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

May 28, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-May-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 28 May 2002 Mardi 28 mai 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIONAL ACCESS

AWARENESS WEEK

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

LONG-TERM CARE

GREY COUNTY

ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATIONS

CARDIAC CARE

LONG-TERM CARE

GREAT CANADIAN

TOWN BAND FESTIVAL

SERVICES DE SANTÉ POUR ENFANTS

DIANE KALENCHUK

VISITORS

MOTIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE

ON ALTERNATIVE FUELS

BILL WILKINS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAMILY RESTROOM

FACILITIES ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LES INSTALLATIONS

SANITAIRES FAMILIALES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

HYDRO ONE

ONTARIO SECURITY

HYDRO ONE

HIGHWAY INTERCHANGES

ONTARIO SECURITY

TOURISM

HEALTH CARE

PRIVATE TUTORING SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

MINISTRY SPENDING

VICTIMS' RIGHTS

PETITIONS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

YOUNG OFFENDER FACILITY

COLLINGWOOD GENERAL

AND MARINE HOSPITAL

HYDRO ONE

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

OHIP SERVICES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

PRIVATE HOSPITALS

OPPOSITION DAY

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Tuesday 28 May 2002 Mardi 28 mai 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIONAL ACCESS

AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I am pleased to rise today on the occasion of National Access Awareness Week. This is an opportunity

for us as a Legislature to recognize the accomplishments that are made by so many people in this province who pay a far higher price than the average person does for their accomplishments. In many

senses, they serve as wonderful role models and heroes for us.

However, this week is also a reminder to those of us who do not have a disability that we can do more; we can do much more to provide access. We can work to

ensure that the disabled community has the same access to public transportation as everyone else in the province. We can work to ensure there are far more services, including government services,

available to those individuals who are deaf and blind. We need to work for families who are living with a family member with mental illness to ensure there are more proper and adequate services and

supports available for them. We need to ensure that the special education students in our province start to receive the funding they need, so that they can maximize their development and be full

citizens. In short, we need to take down the barriers to ensure that we provide equal services and equal opportunities to those who require access to special services.

This government, which rushed through the Ontarians with Disabilities Act in December last year, could do the right thing and finally proclaim that bill, weak as

it is, to show that we pay more than lip service, that we truly care and we recognize the needs of those who require special access.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I am pleased today to recognize the work of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in the creation

of the long-awaited Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation. I am immensely pleased to be able to stand here today and pay tribute to yet another environmental initiative launched by our government, a

government that in one day in 1999 created more parkland than any other government in the history of the world, a government that has a legacy of creating parks and preserves all across the

province. The bottom line is that we have parks such as the Rouge Park, the world's largest park in an urban setting, massive green space guaranteed to provide contact with Ontario's natural

heritage for hundreds of years to come.

I also want to pay tribute to the work of the volunteers that led to this great announcement: people on Save the Oak Ridges Moraine, folks on the working group

that worked with the minister to develop the Oak Ridges moraine plan.

I also want to recognize the $15 million in seed money that has already been put into the hands of this new foundation but which we believe will trigger

literally hundreds of millions of public and private dollars to guarantee that the moraine is protected from one end to the other as the largest green space, the largest protected area, ever

created in the province of Ontario and certainly the largest one anywhere near the greater Toronto area.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet in my office with 40 administrators, staff and

families from the long-term-care facilities in my riding. Later the same day I was fortunate to be able to visit the GlenStorDun Lodge, a long-term-care facility in my riding, and also Winchester

District Memorial Hospital, with Ruth Pollock.

Throughout the day I had the opportunity to speak with nurses, administrators and residents about long-term care. Many in my riding are extremely concerned about

the critical lack of funding for the programs and services in Ontario's long-term-care facilities as well as the number of patients who are forced to wait in hospitals until a nursing home becomes

available.

Often, before seniors enter long-term-care facilities they are forced to wait in hospitals, long after they could be released, for a nursing home bed to become

available. Not only does this end up costing the government more money in the long run, but also, who wants to be in hospital when it's not necessary?

In 1998, the government promised 20,000 additional beds. Only 3,700 have become available.

I want to mention that Pamela Nisbet, an administrator at Woodland Villa, currently says that nursing staff have only four minutes to assist residents to get up,

washed, dressed and into the dining room, 10 minutes to assist residents with eating, 15 minutes of programming per day and one bath per week. The government needs to address this issue

immediately.

GREY COUNTY

ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATIONS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I rise in the House today to invite everyone to an upcoming event in my riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen

Sound. On the weekend of June 14, Grey county will be celebrating its 150th anniversary. This is truly a historical occasion. I would encourage everyone to come out, join in the celebrations and

experience the hospitality of a jam-packed weekend planned full of activities for everyone.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): Can you go fishing?

Mr Murdoch: Yes, you can go fishing too.

The weekend will begin on Friday, June 14, at Owen Sound's Victoria Park, with opening ceremonies at 9 pm. There will be various dignitaries present, along with

a mass pipe and drum band of approximately 40 to 45 people from the Grey county area. Also planned is an entire weekend of entertainment featuring country and Celtic music as well as modern and

old-time square dancing, all produced by the Bognor Jam Production and Promotion Co.

A couple of highlights of the weekend will include the unveiling of a new Grey county flag, the kickoff for the 2004 International Plowing Match and the cutting

of one of the largest birthday cakes in the world.

Also, when you're in the area, take time to enjoy the surrounding scenery and activities. Local museums, libraries, music festivals and studio tours showcase the

many faces of local culture and the talents of various artists.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): What about Walkerton?

Mr Murdoch: I am very proud to be part of this occasion and offer Grey county my personal best wishes on this special occasion. Thank you. And

to Ms Churley, Walkerton is in Bruce county and not in Grey county.

CARDIAC CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): It's high time that the more than 17 cardiac rehab centres which were set up by the Minister of

Health a year and a half ago as pilot projects are given sufficient permanent funding so that the patients and their families who benefit from this program can continue to count on this most

important cardiac service.

At cardiac rehab centres, teams of health care professionals, including nurses, physiotherapists, dietitians, social workers, exercise physiologists,

psychologists and consulting cardiologists, work together to improve the health of a cardiac patient by providing tips on diet and exercise and monitoring a patient's recovery while they are

exercising.

Minister, you have two reports on the pilot projects, as well as economic studies done in the US and Finland, that confirm that cardiac rehab programs benefit

the patients and their families. Following treatment, patients require fewer trips to the hospital, less medication and experience fewer subsequent heart attacks and reduced risk of diabetes.

From a purely economic viewpoint, the cost for a cardiac patient is less than two days of treatment for a person in an ICU. As Daniel Soberman, who has written

to you on two occasions about the tremendous benefits of the program at Hotel Dieu Hospital in Kingston following his heart attack -- letters, I might add, to which you've never responded --

states, "They're going to let the money run out. What sense does that make?" At the Kingston centre alone, more than 120 cardiac patients have been treated over the last seven years.

We demand action today. Minister, fund the program and give them sufficient funding to operate on.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I rise again in my place with more cards to the government, more outrage from our seniors' community.

In particular, these cards are from the long-term-care facility in Shalom Village in Queens Garden Retirement Home in my community. This is the buildup that eventually is going to lead to the point

where you recognize your responsibility to seniors in long-term-care facilities.

Yesterday Ethel Meade, a member of the Ontario Health Coalition, said, "It's a scandal to me. The conditions in our nursing homes, that's the real scandal." She

pointed out that this government in 1997 cut the hours of nursing care, which were at 2.25 hours per patient -- you cut back. You cut back on the services to seniors in our nursing homes, and then

you also felt it was OK to eliminate the regulation that said there had to be a registered nurse on-site. This is supposed to be a government that cares about the people of Ontario?

Further to that, you've got CARP, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus, 400,000 members, and what do they have to say about your latest policy change in terms

of admission? "The draconian nature of the policy is a great worry to us and to the seniors who are affected and to their families." Again, you've got millions of dollars for tax cuts for

corporations and not enough money for our seniors, the most vulnerable here in Ontario.

GREAT CANADIAN

TOWN BAND FESTIVAL

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to mention an important musical and social event in my riding of Durham next month. I'm

referring, of course, to the Great Canadian Town Band Festival in Orono on June 14, 15 and 16. Write it down.

