in Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

independent schools; and

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

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

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

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

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

This is covered under Bill 53,

An Act respecting the equity in education tax credit, which is being debated on second reading in this House. I present this

petition to Lucas, who is a page here in the Legislative Assembly.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Ernie Eves has failed to protect Ontario consumers who are experiencing skyrocketing automotive, home and

commercial insurance rates; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has failed to create the regulatory environment that would adequately protect loyal customers in a tough insurance marketplace;

and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has twice introduced ineffective legislation which has done nothing to stabilize insurance rates in the province of

Ontario; and

"Whereas average individual increases in auto insurance rates over the past four years have increased by over 40%; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario are having difficulty obtaining reasonable insurance coverage or are being dropped as customers -- even in cases where there has

been no change in their risk factors; ...

As a result, "Be it resolved that government of Ontario:

"

(1) Introduce effective legislation to ensure those injured in automobile collisions have fair and rapid access to appropriate medical-rehabilitation

services;

"

(2) Reduce, then stabilize, insurance premiums in Ontario; and

"

(3) Improve access to automobile insurance coverage through a more competitive marketplace."

I affix my signature as I am in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed in this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm surprised that Mr Bradley is not sharing his time for petitions with Mr Brown.

It's my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of this side of the House and on behalf of the constituents of Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

independent schools; and

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

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to say that Bill 53 is addressing this issue on behalf of those parents mentioned in this petition.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm pleased to see the Minister of Energy paying much attention to this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has mismanaged the electricity policy of the province of Ontario;

"Whereas Mike Brown, MPP, has been fighting for rural rate assistance;

"Whereas the Ernie Eves government forces Great Lakes Power customers to pay into the fund for rural rate assistance, and rural rate assistance would reduce

the distribution bills for customers by hundreds of dollars each year;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, support the efforts of Mike Brown, MPP, to have rural rate assistance extended to the Great Lakes Power service area

immediately."

I'm pleased to sign this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and I might add it's been approved by the

Clerk.

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

independent schools; and

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

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

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

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

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

Seeing as how there are a number of constituents in my riding who support the independent school system, I'm very much in agreement with this petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

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

"Whereas long-term-care facilities in this province are understaffed, underfunded and ignored by the current government;

"Whereas many residents of St Catharines and of other communities in Ontario are unable to find a family doctor as a result of the growing doctor shortage we

have experienced during the tenure of the Harris-Eves government;

"Whereas cancer patients in Ontario requiring radiation treatment face unacceptable delays and are often forced to travel to other jurisdictions to receive

medical attention;

"Whereas many prescription drugs which would help patients with a variety of medical conditions such as macular degeneration, multiple sclerosis, arthritis,

diabetes and heart failure are inadequately covered by OHIP;

"Whereas long waiting lists for diagnostic tests such as MRIs, CT scans and ultrasounds are jeopardizing the health of many individuals already facing serious

illness;

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has now spent over $401 million on blatantly partisan government advertising in the form of glossy brochures and television

and radio ads;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Conservative government of Ernie Eves to immediately end their abuse of public office and terminate any further expenditure

on political advertising and to invest this money into health and long-term care in the province of Ontario."

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

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I received a petition from the North York Seniors Centre. It's entitled, "Listen: Our Hearing is

Important!"

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas services de-listed by the Eves-Harris government now exceed $100 million in total; and

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

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

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced areas across Ontario; and

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

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris-Ernie Eves government move immediately to

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

I wholeheartedly agree with the citizens at the North York Seniors Centre, and I have affixed my signature to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

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

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid for 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 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:

"Demand that" the Ernie Eves government reduce their "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. I am in complete agreement.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition from residents of 1002 Lawrence Avenue East. It is entitled: "Fair Rent Increases

Now."

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore

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

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

I truly appreciate these residents sending this petition, and I have affixed my signature to it.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I apologize. I did miss the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition to present to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as

follows:

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

independent schools; and

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): I move that pursuant to standing order 46 and

notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 43,

An Act to provide Ontario home property tax relief for seniors, when Bill 43 is next called as a

government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without further debate or amendment, at such time the bill shall be ordered for

third reading, which order may be called on that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading is called, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or

amendment; and

That, the vote on second and third reading may, pursuant to standing order 28(h), be deferred; and

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Baird moves that --

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Dispense.

The Deputy Speaker: It is dispensed with.

The time will be divided equally among the three caucuses, and I'm looking to my right to start. The Chair recognizes the Minister of Energy and deputy House

leader responsible for francophone affairs.

Hon Mr Baird: I would like to ask for unanimous consent if my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Business Services could be the leadoff

speaker for the government.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? It is agreed.