This festival pays tribute to a 200-year-old Canadian musical tradition. Town bands originated, as you might know, in the 1790s, when British military bands

stationed in Upper Canada and Lower Canada played in parades and other special community events.

I'm pleased to report that the Orono community is continuing the tradition with this outstanding festival of band music. The weekend includes a military tattoo

Friday night -- a must-attend event -- a parade and concert Saturday, a big-band showcase on Saturday night, and a salute to local bands on Sunday. There will be performances by the Juno

Award-winning Spitfire Band, the Drums of the Fort Henry Guard, True North Brass, and an all-trombone ensemble called Slide Rule. These are just a few of the 24 bands that will be performing. Also

appearing is acclaimed trombone virtuoso Alain Trudel. He will perform and also lead a master class later.

Events of this magnitude do not happen without the dedication of corporate sponsors and scores of volunteers. I could possibly name a few of them. I'd like to

pay tribute to the 2002 committee. They include Dave Climenhage, chairman, along with Colin Rowe, Marg Zwart, Judy Climenhage, Barrie Hodges, Janet Cringle, Brian Dalloway, Mary-Sue O'Connor,

Brigette Brown, Gail Empey and Jeanne Burnside.

The Ontario Trillium Foundation contributed $70,000 toward making this a very worthwhile event on June 14, 15 and 16. We'll see you there.

SERVICES DE SANTÉ POUR ENFANTS

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Je veux exprimer ma déception de l'annonce de vendredi dernier. L'est ontarien est en

choc aujourd'hui, oui, en choc, à cause du traitement que le gouvernement conservateur réserve à nos enfants. La réduction des services de cardiologie à l'Hôpital pour

En espérant que les conservateurs auront bon coeur et qu'ils renverseront leur décision, je vous fais part d'un exemple. Patrick Quesnel, d'Alexandria,

a subi sa première opération à peine deux heures après sa naissance. Patrick en a subi 11 autres en cinq ans -- oui, 11 opérations en cinq ans. Il a dû visiter la

clinique de CHEO trois fois par semaine. Patrick Quesnel est un francophone, et ce gouvernement est prêt à l'envoyer dans un milieu anglophone à 600 kilomètres pour sa prochaine

opération. Je dis non. À

titre d'Ontarien, à

titre de député et à

titre de parent, je répète encore : c'est inacceptable. Aussi, prenez garde du fait

qu'il y a seulement un hélicoptère de disponible pour desservir tous nos enfants de l'est ontarien.

Pour l'amour de nos enfants de l'est de l'Ontario, j'espère que ce gouvernement aura bon coeur et qu'il gardera ces services essentiels ouverts à CHEO.

Autrement, la bataille commence samedi prochain, à 10 heures du matin dans le stationnement de CHEO.

DIANE KALENCHUK

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Diane Kalenchuk as the recipient of the Gordon S. Shipp

Memorial Award for 2002, and the Mississauga Citizen of the Year.

A successful realtor and long-time resident of Mississauga, Diane also finds time to provide inspired leadership in minor sports, civic projects and

multiculturalism. Diane has been a member of the Mississauga Real Estate Board since 1980 and served as its president in 1991. In 1995 she received the Ron Sanderson Award, which honours

outstanding realtors who volunteer in the community while upholding the highest ideals of their profession. She also received the Joan Fitzpatrick Award for volunteer commitments to the MREB.

Diane co-chaired the Mississauga Millennium Committee, which organized a year-long celebration for the turn of the century. In minor sports her more than two

decades of service have included key roles in establishing Gymnastics Mississauga and building the new club's facility.

A member of the Mississauga Sports Council since 1992 and its chair since 1997, Diane serves on the sports complex committee and has chaired the sports week and

sports dinner committees.

Diane, your hard work, dedication and generosity with your personal time are an inspiration to residents across Mississauga. We're all very proud of you. Thank

you for making a difference in the lives of so many people in our great city.

VISITORS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Sitting in the gallery with my daughter Angie and my nephew Michael

Harris is a master of capoeiro, Mestre Antonio Bezzera dos Santos, who lives in Brazil in the heart of the Amazon jungle. He is a master of capoeiro, which is an extremely acrobatic, athletic

martial art that requires of its students tremendous physical skill. I am proud to say that my daughter Angie is now a graduated student. I would like to recognize the mestre from Brazil and his

friends.

Welcome, bienvindo, Mestre Antonio Bezzera dos Santos.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): Also on a point of order, Mr Speaker:I read with interest the Ontario Business Report that's just been

presented. It says, "Runciman promotes Ontario's competitiveness to the world and announces automotive sector round table." I applaud him on the creation of the round table, but it would have been

nice to have a car made in Ontario and not a Corvette made in Kentucky.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's not a point of order.

MOTIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE

ON ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): I would like to ask for unanimous consent to move a motion

concerning the select committee on alternative fuels.

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

Hon Mr Stockwell: I move that, not withstanding the order of the House dated June 28, 2001, the select committee on alternative fuels shall

submit its final report to the assembly by June 6, 2002.

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

The minister for a point of order.

BILL WILKINS

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): Mr Speaker, I'd like consent for each party to speak for approximately five

minutes on the passing of Barrie firefighter Bill Wilkins.

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

Hon Mr Runciman: I rise in the House to recognize the tragic passing of Barrie firefighter Bill Wilkins. Firefighter Wilkins died yesterday in

the line of duty, as the result of injuries suffered while fighting a house fire in his community.

Bill Wilkins was only 32 years old. He had always wanted to be a firefighter, and began his career as a volunteer with the Oro-Medonte township fire service. In

2000, he joined the Barrie Fire and Emergency Service as a full-time professional firefighter. He was also a paramedic and a volunteer ski patroller. He was a man who clearly cared deeply about his

community and helping others. The tragedy of Bill Wilkins's death is compounded by the fact that he and his fiancée planned to be married in just four short weeks. Firefighter Wilkins is also

survived by his mother and two brothers.

Last November, former Premier Harris and I visited Ground Zero in New York City. For me, the most moving part of that emotional visit was having the opportunity

to see the temporary firefighters' memorial. That memorial contained the pictures of the hundreds of firefighters who lost their lives in the space of a few hours that fateful morning. It

dramatically drove home to me that firefighters like these men and like Bill Wilkins know that every single day they report for duty, they face the uncertainty of whether today is the day they will

be called on to risk their lives in the service of others. Understanding this challenge is one thing; accepting it and overcoming it every single shift is something else. It defines heroism for me

and I know for all Ontarians.

Firefighters are a part of that small and all too often unappreciated core within each community, a core that includes police officers and emergency medical

personnel, dedicated public servants who allow all of us to feel safer and more secure. Bill Wilkins was the seventh firefighter to die in the line of duty in the past 10 years in Ontario.

In closing, let me extend our condolences to the Wilkins family, his fiancée, his fellow firefighters and friends, and the community of Barrie. Hopefully,

there will be solace in knowing that their grief is shared by us all.

Mr Speaker, following the comments of other members, I would ask through you that all honourable members rise for a minute of silence in memory of the

all-too-short life of Bill Wilkins.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): The first thing I'd like to do is to thank the Minister of Public Safety and Security for allowing the

Ontario Legislature to reflect on the life of Bill Wilkins and the price that he paid in saving Ontarians as he did in Barrie a couple of days ago.

I don't know if it's since the events of 9/11, but I think if one could say that there has been a positive change in society since that horrific, terrible

attack on New York City, maybe in our day-to-day lives now we are starting to take the time to appreciate the men and women who serve and risk their lives to protect us all in society.

I know the minister has always respected and revered our men and women in uniform, and everybody in this House respects that and knows that to be true. I know

I got a greater understanding about five years back when my leader, Dalton McGuinty, asked me to be the critic for the Solicitor General and I really got to know for the very first time the men and

women who serve in our firefighting services. It was really the best time of my life to get to know a group that was strong and loyal and very tight-knit, very protective of each other because they

risked their lives every day.

As Dalton would say, in our just-in-time lives we're so busy just trying to keep up with our lives, to keep our family going and keep up with work, that we

don't take time to pause and appreciate that in some lines of work people risk their lives every day. Most of us don't, but there is a large group of people in this province who do that. They and

their families don't know, when the emergency worker goes to work, whether that person will be returning to their home that evening. Most of us don't think that. We take it for granted that we'll

be back home, because our jobs don't potentially mean we will pay the ultimate price that these emergency service workers do. I think we forget that and I appreciate the minister's giving us that

opportunity.

I would like to say to Bill's fiancée, his mother and his two brothers that we deeply regret what happened, but we appreciate that Bill was out there

trying to do his job, protecting and serving the people of Ontario. From the reports that I've read of how Bill looked at his job, we know that he was doing what he loved to do, which I know I

could say for all of the emergency service workers I know.

On behalf of the Liberal caucus, we send our condolences to Bill's family and we will never forget.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): It's a tragedy when any worker dies in the course of the performance of their job. But front-line emergency

response personnel, women and men in fire services, police services and other emergency response services, take on their professions knowing that an integral part of that task that they're going to

be called upon to perform involves the risk of personal danger and, yes, the risk of death.

It's an incredibly tragic thing for us here in this Legislature, and I want to say clearly that we speak today with one voice. There is clear unanimity in this

chamber, as we speak with respect and regard and indeed with awe for Bill Wilkins. He was 32 years old, two years in the firefighting services, just beginning a career that undoubtedly -- well, it

already was spectacular, wasn't it? We speak of heroism, but it's a heroism that's born of commitment, of professionalism, of a sense of service to one's community and to the people in that

community. It's a professionalism and sense of service and heroism that firefighters display every day.

We learn so much about our own shortcomings when we witness the special strengths and the special qualities of others. Bill Wilkins's role in the community was

not restricted to firefighting, but he participated in every other facet of the community and in roles which enhanced and secured the safety of other people in that community, every one of them. He

was one of those exceptional people who, by demonstrating his special qualities in such a dramatic and regrettable way, simply causes us to pause and reflect on our own shortcomings.

So you have a mother without a son, brothers without a brother and a young woman without her husband. We can't even begin to imagine their incredible grief.

But I say on behalf of this New Democrat Party caucus, and I'm confident this statement is shared by all, that while that grief will persist, we hope it is alleviated even somewhat by knowing that

Bill Wilkins's passing is a loss not just for his family, not just for his young fiancée and not just for his fire service -- and it is, for his colleagues, for his community -- but it's a

loss for all of us here in the province of Ontario.

We remind ourselves that, yes, women and men in firefighting services undertake this danger on a daily basis, and they are prepared to partake in that bizarre

lottery that their profession requires them to play the game of chance with. But they do it on a daily basis in every community in this province, big fire services and not so big, like Barrie, and

they do it with a courage that only special people can muster up. They do it with a commitment that is unique to people in these front-line emergency services professions, and they sustain each

other with their unique sense of fraternity and sorority within those professions. I hope we help them sustain that courage and commitment with this modest gesture of support and condolence here in

this chamber today.

So New Democrats join with every other member of this assembly in expressing our profound regret at the tragic loss of life of Bill Wilkins. We express our

most sincere sympathies to his family, his colleagues, his fiancée and, indeed, to his community.

We hope and pray that every firefighter, while facing the incredible risk of loss of limb or loss of life, has the strength and courage to continue to do their

job, which is incredibly important to the safety and security of each and every community and each and every resident of that community here in Ontario.

The Speaker: I thank the members. The minister has asked for a moment of silence. Agreed? Agreed.

Would all our friends in the gallery please join us for a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment's silence.

The Speaker: I thank all the members and our friends in the gallery. I will ensure the fine comments are forwarded to the family.

During the introduction of bills, I inadvertently missed a member who apparently was standing. With the consent of the House, we could go back to the

introduction of bills. Agreed? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAMILY RESTROOM

FACILITIES ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LES INSTALLATIONS

SANITAIRES FAMILIALES

Mr Parsons moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 57,

An Act to facilitate families by requiring that all buildings open to the public be equipped with family restroom facilities / Projet de loi 57, Loi

visant à assister les familles en exigeant que tous les bâtiments ouverts au public soient équipés d'installations sanitaires familiales.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): A constituent of mine made me aware of the challenges many seniors face when they're out in public

and require some assistance. In far, far too many cases in Ontario, a wife is not able to assist a husband or a husband a wife. This also applies to families with disabilities. The reality of this

is that individuals are kept prisoners in their homes, because they cannot go to a shopping centre, a government building or any number of buildings where they would require some assistance.

This act would require that by January 1, 2005, government buildings, municipal buildings and commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet, such as shopping

centres, have a family washroom available for a family member to assist another family member.

I suggest that it would also be most helpful to young families where you have one parent with a young child who is too young to use the washroom on their own

but too old to go into the washroom with the parent.

I believe this would facilitate safety for young families and would certainly enable seniors and individuals with disabilities to get out into the community of

which they are very much a part.

The Speaker: I thank the member and the House for their indulgence.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): For more than six years, this government has been

consulting and taking action to ensure that Ontario has an electricity system that is ready for the 21st century.

Beginning with the report of former federal finance minister Donald Macdonald and continuing through forums such as the Electricity Transition Committee and

the Market Design Committee, the government has sought advice from experts and from Ontarians with views on reform, from consumer advocates and environmentalists to municipal distributors and large

power users.

The government set out and began to implement a clear plan for reform, beginning with a white paper and continuing through comprehensive and detailed

regulations. At every stage, we benefited from extensive input from the public and stakeholders.

That plan passed a major milestone when, on May 1 of this year, Ontario's electricity market opened for competition. May 1 heralded an historic turning point,

not only for Ontario's electricity market but also for our economy and for the future well-being of all who live here.

The market opening was a critical step in the government's plan for a comprehensive and necessary overhaul of Ontario's electricity sector -- necessary

because, however well it had functioned for many years, the old electricity monopoly, Ontario Hydro, had by the 1980s begun to suffer from crippling effects of gross mismanagement and appalling

waste.

What were those effects? By 1999, they included an astronomical $38-billion debt and other liabilities, and a generation and transmission infrastructure that

was suffering from neglect and sliding into disrepair.

Who was on the line to pay that debt? It was the ratepayer who was left to pay the bill -- literally. Up to 35% of each electricity bill in this province has

gone to paying down the old Ontario Hydro debt, and most ratepayers didn't even know it. If the debt burden became too great for the ratepayers, why then it would be up to the taxpayers of Ontario,

each and every one of us, to guarantee or backstop that debt. Similarly, many people have only recently come to know that our transmission infrastructure needs repair, renewal and, above all,

reinvestment.

When the government began consultations and reform in 1995, it soon became clear that it would take more than yet another study of Ontario Hydro or a few

team-building exercises, or worse, a massive influx of taxpayers' money, to fix Ontario's electricity sector. We knew that we had to rethink the entire sector from the ground up. We consulted and

listened and developed a plan for electricity restructuring in the interest of Ontarians.

Much of that plan is already in place. We split generation and transmission into separate companies to create fairer, more focused competitors. We adopted

provisions to mitigate and reduce Ontario Power Generation's market power, to strengthen competition and give consumers more choices. We restructured and refinanced the new companies to improve

transparency and accountability.

The next step in the plan is to ensure the continued viability of Hydro One Inc, which operates Ontario's transmission grid, without leaving taxpayers on the

hook for the necessary investments.

After a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court, Premier Ernie Eves announced that the government would propose new legislation on the future of Hydro One. The

Premier instructed me to hold a series of public consultation hearings throughout the province to gather input about the legislation.

We wanted to know the views of the people of Ontario on the following four key objectives: first, to ensure an efficient supply of energy that is competitive

for the people of Ontario and in the international marketplace; second, to ensure that necessary capital is provided to rebuild and modernize the transmission and distribution of power in Ontario;

third, to bring market discipline to Hydro One, the province's transmission company, and to eliminate and prevent any possibility of the recurrence of staggering debts such as the current

$38-billion debt and other liabilities; and fourth, to achieve these goals while protecting consumers.

While the consultations were taking place, I received literally hundreds of letters, e-mails, faxes and phone calls from people across this province. People

want to know that, above all, the consumer will be protected, because at the end of the day, the purpose of reform is to provide benefits to the consumer. They want to be assured that the new

electricity market won't be subject to price manipulations like those alleged to have happened in California recently. They want to know that they have recourse against those few energy retailers

who use unscrupulous methods to secure a contract. They want more transparent contracts that present only honest, factual information.

They told us they want to know that our environment will be well protected, both by tough rules and by access to cleaner, greener forms of electrical energy.