Interjection.

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): Thank you for your interest, my colleague across the floor; thanks to the Minister

of Energy and francophone affairs for the opportunity. The time is going to be split among a number of my colleagues, including Mr Spina, Ms Mushinski and perhaps others as well.

I just want to take a few moments to talk about the importance of this motion because of the importance of this bill, which will bring tax relief to seniors

across the province. A particular concern of mine is the seniors who reside in Erie-Lincoln. These individuals from Canada's greatest generation have helped to build the province of Ontario, helped

to build Niagara. Those seniors, at the end of the month, are sitting down with their budgets, on fixed incomes, trying to make sure they can make ends meet, that they can pay their bills. They are

trying to find a way to stay independent as long as possible in their own homes, which they have been paying into. I think it is only fair, just and reasonable, and I think it's good public policy,

that we should give them some relief on their taxes.

Bill 43 speaks to that specifically. It will relieve the education portion of property taxes that seniors are paying on their homes, and I believe tenants who

are seniors as well. So when you get your bill, you have the regional tax, you have the municipal tax, and the education portion of the property tax would be rebated. Again, I think some tax relief

for hard-working seniors is fair, whether they're in Fort Erie or Lincoln, in West Lincoln, Dunnville or Port Colborne.

I think there's a big difference, too, between the government's approach to this issue and the opposition's. I know that they voted against this bill in the

past. We'll see how they vote on future readings and this motion, but I believe that they will vote against this bill. I think the opponents in the Liberal Party have been rather clear that they

oppose tax cuts. They don't believe in tax cuts. In fact, they must feel that taxes are fine the way they are. I believe that taxes should be reduced. I believe that taxes to seniors should be

reduced.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): They think they should be higher.

Hon Mr Hudak: The member from Niagara Falls says the opposition thinks they should be higher, which is in fact true. You look at the planks of

both the Liberal and the NDP. They will increase taxes, it has been rather clear. I think by opposing this, they will be increasing taxes on seniors in the province of Ontario.

I know the local Liberal candidate, the mayor of Port Colborne in the riding of Erie-Lincoln, has a very clear record. In fact, as mayor he has increased the

residential tax rate, according to Ministry of Finance records, by 19% over the past three years, a 19% increase in taxes on seniors who are living in Porto Village, seniors who are living in the

city of Port Colborne -- a substantial bite out of their incomes, particularly when they're living on a fixed income.

We have different views. Dalton McGuinty and Vance Badawey believe in higher taxes for seniors, for individuals, for working families, for small businesses. We

believe in lower taxes. I support fundamentally this piece of legislation that will lower the education portion of the property taxes for seniors in the province of Ontario. I believe it stands as

a solid record, in comparison with my opponent, who has increased the taxes on seniors by about 19%. It stands in good contrast, stark contrast to the Liberal Party platform, which would be

increasing taxes pretty much across the board, whether you're a senior, a small business or a middle-class family.

I strongly support this motion. I want to see this bill brought into this House for its third and final reading. I'd like to see this passed into law. I'd like

to see some property tax relief for the hard-working seniors who helped to build the province of Ontario and the communities in the Niagara Peninsula and Dunnville.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): Once again, we find ourselves with a government time allocation motion. I would have thought that,

given that this bill -- Bill 43 -- was the centrepiece of the government's platform, the Conservative Party's platform, going into the next election, they might have wanted to debate this ad

infinitum, or at least for the normal time that it would take to put a bill through this House. But here we are yet again, the government calling for a time allocation motion to cut off debate.

That has happened so often around here, it's almost the norm. Whenever a bill goes through this House, it's time-allocated.

Let's talk about the bill, because I think it's important to recognize that this is another regressive tax measure by this government. Very regressive, I say,

because Bill 43 will make it possible for the very wealthiest individuals in this province to receive enormous tax benefit from this bill. People who are multi-millionaires -- Ken Thomson, Hal

Jackman, to name a few -- will be receiving upwards of $1,500 a month in terms of property tax credit as a result of Bill 43,

whereas the average middle-income senior might only receive $500 or

$600 as a result of this tax measure.

That is why we are opposed to this motion. That is why we're virtually opposed to every tax cut this government has made. Their tax cuts are regressive. They

turn the very idea of progressive government upside down. They make it very difficult for people who are living on modest means, of modest incomes, to get by. The seniors in my community are having

a very, very difficult time just making ends meet. They remind me of the fact that insurance costs have gone up dramatically in this province -- enormous increases, double-digit increases for

insurance. If they drive an automobile, they've seen their auto insurance go up an average of 19%, and in many cases much more than that. That is hurting seniors. They've seen their hydro bills go

up, they've seen just about every other bill go up, and they're continuing to live on the same income. They're having to get by.

I think it's inappropriate for this government, actually in my opinion it's almost immoral, to give thousands of dollars in a property tax credit to Mr Ken

Thomson, who's a multi-millionaire. Why does Frank Stronach need a property tax rebate? I would think that some of these people -- I think there are quite a number of them. We name them because

they're the most noteworthy and probably the wealthiest individuals of the province, but there are other multi-millionaires who would say, "Why do I need a tax credit? I really don't need this."

Would it not be better that we should use this money to help those seniors who are desperate right now, who have no home care? Would it not be more appropriate to allocate those monies for our

health care system that is in need of additional resources, that is under extreme stress these days? Would it not be better to help others who are in need?

I think most Ontarians are indeed very progressive, are more concerned about what is happening to our public institutions and our systems that are there to

help all Ontarians. They're very concerned about that. I would like to remind members that -- and I use the word "progressive" for very good reason -- it used to be in Ontario that the Conservative

Party of Ontario had ruled this jurisdiction for the better part of 43 years consecutively, post-World War II, until the Peterson government came along in 1985 and defeated then-Premier Miller.

At that time, in 1980, under Bill Davis, they introduced the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Act. The assistance act was a measure designed to

assist seniors with property tax rebates; in fact, it was a grant. But guess what? This act capped the amount at $500. It was far and away fairer to cap the amount than what you're proposing to do

in Bill 43, where there is no cap. There is no test with regard to income. In fact, the more you've paid, the more you get back. The whole thing about property tax is that it's based on wealth.

It's based on the value of that property. It's landed wealth; in history it goes back.

I believe it's important to recognize that the concept now is turned on its ear. The progressive nature of our tax system has been turned upside down by this

government, and therefore there is no progressiveness in any measure this government has brought forward. This is a very hurtful tax credit. It hurts seniors. It doesn't, as I say, help out seniors

with respect to home care. In my riding, the North York CCAC is struggling to make ends meet. They were facing a $10-million shortfall. When I raised this issue in the House, the CCACs across

Toronto were facing enormous pressure. They had to turn their backs on many seniors who needed home care to continue to live in their homes.

It would be far more appropriate to dedicate the amounts they're going to grant by way of a tax credit to the wealthiest seniors like Ken Thomson, Frank

Stronach and Hal Jackman, to direct those funds, to home care programs in each of our ridings for people who actually need that benefit, who need the help.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to help those seniors stay in the community? They're having a heck of a time trying to live independently. This measure does

not assist them to do that, because it's not directed at home care and it's not going to help people in nursing homes. This government imposed a 15% fee hike on seniors who live in nursing homes.

This does nothing to assist them.

Our party is proposing to improve home care. We want to help seniors maintain their independence in the community. That is very critical. I say to the

government, if their measure had been more progressive, capping the amount, then I think some people on this side of the House might support the measure. We might stand up and say, "Well, if we're

going to help seniors and it's directed to those who need it, then that might be a worthwhile measure and we would give it some consideration."

That is not the case with this measure. It is regressive; it is hurtful; it is using resources in a very unwise fashion. It is yet again another example of

this government not understanding that seniors who live on fixed incomes, who are of modest means, cannot get by. The frail elderly need the additional home care. There were 70-year-olds in my

riding who were having to take care of their parents who were in their 90s because they had been cut off from home care or did not have access to it. That's the kind of Ontario that we live in as a

result of this government's policies. That's shameful, absolutely shameful. To give $5,000 and $10,000 back to multi-millionaires is the most regressive thing this government has ever done.

Thank you, Speaker. I'll be sharing my time with my colleagues.

The Deputy Speaker: I just wanted to take a moment to welcome the grade 8 students of St Aloysius School in Stratford in the visitors'

gallery, along with their principal Herman Koert and Karen Abernot, and they have other chaperones and helpers with them. Welcome to Toronto and the Legislature.

Further debate?

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I want to indicate at the outset that I will be sharing this time with my colleague from Sault Ste Marie.

This is a time allocation motion that we're dealing with today, so it has to be Wednesday. Every Wednesday that the two of us are in here, Mr Martin and myself, we are dealing with a time

allocation motion. The government doesn't disappoint us again today, as we deal with yet another initiative that truly shifts money from the poor to the rich in just an unbelievable fashion.

I want to say at the outset that our party will not be supporting Bill 43. We voted against it once; we'll vote against this time allocation motion. We'll vote

against this bill because what this government is interested in doing is moving money that should go to low-income seniors to those like their friends: wealthy seniors who have absolutely no need

of a break at all when paying property taxes on their $5-million estates.