They want to know that the electricity transmission corridor lands will remain in public ownership. They want to know that the massive Hydro debt will be dealt with.

On the first point, I can tell you that this government has already put in place a rigorous code of conduct that energy retailers must adhere to, and the

Ontario Energy Board will continue to regulate rates regardless of who owns the wires. But the toughest standards and regulations possible don't mean a thing without a way to ensure compliance;

that is regulations without teeth. That's why the government has already increased the Ontario Energy Board's power to enforce those standards. These powers include the ability to impose fines and

even revoke retailers' licences, depending on the severity of the infraction.

Some people suggested that these changes are still not enough, and your government has heard that concern.

With regard to environmental protection, I can tell you that we have listened, we have heard, and we will act.

We also listened to Ontarians when they told us their wishes about the transmission corridor lands, and last week you heard Premier Eves's commitment to keep

these lands in government hands.

Ontarians understand that the $38-billion debt must be reduced to keep the province economically competitive. Many of them told us in the strongest terms to

ensure that every last penny from the disposition of Hydro One, whatever form it may take, goes toward paying down this debt and finally removing this stone from around the taxpayers' neck.

I believe the $38 billion in debt and other liabilities and the deterioration of our electricity infrastructure are, if anything, signs that point to a

fundamental problem of governance in the publicly owned utilities in the absence of market discipline.

Finally, people gave us their opinions and ideas on the future of Hydro One. They offered many different possibilities to meet our common goals, and we will

continue to consider their thoughtful input. Our plan is clear, and it can only be strengthened by the breadth and depth of advice we have received on how to enact its principles.

The people of Ontario have told us their concerns. They understand the complexity of the challenges we all face and have offered us ideas on how to overcome

these challenges. Some of those ideas can be implemented soon; others demand greater consideration. We have welcomed them all. We will take the best aspects from each idea to fashion legislation

that will not only help transform the future of Ontario's electricity sector in the best interests of the people of Ontario but also ensure that the economy of this province continues to move from

strength to strength.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): It is to state the obvious to observe that there is much less in Minister Stockwell's

statement just read than is to be found on this subject in today's press.

What do we find out in the press today? We find out in the press today that Ms Eleanor Clitheroe, president and chief executive officer of Hydro One, has

enriched an already obscenely generous exit package since Premier Eves announced the potential of a change in government policy. Just to be clear, Hydro One, a company with one shareholder, the

government of Ontario, is now run by Ms Clitheroe, who we are told in the press today has enriched her deal.

What's her deal? It's a current salary in excess of $2 million, a severance package estimated to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5.5 million to $6

million, and a pension conservatively evaluated to be worth about $750,000 a year and indexed for life. That's what we find out in the press today. And you should know that that deal, sweet as it

was, has been enriched in the last couple of weeks by the directors of Hydro One, the shareholder of which is the Ontario government.

How do we know this? We don't know this because Premier Eves or Minister Stockwell is telling us. Oh, no. This government that says it believes in opening the

doors of public accountability has shut the doors of accountability and transparency to the successor companies of the old Ontario Hydro. You have specifically forbidden our freedom-of-information

legislation to range into the business affairs of these two companies. How do we know this? We know it because Hydro One has to fess up to the securities and exchange commission.

Now let me say something else: it's not just Eleanor Clitheroe. Who else is over there? This minister will talk about consumer protection, but make no mistake

about it: hydro in Ontario today is a $10-billion annual business. It is shot through with every special interest and conflict of interest you can imagine.

You know, I was reading the Hydro One prospectus and I am reminded of something else. Did you know, colleagues, that Hydro One has in recent times signed a

10-year, billion-dollar deal with an outfit called Inergy LP, an affiliate of Ernst and Young Canada -- a 10-year, billion-dollar deal. According to this prospectus filed by Hydro One a few weeks

ago, it is cited as a risk factor because, we're told in the prospectus, this 10-year, billion-dollar deal may in fact not save the electricity consumer any money.

Does anybody remember the Andersen Consulting deal and Comsoc? Not one, by the way; we have two deals worth a billion dollars, involving subsidiaries of Ernst

and Young. Do we know anybody who has a close connection with the Ontario Conservative government and formerly with Ernst and Young? I do. His name is Bill Farlinger. I would like to know, since

today's paper makes it plain that people like Eleanor Clitheroe and, I have to assume, Deb Hutton, my old friend, also at the executive suite -- these people, some of whom are very closely

connected to the Ontario Conservative Party and government, apparently are looking after themselves to a very considerable degree.

What's up with Bill Farlinger, I ask with all due respect? Two-billion-dollar outsourcing deals involving successor companies to Ontario Hydro and Ernst and

Young Canada. I'm sure my friends in the press are going to want to investigate that very carefully, because the Clitheroe deal is what we know to date and, boy, are people in important places

looking after themselves. My question is, who's looking after the ratepayer? Quite frankly, I hold little faith in our regulator, because in the early going the Ontario Energy Board looks more like

a referee from the World Wrestling Federation than a real, tough customer-friendly regulator.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Allow me to say I was very impressed by the Liberals' statement. This is the same Liberal Party that

only six months ago was saying they supported all this and in fact was trying to raise money from the very private corporations that want to make money off it.

But I want to refer to the minister, because it's the minister who perhaps has said the most outlandish things. I want to say to the people at home, because

this really concerns them, that the minister says that this government has been consulting on their design for electricity. Do you know whom they consulted with the most? Do you know who was on

every one of the technical, finance and design committees for deregulation? Enron. Enron was put on every one of the committees by this government. Enron also contributed, so far as we can tell, at

least $20,000 to a number of the cabinet ministers for their election campaigns. But it was Enron that was on the technical design committee and on the design advisory committee and all the other

committees. People across Ontario had better think twice about everything the minister says after that.

Then he says that the so-called market opening has been a tremendous success. But we read in the paper yesterday that one of the government's comrades-in-arms,

one of its staunchest supporters for privatization and deregulation, one Tom Adams of Energy Probe, says that because Pickering A isn't coming on-stream, we may face an electricity shortage this

summer. In fact, he's saying that consumers across this province are at risk of seeing their electricity bills go through the roof this summer. That's Tom Adams and he is a supporter of this

government. He is saying that this government has botched it.

Folks, all of you who may be at home, what you really have to listen to is this government's debt scaremongering. The truth of the matter is that every

hydroelectric utility in the western world, whether publicly or privately owned, carries debt -- every one. Hydro-Québec carries about $20 billion in debt. No one is saying that

Hydro-Québec is a disaster and has to be folded up. Manitoba Hydro carries about $8 billion in debt. No one is saying that they have to be folded up and put to bed.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Order.

Mr Hampton: What the government doesn't want to tell you is that the assets are valued at over $18 billion, and what they also don't want to

tell you is that there is a dedicated revenue stream there of over $13 billion. You see, generating and transmitting electricity is a business that takes in a lot of money, but the government

doesn't want to tell you that you have this revenue stream dedicated to paying down debt. In fact, the government's own corporation, the Ontario Electricity Financial Corp, tells us that when you

consider the value of the assets and the revenue stream, the so-called residual debt is only about $7 billion for a huge enterprise that has served the people of this province very well.

The government says it is interested in consumer protection. We've had examples of people being misled on the doorstep. We've had examples of people being

outright lied to on the doorstep. We've had examples of people's signatures being forged on these electricity retail contracts. What has the government done? Nothing. Nada. Why? Because this

government is on the side of those private electricity marketers. This government would rather look after them than protect the consumers of Ontario.

The government also says that it has made this process transparent and with accountability. The first thing they did was to say that the freedom of information

act no longer applies to what's happening here so that people wouldn't be able to find out the salaries and the bonuses -- the bloated, greedy salaries and bonuses -- that this government is now

paying its cronies both at Hydro One and at Ontario Power Generation. There's no transparency here. This is a government that has increased the salaries from about $400,000 a year to $2.5 million a

year, and the ratepayers of the province are paying for it. This is a government that has tried to keep it secret.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Minister of Energy has indicated that Hydro lands will remain in

public hands, and I take the minister at his word. In that instance, I would seek unanimous consent for an immediate third reading vote on Bill 13, the Electricity Amendment Act (Hydro Transmission

Corridor Lands), standing in the name of my colleague Mr Sergio from York West.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, I'm sure this will be fresh in

your mind. On the 15th of May we brought to the Legislature our concerns in connection with the outrageous compensation package awarded to Hydro One's senior executives.

On May 16, the Premier commented on those pay packages and said that they were inappropriate and he said that you were going to assume the responsibility to

look into this and presumably fix it. On the very next day, May 17, the board of Hydro One filed an even richer compensation package for their senior executive members.

My question to you is, given such an egregious act of insubordination, can you tell us whether the board of Hydro One continues to enjoy the confidence of

yourself, the Premier and your government?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): I will not stand here today and defend that act. It was

improper. It was --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I will not defend that act. That, in my opinion, was unacceptable, and it was unacceptable to the Premier. We are in the

process of reviewing salaries and will have some options at the end of the day. Those options will have to be taken by this cabinet and this caucus. Let me say that those options will include

suggesting to the board and to the senior staff that they roll those back. If they choose not to do that, we also have legislative options. We, as a government, are prepared to ensure that the

ratepayers are protected. If in fact we need to take legislative action to protect them, we are prepared to do so.

Mr McGuinty: Your board, Minister, the one that approved a $175,000 car allowance, a $172,000 vacation allowance, a $6-million golden

parachute, felt so accountable to you and to your government, so intimidated by the random musings of your Premier, that the following day they actually moved to enrich the compensation package for

senior executives. Who over there is going to take responsibility for bringing Hydro One board members to heel? If you can't control Hydro One as a public entity, how can we possibly have

confidence in you to control its new manifestation as a private entity? What specifically are you going to do, Minister, to bring Hydro One's board to heel?

Hon Mr Stockwell: First let me say that there's been no decision with respect to the disposition of Hydro One -- public, private, whatever.

That's the first thing.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: The second thing is, to the member from Vaughan, that we have agreed --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member come to order, please? It's hard to hear when he's shouting at the minister like that. Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Stockwell: We have agreed in very clear terms that we don't accept that decision by the board of directors.

The decision this government will take will be to review the salary compensation that's in place today. We will then take the necessary action to put in place

a decision of this cabinet and this government. If that action necessarily leads to legislative reform, then we will take legislative reform.

There's no shortage of commitment on this side. We are simply putting it to you that we don't accept that decision and we will remedy it for the benefit of the

taxpayers of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Tough talk, Minister. So tough, so threatening, so intimidating that the day following this matter being raised in the

Legislature, the board moved to enrich the compensation package. That is irrefutable. That's how much credibility you have in the eyes of the board.

We, the people of Ontario, through you, are the sole shareholder in Hydro One. Why is it that you have been so weak, so incapable of bringing the Hydro One

board to heel? You have been so ineffective that this board has actually moved to enrich the original compensation package. What specifically are you going to do to provide us with some confidence

that tomorrow or the day following or maybe sometime next week this same board won't move to still further enrich the compensation package for themselves?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Specifically? I couldn't have been any more specific.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's a very important question that I'm sure the people of Ontario want to hear, but there'll be no question period and the

minister will not be answering any questions as long as you continue to yell at him. The people of Ontario can look at the members who are yelling and screaming as the reason that this question

won't be answered, and we'll just sit here.

Plus, you give the minister plenty of time to think about his response. If that's what you want to do, that's what we'll do. Not that he needs any.

Minister.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I can't be any clearer than what I've said. We will sit down with the board of directors and

with the senior staff. We'll encourage them to roll that back and put a compensation package in place that's more acceptable to us and the ratepayers.

Now, if the board of directors and senior staff choose not to do that, we have one tool left. It's called legislation. This government is very clear. We will

move to legislation to protect the ratepayers in the province of Ontario. That's direct, that's clear and that's action.

When that legislation, and if that legislation, has to be introduced in this House, I would expect nothing but co-operation from the likes of McGuinty and

Hampton and --

The Speaker: Order. New question.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, I'm sure you will have recognized by now

that your decision to shut down the children's cardiac surgery programs in London and Ottawa has unleashed a firestorm of opposition.

Many in those communities are asking questions about your methodology, to say nothing of the conclusions you arrived at. More specifically, they're asking for

an objective, independent review by an expert in cardiology. You will be well aware that no cardiac specialists were among the group of advisors who recommended to you that you shut down these

children's cardiac surgery programs.

My question to you, Minister, is, will you now agree to an independent, objective review of the cardiac surgery programs for children in Ottawa and London?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the honourable member for the question. Indeed, I am hoping he was not

meaning to impugn some of the world-renowned pediatricians who took

part in the study and the report that was presented to the government.

Having said that, this issue was raised by CHEO and I'm pleased to inform the House that I've appointed Dr Wilbert Keon to conduct a review of the process, a

review of the facts, and a review of any facts that CHEO wishes to put on the table. From that perspective I believe we can clear the air and make sure that we do the right decision on behalf of

the people and children of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: On behalf of my community in Ottawa, I want to say thank you for that, Minister.

One of the things I would ask of you through your reviewer, Senator Keon, is to take into account the impact that losing cardiac surgeons is going to have on

our ability, in Ottawa specifically, to deal with emergencies. We deal with roughly 80 severe trauma cases on an annual basis at CHEO. One third of those arrive directly; two thirds are arriving

from places like Cornwall and Brockville. About 10 of those involve cardiovascular problems of a very serious nature. To deal with these life-and-death situations we need a full service team in

Ottawa, including cardiovascular surgeons and invasive cardiologists. You are going to take these away.

What are you proposing that we do in the future with these 10 children in need of immediate cardiovascular emergency care?

Hon Mr Clement: I would not presume to contradict either the findings of the pediatricians who composed the report in the first place, or

indeed anything that Dr Keon might find. As the honourable member knows, or should know, Dr Keon is an eminent cardiac surgeon based at the Ottawa Heart Institute. As a member of the Order of

Canada, as well as having other awards and recognitions, he has shown himself to be a truly great Canadian.

Having said that, I can tell the honourable member that the report that was put before me indicated that we were dealing with elective surgeries, that a number

of emergency surgery situations in Ottawa are already airlifted to Sick Kids or other locations and that the committee found that the way to ensure the best results, the healthiest kids possible

who are faced with this procedure -- their recommendations were the ones they posed to me. They made them in good faith, without politics, without those extraneous issues, strictly on a clinical

basis.

Mr McGuinty: Your Premier is now claiming it is a mark of courage in your government to listen. He tells us he wants to listen and that he

wants to lead a government that is responsive and responsible. With that in mind, I am going to recommend to you the letters to the editor that have been printed in Ottawa papers.

There is one today from a father who tells the story of his 10-day-old daughter who was undergoing ultrasound when she experienced cardiac arrest and her life

was saved as a result of the cardiac expertise then in Ottawa. There is another case today where a mother and father write about their eight-year-old daughter who was in shock as a result of E coli

and experienced a heart attack. Again, her life was saved in Ottawa at CHEO, in a very urgent matter, because of the cardiac expertise there. I'm asking you to admit, Minister, that as a matter of

common sense and compassion we must have cardiac care expertise at all times at CHEO.

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member is quite correct. Indeed, we should have cardiac care expertise in London and in Ottawa. We have

pediatric cardiac care expertise in Hamilton and in Kingston as well as in Toronto. So the honourable member is correct.

I would like to assure honourable members that no recommendation in the report indicated that anyone was attempting to remove all cardiac care from the Ottawa

region when it came to pediatrics. In fact, a number of cardiac procedures would still take place in both communities -- in London and in Ottawa -- just as they take place in Hamilton and in the

other teaching centre at Kingston. I can assure the honourable member that there will be cardiac expertise in Ottawa and in London, as it is currently found at McMaster and in Kingston. Indeed, I

believe the recommendation that there be a network of cardiac care that is province-wide and integrated leads to better care for all children in Ontario.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier, and it concerns this government's overall accountability.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry to interrupt. Order. Let's start over. We've got some discussions going on here. Sorry for the

interruption. We'll give you your time over again. Could we just hold the clock for about 10 seconds?

Mr Hampton: In 1997, one Eleanor Clitheroe was being paid about $400,000 a year as a vice-president at Ontario Hydro. In 1998, your government

passed your legislation, the Electricity Act, which broke up Ontario Hydro and created Hydro One. You then exempted this body from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, so that

the public and the press would not be able to find out what they were being paid. You put the board in place, and you put Eleanor Clitheroe and her cronies in place as the executive people. And

it's your government that says this should be privatized so that private sector discipline will prevail.