Our argument would also be that the $450 million the government proposes to put out through this initiative, along with the $15 million that it will cost just

to administrate this scheme, frankly is money that would be much better spent dealing with, for example, the disabled seniors in Sudbury-Manitoulin, who will lose all of their homemaking services

courtesy of this government beginning July 23; or with seniors in long-term-care facilities, who last year took a hit of a $3.05-a-day increase, every day, day in and day out, on their cost of

accommodation in long-term care facilities, which this government hasn't compensated them for; and with any number of other initiatives for seniors that, frankly, we should be dealing with instead

of giving money to wealthy seniors to pay for their multi-million dollar estates here in Ontario and other places in the province.

Let me begin by saying that I listened to the debate two nights ago and heard any number of government members say, and try to have people who were watching

believe, that there's absolutely nothing in place in terms of a credit to assist seniors who are struggling with their property taxes, those seniors who want to stay in their own homes but are

finding it very difficult because of high property taxes. If you had listened to the government members two nights ago, they would have had you believe that there is nothing in place, which of

course is completely false, just not true and dishonest.

Secondly, it was interesting to hear some of the Conservative members cry about property taxes, as if their government had nothing to do with the high burden

of property taxes that people in municipalities are facing. I would remind those people who are watching that it was this government that over 1996 and 1997 downloaded 100% of public health costs,

20% of the entire child care budget, 20% of the family resource program budget, 100% of the cost of public transit, 100% of the property costs of property assessment services and 100% of ambulance

services on to municipalities, and cut all funding for municipal roads. This was the government that downloaded all of those things on to municipalities.

The government tries to pretend that because they took back some money on education, in fact the exchange was revenue-neutral. I want to quote from Mayor Jim

Gordon, who is a Conservative member. He may still be a card-carrying Conservative member. I don't know that for sure, so I shouldn't say that. Mayor Jim Gordon, of the city of Greater Sudbury,

used to be a Conservative MPP and cabinet minister. Mr Gordon and company from the municipality appeared before Madam Ecker's travelling road show when she was doing pre-budget consultation earlier

this spring.

This is what Mayor Jim Gordon, Conservative, had to say about how neutral the government's exchange really was:

"The continuing revenue imbalance with regard to the local services realignment ... of 1998" presents major challenges.

"The challenge for 2003 will be to meet the increasing burden of those services transferred to the municipalities in 1998." He gives the following examples.

Let me read them into the record:

Example 1:"The continuing increase in costs with regard to Ontario Works and children's services whereby the province has imposed a ceiling on its subsidy that

it will pay for administration," a ceiling "that does not recognize salary, benefits, rent increases ... etc and are therefore passed on to" this "municipality at 100% dollars. An estimate for

Ontario Works indicates that this" cost "alone is worth $440,000 in 2003."

Example 2: "The insufficient funding for social housing:

"As you will recall, in 1998 the city became responsible for social housing and assumed approximately 5,500 units. The revenue neutrality of this transfer was

questioned at that time and is still questioned today. The 2003 social housing budget, net of CRF changes, has increased by $900,000. This is due to inflationary increases, capital requirements of

the local housing corporation, and increased non-profit housing costs. In spite of the $900,000 increase, there continues to be a significant gap in capital funding for social housing in general,"

courtesy of this government.

Example 3 of the lack of neutrality is the following:

"Again dealing with those services that were transferred to the municipality, the provincial offences revenue that was used as an offset in the CRF (community

investment fund) calculation was never realized, and as the CRF does not take into consideration lost revenue in provincial" expenses, "this has resulted in a further cost to the city of an

additional $700,000" for the year 2003 alone.

Example 4: "Again dealing with the CRF, the province has imposed an unrealistic salary cap for those involved in land ambulance services; namely 2%. Salary

increases today in both the private and public sectors are over 3%, yet the province refuses to move on this cap. This again will add approximately $700,000 to the municipal budget."

The above are but a few examples of where the local services realignment is not and was not revenue-neutral, and continues to put financial burdens on

municipalities. In addition to these specific examples, the community reinvestment fund is not indexed to inflation and therefore puts an additional burden on to municipalities like my own.

It must be remembered that at the time of the social services realignment in 1998, municipalities were expected to find savings to make up for lost provincial

grants. The total lost grants at that time were just over $7 million for the eight municipalities which are now the city of Greater Sudbury. Over the last six years, Sudbury has lost over $42

million in provincial grants.

There you have it. This was a presentation that was done by Mayor Jim Gordon and the city to Madam Ecker at the pre-budget consultations earlier this spring in

Sudbury. There is no doubt that the exercise of downloading services and hundreds of millions of dollars of costs associated with those services, while the province picked up education costs, was

not revenue-neutral. There you have it from a former MPP of the Conservative Party, a former cabinet minister of the Conservative Party, who is now the mayor of the city of Sudbury.

It was not then, and is not now, revenue-neutral. The reason so many municipalities like my own are experiencing increases in property taxes is because this

exchange was not revenue-neutral and because the government did not download the money needed to provide those services at the time when those services were dumped on to municipalities.

The government members who were so interested in talking about how terrible it was that property taxes are increasing and how they have to do something about

it have a lot to answer for. It is this government and the policy of downloading these services that are driving up property taxes in municipality after municipality across this province, including

my own.

I go back to one of the points that was raised that evening by government members: that somehow there was nothing in place to protect seniors from high

property taxes -- high property taxes directly driven by this government. In fact, there is a property tax credit that is in place for seniors. It has been providing property tax relief for

low-income seniors for some time now. Those are surely the seniors who we are trying to protect and who we want to assist, in order that they remain in their own homes. In fact, there is relief

already in place, already existing, to ensure that low-income seniors can stay in their homes.

The difference between what is in place now to protect vulnerable seniors who want to remain in their homes and what the government wants to do, is the

government wants to take the lid off the cap that is currently in place for you to qualify. The government will now provide your taxpayer dollars, and mine, to any senior in this province,

regardless of their income, to pay for their property taxes.

Why should taxpayers of this province be paying property taxes for wealthy seniors in Ontario? Wealthy seniors, for example, like Ted Rogers and his wife

Loretta -- Ted Rogers, who is the cable television magnate -- are going to see the tax bill on their $5.5-million Toronto home reduced by more than $23,000 annually as a result of this measure. Why

do Ted Rogers and his wife need that kind of money? They don't. Media tycoon Ken Thomson and Barrick Gold founder and chairman Peter Munk, with homes in Toronto assessed at about $5.3 millions

respectively, will each pay about $22,500 less in property taxes, courtesy of the measure that the government brings to us today. Good for them. They really need it, don't they? Annual property

taxes on the $3.6-million home of Toronto financier and former Lieutenant Governor Hal Jackman will decline by nearly $15,000 this year courtesy of this government, while singer Gordon Lightfoot --

whose music I appreciate very much -- will save nearly $17,000 this year on his $4-million Toronto home when he turns 65 later this year.

These are hardly Ontario seniors who are vulnerable. They are hardly Ontario seniors who need to take other people's tax money in order to reduce their

property taxes. If they want to build and own $4-million estates, that's their business. They should pay the property taxes for their estates. We should not be using taxpayers' dollars to pay

property taxes of these wealthy seniors or others. We have a property tax credit in place to protect low-income seniors to ensure that taxpayers' dollars go to ensuring those low-income seniors get

a break on their property taxes and can stay in their own homes. It is appalling that we are here today dealing with a tax measure that's going to pay property taxes for the likes of these

individuals and other wealthy Ontarians who don't, for a moment, need help paying their property taxes.

I listened to the government try and talk about this benefit for seniors. I think it's worth reading into the record some of the comments from the very

seniors' organizations that the government purports that they are going to help through this measure. First of all, let me deal with Judy Cutler, communications director for Canada's Association

for the Fifty-Plus, a seniors' lobby group with more than 400,000 members. She said, "This will do nothing to really help seniors who don't own expensive homes. The budget was an insult to the

intelligence and well-being of seniors. Throwing a few bucks back isn't going to be enough to provide what people really need: home care and affordable rental housing."

Let's look at what Mae Harman had to say in the Toronto Star of April 5. She is 83 years old, a co-founder of the Ontario Coalition of Seniors'

Organizations.

"Pensioner Mae Harman admits it's a struggle to pay ever-increasing property taxes on her modest north Toronto bungalow.

"But she wants no part of last week's provincial budget plan to give her a rebate on the education portion of her local tax bill.

"`As a senior I just think it's deplorable.'

"`I'd certainly like to get some extra money, but not at the expense of public education. Seniors value education and believe it's important to support it.'

...

"`The sop to seniors of relief from education taxes, which will most benefit those with the most expensive properties, is an insult to grandparents and the

majority of seniors. It's totally ridiculous,' says Harmon, whose coalition includes more than 150 groups representing more than 500,000 seniors across the province."

Here's a third example, this time from Ethel Meade, who is the co-chairwoman of the Ontario Coalition of Seniors' Organizations in Ontario. She said "the

government is `very uneasy ab