Your government has been in charge throughout this, while Eleanor Clitheroe's salary has gone from $400,000 a year to $6 million for just walking out the door.

Is this what you call discipline and looking after the consumers of Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I'll refer that to the Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): Firstly, let's deal with freedom of information. You were

in government. You didn't allow freedom of information to apply to companies such as Enbridge that were in the energy business. There was no freedom-of-information access to their information. You

couldn't access the information of Toronto Hydro. You couldn't access that information, and that's also with respect to freedom of information. They're being treated like any other energy entity

out there, like Toronto Hydro and like Enbridge. That's the first issue, that if you really felt strongly about it, why didn't you apply freedom of information to companies like that when you were

in power?

Second, we have been extremely clear with respect to the compensation packages. We find it unacceptable. The action that the board of directors took we find

also unacceptable. We are reviewing the salaries and we will meet with them and ask them to come forward with a package that is less undesirable to the people of the province of Ontario. If they

will not, I don't know how clear a government can be: we will take legislative action, I'm certain, in the near future if we need to and we'll have full co-operation via this line of questioning

from the Hamptons and McGuintys et al in this House.

Mr Hampton: The point is that what has gone on here has been this government's creation. It's this government that has set this whole fiasco

in place.

What's interesting is that the Hydro One board filed a statement with the Ontario Securities Commission that says they set their salaries based on comparable

compensation in the private and public sectors. I challenge the minister: you find somebody in the public sector who's going to get paid $6 million for just walking out the door. What's clear is

that all this comes about as a result of your government's policy of privatization. Even though this company hasn't been privatized yet, you're the government that said they should behave like a

private sector corporation.

Well, tell the hydro ratepayers of Ontario how it's good for them when you set up your cronies, the people you put in place at Hydro One, to get paid $6

million just for walking out the door and $3 million in salaries. How is that good for the hydro ratepayers of Ontario?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I've addressed the issue three times today with respect to this government's position on the compensation of Hydro One

employees and senior staff and I can go through it again. But I think what we need to understand here is that this government has taken a direction to move forward on preserving the hydro market in

Ontario.

You were the guy who spent five months travelling this province, telling people that when the market opened on May 1, 2002, prices were going to double and

we'd have rolling blackouts across the province. That never happened. The fact of the matter remains that the leader of the third party consistently, over five months, has made suggestions and

allegations that in fact never took place.

What I'm saying to you today is that we will meet, we will encourage them to remove that and we will ask them to review their compensation with an eye to

moving it downward. If they won't, we will move forward on legislative initiatives. I don't know what more the leader of the third party could ask for than decisive, clear leadership by this party,

this government, in the province of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: I just want to point out to the minister again that your own friend Tom Adams is saying to you that you've put the consumers of

Ontario in a position where they could well see hydro prices go through the roof this summer.

What is at the root of this is this government's whole philosophy that what has been a successful public utility, what has provided electricity for people in

this province for almost 100 years, can somehow be done better by your private sector friends. What do we see? We see boondoggle contracts for a billion dollars that they're forced to admit now may

not work. We're seeing people getting paid gross salaries that are simply going to come out of hydro ratepayers' pockets. And what does this government say? What do you say? "Oh well, you know,

we're going to go have a talk with them."

Minister, when are you going to admit that what happens under privatization are these kinds of bloated salaries and bonuses? These kinds of bloated payouts

become the rule, not the exception. How do you plan to protect people from that kind of activity, not just at Hydro One but at Ontario Power Generation too?

Hon Mr Stockwell: You've got to be the only guy in this province who thinks hydro was properly and well run with a $38-billion debt and $17

billion of assets. You have got to be -- no, maybe you're not. There are a few over here who might think the same way.

You are the only guy I know who comes up to me and says, "Boy, what a crackerjack, well-run, Swiss-watch operation Ontario Hydro was that ran up $38 billion in

debt and had $17 billion in assets." You are the only guy I run into who says, "Maintain the status quo. I want my children to pay my hydro bills." You're the only one coming up and telling me

that.

The reason we're in this mess is because the system broke, it wasn't well run, and we were the only government with the integrity, reviewing it from a

long-term angle, to concern ourselves with how power will be provided in Ontario. You sat idly by for five years, did nothing, ran up the debt, and all you tried to do was buy rain forest land in

Costa Rica, like that was going to solve the problem.

ONTARIO SECURITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Public Safety and Security. Minister, you're having a bit of a

problem. The head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service says that he doesn't know what you're talking about when you say that somehow you had put a so-called al Qaeda sleeper cell out of

business. This is starting to sound like an episode out of Maxwell Smart, but I have to say to you, the problem here is that these are really serious issues. In fact, people may have unfair

allegations raised against them; people may be subjected to interrogation over it when they really don't deserve it.

I want to know from you, when the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service says that he finds your whole story unfounded, how do you explain to the

public your conduct and behaviour in this matter?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): It's interesting to see the new interest of the NDP in public safety and

security issues. This is unique given their history in government.

I want to say with respect to the comments that were reported in the press this morning, I think that is a relatively modest situation in terms of definition.

The reality is, I am told by the OPP that we have never in this country had a more coordinated effort on the part of the RCMP, CSIS, provincial and municipal police and intelligence officials in

meeting the challenges that followed the terrorist attacks on September 11.

I'm proud of what we're doing in Ontario. I think the Canadian effort is something to be proud of, not ridiculed as the NDP are wont to do.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Minister, this is a very serious matter. CSIS is telling Canadians that if you were advised by the OPP that

there was a sleeper cell, the advice you received was inaccurate. It was false. CSIS is telling us that there was no sleeper cell.

In what is a serious and volatile situation, you have had a rather cavalier approach to the facts. Was there a sleeper cell or not? When did it skip town? Why

didn't your government disclose it then? Why weren't they charged? The list of questions is endless. You just can't blurt out something like you did in the midst of a war where thousands were

killed, when emotions are high, and not take responsibility for those comments. It's not enough to hide behind the OPP. Who are you getting political advice from anyway -- Art Eggleton?

Will you stand up before this House today and either retract your comment that there was a sleeper cell or tell us that CSIS is, in and of itself, wrong and is

not aware of the facts in Ontario or, third, explain to us what you will do to reconcile this clear conflict between CSIS and your OPP?

Hon Mr Runciman: I can assure the honourable member I'm not getting advice from Art or any of his friends, but I will say that if you look at

the track record of this government, we were the first government in Canada to respond following the terrorist attacks of September 11. When there was important federal legislation changing the

immigration act, C-11, and the terrorist legislation, C-36, it was our government that appeared before federal committees to testify with respect to their concerns and their input. The NDP wasn't

there; the Liberals were not there. During their five years in office they were well known for second-guessing the police services of this province. We had a demonstration on the lawns at Queen's

Park, 5,000 police officers dressed in blue, protesting that government that wouldn't open a door to a police officer in this province to listen to their concerns. And we're going to take advice

from them? Not a chance.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I think I've seen that movie before, Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, very simply, when did you first learn about Hydro One's outrageous pay package for its board of

directors?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): Not wanting to avoid the question, the pay package they got

or the revision to the pay package?

Mr McGuinty: The original pay package.

Hon Mr Stockwell: The revisional pay package. I learned about it last week, I believe. Last Thursday, I think.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, that pay package was made public by way of a prospectus filed on March 28, the original pay package.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We need the two-referee system too.

Hon Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The question is about their original -- I said to the leader, "Is it the revised pay

package?" and he said, "Yes, the revised pay package."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

It's called Hansard. The government House leader knows he will get a chance to answer the question and refute it. There was some disagreement. It's amazing how

we can be across the aisle and hear two different things. The leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Speaker, to be clear, is this my supplementary?

The Speaker: Yes, it is.

Mr McGuinty: All right. Minister, I take it from your response that you were unaware, as Minister of Energy, that on March 28 a prospectus had

been filed which included among other things reference to this obscene and outrageous pay package. If I'm not getting this right, Minister, then you tell me, when did you first find out about this

pay package and what specifically did you do?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Take your seat. Order. If people could settle down, the minister is going to get a chance to answer this. There's some difference

of agreement. He's going to be able to, as he very well does, answer the question. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, there was about 10 seconds. Sorry for the interruption. If you could wrap it up,

then we'll go to the minister. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, again, when did you find out about the pay package described within the prospectus filed on March 28 and what

specifically did you do in response to that outrageous pay package?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I want to be very clear in what the original question was. I think it's only fair, because there's an allegation here about

the question and the answer. When the original question came, I said to you, "I'm not certain if you're talking about the original pay package or the revised," and you said "Revised," and I found

Interjections.

The Speaker: If the members remain cool, we could have the answer. The minister has the floor.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I would have been informed of the original pay package in one of my first briefings as Minister of Energy in the first week

of getting the job.

HIGHWAY INTERCHANGES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm tempted to ask a question on energy, but my question is to the Minister of Transportation.

The minister will no doubt be aware of a unique partnership arranged between Durham region and the province of Ontario to build three interchanges on Highway

401 in Durham region.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Sorry to interrupt the member. We're carrying on again. We'll allow you to start over.

Mr O'Toole: This question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, you're no doubt aware of the unique partnership arrangement between

Durham region and the province of Ontario to build three interchanges on Highway 401. The partnership is a good idea, because two levels of government working together can build things faster and

sooner, and preferably cheaper.

Unfortunately, the estimated costs have risen dramatically, as you know. Durham region council is concerned that the region may not be able to handle its new

share of the funding arrangement. The two interchanges in question are at Stevenson Road in Oshawa and Lakeridge Road in Whitby. The third interchange, at Pickering Beach Road in Ajax, is very much

underway. I understand Durham region's share of its cost is estimated to be about $29 million.

Can you please advise what steps are being taken to develop solutions that would let Durham region stay in the partnership and help the province and the region

work together to build these interchanges?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Transportation): I understand that transportation issues are extremely important to Durham region, because

it's one of the fastest-growing areas in our province. Therefore, we entered into a number of agreements on these three interchanges.

Unfortunately, over the past number of years since that agreement was entered into in 1999, the costs have increased because of unforeseen problems with regard

to the construction and design of those interchanges. We are looking -- I must say, progressively -- toward trying to work out with the region a kind of arrangement whereby they will not be using a

substantial part of their overall budget, which I believe is about $20 million a year, toward these particular interchanges. We unfortunately ran into difficulty. While their share has risen from

$18 million to $29 million, our share has risen from about $50 million to $80 million.

The Speaker: Could we stop the clock, please?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Speaker: I just want to offer my

apologies to the leader of the official opposition. I understand that when I said "revised," you said "original." I apologize that there was that miscommunication.

The Speaker: I thank the minister for that.

The member for Durham has a supplementary.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I personally want to thank you in public for the co-operative way you have worked with the MPPs representing Durham in

the meeting we had today to try to find solutions, so that one of the ministers could meet with the mayor of Oshawa later today. I'd like to thank you for your response. I appreciate the fact that

you and your ministry staff are aware of the issues and have met with representatives of Durham region to try to find solutions.

Could you advise us of the timetable for construction of the remaining two interchanges, provided that both the region and the province are ready to proceed,

and what advice could you give the other members from Durham to try to work co-operatively with Durham region's public works?

Hon Mr Sterling: I did in fact meet with all the Durham members concerning these particular interchanges, because they are important to all of

them and to the economy of Durham region.

As mentioned, the Stevenson Road interchange could go ahead earlier if we are successful in acquiring some troubled acquisitions with regard to property around

that particular interchange. However, it is expected that if we have to expropriate or go around the original design, we will not be able to get into construction and design probably until 2003 or

The Lakeridge Road interchange with the 401 is presently under the EA process, the assessment process, and we will get along with it as soon as we possibly

can. We're very thankful that Durham is working in partnership with us on these three important projects.

ONTARIO SECURITY

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Minister of Public Safety and Security. Last week you said there were sleeper cells in

Ontario, and I'm going to quote you: "They were in Ontario. It was a sleeper cell, that's the term used by intelligence officials."

It turns out that there were no sleeper cells in Ontario, and here's what the director of CSIS said: "The term `sleeper cells' is one which has a clear

definition in the intelligence business. And I think it's unfortunate that definition isn't always understood by those who use the term." That's a nice way the director of CSIS has of saying that

you, Minister, don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what a sleeper cell is. Not only can you not keep the secret secret, you can't keep the secret straight. What do you say to

Ontario's trading partners and all Canadians who see that you don't know what a sleeper cell is and think that you don't know what you're talking about?

Interjections.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): I think they want to hear a response to this but I'm not sure.

I indicated this morning in a scrum that what is really important with respect to the testimony by the head of CSIS is the areas of agreement with respect to

the challenges we face in this country and that we cannot be complacent. Really, the testimony of the head of CSIS reaffirmed virtually everything we were saying. The member opposite wants to

second-guess the OPP. That is not my role. We believe that the OPP are doing an outstanding job in coordination and co-operation with federal and municipal agencies across this country.

Mr Bryant: I'm not second-guessing the OPP; I'm second-guessing you. You don't seem to get it. We look like we're mismanaging the terrorist

file. Your blunder directly compromises Canada's reputation amongst the international intelligence community. What you did is going to ensure that we are kept out of the loop. It must drive you

bananas that George W. and John Ashcroft are going to be providing intelligence briefings to Vladimir Putin and Tony Blair but they're not going to go anywhere near Sheriff Bob, because you don't

know what you are talking about.

So my question for you is, will you knowledge that mistakes have been made, that lessons have been learned and that you're never going to do that, ever

again?

Hon Mr Runciman: I will respond briefly to those cheap theatrics.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Runciman: The member opposite says that I don't know what I'm talking about. Those members who were in the House last week will, I

suspect, vividly recall him standing on his feet as a lawyer and as a critic in this government, accusing a member of this assembly of breaking the laws of this land, and he has the gall to get up

in this House and suggest that I do not know what I'm talking about. He is the epitome of ignorance.

The Speaker: Minister, you're going to have to withdraw that word, please. You're going to have to withdraw that.

Hon Mr Runciman: Withdrawn.

The Speaker: New question. The member for York --

Interjections.

The Speaker: We'll just wait. The member for York North.

TOURISM

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. At the economic summit held with the province and the

state of New York at the tourism summit in June 2001, this government initiated a formal relationship with the governor of New York state to encourage tourists from the Niagara Peninsula and

western New York state to enjoy the attractions. What has the government done to promote Ontario-New York state relations to increase tourism and increase partnered marketing efforts?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I want to thank the member for York North for her question. I wanted to share with

all members of the House that about 31% of all the visitors to Niagara region are from the United States and predominantly from the shoulder states.

Prior to September 11, our government made a commitment to encourage economic relations and ties with the Niagara region in Ontario and the Niagara region and

the Niagara frontier in the United States. This has netted us out some very positive results, both from an industry point of view and from tourism.

We have a joint marketing alliance that involves about 1,000 operators. We have a joint Web site. Quite frankly, it is a huge benefit for us to have our

Ontario-based brochures in every tourism promotional kiosk throughout the state of New York, and we are getting results. Tourism is up with visits from New York and shoulder states into the Niagara

region.

Mrs Munro: Thank you very much, Minister. Obviously from your description it's clear that the Niagara Peninsula is benefiting from this

initiative. Clearly, then, by the statistics you've provided, the model is working well.

My question then is, does your ministry support any other initiatives of a binational marketing effort?

Hon Mr Jackson: Four years ago, we had no such binational agreements. In my previous responsibilities as Minister of Tourism, we developed one

with the Great Lakes of North America alliance with all of the American states that border the Great Lakes, which are Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio and New York. Ontario is the sixth

contributing partner. We are globally selling the Great Lakes region. We also have a partnership in Kingston and Thousand Islands, with a $100,000 investment which has increased tourism.

Within a couple of weeks, the Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation will be leading a delegation in both Windsor and Detroit to establish a joint

marketing opportunity for tourism as well as economic development with the state of Michigan.

We look forward to more positive results. It brings to a total of four these binational partnerships for the province of Ontario.

HEALTH CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Today an important study appeared in the Canadian Medical

Association Journal which proved that American residents face a higher risk of dying in a for-profit hospital. Apparently you dismissed the study's outcome, saying the situation doesn't apply in

Ontario.

Minister, I think you purposely missed the point that the researchers made, which is that the drive for profit in the health care system does negatively affect

the health of people. This is critical in Ontario, because your government has dramatically increased the role of the private sector in long-term-care facilities and has introduced private sector

delivery of both home care and even cancer treatment.

Minister, in light of the very serious conclusions reached in the study, will you now admit that your fascination with private sector health care delivery is

bad for the health of Ontarians?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The honourable member knows, or should know, that in the publicly funded,

single-payer health care system which has been adopted in provinces throughout Canada, we have always had private sector deliverers of health care, such as doctors, in some cases dentists, in some

cases nursing home operators, other medical practitioners and other deliverers of health. It is a single-payer system, and the payer is the government of Ontario representing the people of Ontario.

But there are many different providers within the system. That has always been the case and, I suspect, always will be the case.

Ms Martel: The point of the matter is that the outcome of the study was that the drive for profit in health care, driven by private health

care providers, does negatively impact the health of people. In fact, the researchers said very clearly, " ... whatever the context within which they function, for-profit care providers face the

problem of holding down costs while delivering a profit. One would, therefore, expect the resulting problems in health care delivery to emerge whatever the setting."

You seem bound and determined to increase the role of the private sector in health care. In fact, you told the Romanow commission that you want to pursue

health care reforms to expand the proven partnerships which already exist between the private sector service providers and the publicly funded system.

In light of the serious conclusions reached in this study that for-profit delivery of health care leads to negative health outcomes, will you now agree that

your fascination with private sector delivery of health care is bad for the health of the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Clement: The report to which the honourable member refers clearly dealt with for-profit hospitals that hired doctors and nurses in a

for-profit atmosphere. No one in Ontario, least of all this government, is proposing such a two-tiered scheme, so the honourable member is barking up the wrong tree.

If the honourable member is saying that the NDP policy is to nationalize doctors, dentists and every single purveyor of health care in our system, she should

come out and say so and then we can have that debate.

PRIVATE TUTORING SERVICES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question to the Minister of Education. Minister, I want to talk to you again about the

students who are struggling in your public education system in Ontario. I want to talk to you specifically about what is happening with private tutoring services.

We talked to about 80 of these locations. In 1995, they were serving 14,000 students. Right now, they're serving 29,000 students, more than double, and the

private tutoring component has tripled. This group of students is one sample. Their parents are spending $16 million to try to help them cope with your curriculum, your school conditions and the

barriers you've helped to put in their way. It might surprise you to learn that the very people who are running these private services are saying you, the minister in this government, are

responsible for the growth in their need.

I want to know what you'll say to the students out there -- and some of them are here in the House today -- like Sam Kerr, who have to pull money out of their

Minister, are you prepared to do something this year to make sure that private tutoring services don't have to continue to grow here in Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I indicated yesterday, in response to a question the member raised on a similar

issue, the issue of the curriculum, that it's important to remember that this curriculum has been developed in consultation with secondary school teachers, curriculum specialists and people in this

province. We are moving forward in a way that our students are going to be able to successfully compete and be prepared to go on to university, college or apprenticeship programs.

We have provided remediation money to help these students. I also indicated to you that we are taking a look at the challenges students are facing when it

comes to the curriculum. In fact, yesterday I met with the president of the student councils in Ontario, the trustee representatives. We talked about this issue. We are looking to work with you and

with the people in this province so that we can make sure we are providing the appropriate level of support to the students which they need to achieve success.

Mr Kennedy: Students are finding the way to succeed and it's costing them $1,200. That's how much they pay to raise one grade in your Ontario

while you pretend to be listening.

If you're hearing, Minister, then you're hearing what they're saying at some of these centres. Here's what Mary Ann Turnbull says: "If the hidden agenda of the

Conservative government is to put education into the private sector, then they are doing a splendid job. As a supporter of public education, I really think that is a pity."

It's a pity when people like Mr Dino Aliferis, who is here with his family, open up a centre in my riding and today he's got 45 kids. He barely advertised and

he is so full he can't take any more. Meanwhile our schools are going wanting for the lack of help for kids. The class sizes are too large. The curriculum isn't being worked with.

Minister, between grade 8 and grade 9 is a huge gap that you've known about for two years and that your predecessor knew about. So what people want to know,

what the students want to know, is, do they have to continue to take money out of their own pocket to get into college or university or are you going to start to take an interest and announce

something in time for them to get some help next year? Will you do that?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member opposite doesn't seem to understand or be capable of listening. We have heard the concerns. We are responding to

the concerns. We are meeting with the people who are prepared to work with us. But I would remind you that we have provided $25 million in remedial programs for the students in grades --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm sorry to interrupt. Minister, take your seat, please. It's too noisy. We've got a couple more seconds to wrap

up. Sorry for the interruption. Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member opposite can't seem to take yes as an answer. Yes, we understand the concerns. Yes, we have already taken action. I

just mentioned to you that we have made $25 million additional available in remediation support and we are continuing to work forward. But let's --

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Witmer: If you don't want to hear the answer, that's fine. Don't ask the question. You --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, I know

that some of the constituents in my riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale have concerns about an

article printed in today's Star entitled, "Poor Wait for Long-Term Care, NDP Says." As I'm sure

you're aware, the

article went on to suggest that our government made changes to regulations regarding basic care versus preferred accommodations in long-term-care facilities. Could you please

explain the changes our government made to the regulations governing long-term care and why these changes were necessary?

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to thank the very hard-working member for

Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale for the timely question. Let's be clear. In the

article that the member referred to it was the NDP that suggested that our government made regulatory changes

regarding and affecting the basic versus preferred accommodation ratio requirements in long-term-care facilities. Quite simply, this is not the case. As a matter of fact, long-term-care facilities

can provide a maximum of 60% of their beds in the preferred accommodation category.

The government of the day put this regulation into place, and incidentally the government of the day was the NDP, who introduced these regulatory changes in

1994. Prior to 1994 no regulation -- no legislation -- even existed compelling long-term-care facilities to provide a set number of preferred basic accommodation beds. Unlike the Liberals, who had

no position on this in 1994, through this regulation the NDP thought it was important to protect the interests of the less fortunate. We agreed and that's why nothing has changed.

Mr Gill: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. The Toronto Star

article suggests that our government has done nothing to ease the waiting list

for long-term-care facilities. I know that our government is committed to providing 20,000 new long-term-care beds by 2004 and that on May 1 changes to the placement regulations for long-term-care

facilities came into effect. Minister, for the benefit of my constituents could you please tell us about some of these changes and how they will address the problem of bed blocking?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, I thank the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale for the question. Let me first say that our government is

committed to providing quality, sustainable long-term-care services in Ontario and we recognize that as the population grows there will be increased demands on long-term-care services. That's why

we announced an unprecedented $1.2-billion investment in long-term care that includes the construction of 20,000 new long-term-care beds. That's a 35% increase in the number of beds available

across our great province.

May I suggest that even while this investment is staggering and unprecedented in our province's history, what's even more staggering is that during their time

in government neither the Liberals nor the NDP built one new net long-term-care bed -- not a single one. In fact, on May 1 of this year, the changes to placement regulations for long-term-care

facilities came into effect. For what reason? So that waiting lists would be shortened and the application process would be sped up. The waiting lists for placement in long-term-care facilities are

managed by community care access centre case managers, who can best determine the level of care that their clients need. Our government wants to ensure that patients who need long-term care are

able to get it and are able to --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister's time is up.

MINISTRY SPENDING

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Do you think it appropriate for a minister of the

crown to hand the taxpayers the expense for a round of golf?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): The ministers' handbook provides for reimbursement of

expenses for ministers and their staff while on government business, provided the claims are supported by receipts and reasonable for locations where incurred.

We provide guidance to ministries in developing their policies. It's the responsibility of each minister to make sure that they're followed and are fair and

the rules are adhered to.

Ms Di Cocco: Minister, I have in my hand a copy of an expense claim filed by Chris Stockwell. It's from the pro shop at the Royal Woodbine

Golf Club in Etobicoke. It's for sporting goods -- it could be for a round of golf or it could be for a dozen golf balls. It appears that the minister has inappropriately again expensed taxpayers

for his other pastime. Considering the previous track record, will you ask the Provincial Auditor to review Chris Stockwell's expenses as minister from 1999?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'll pass the question on to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): At that point in time I was meeting with Mr Dillon, who is

the union president for the building trades association. We had lunch at that time and I paid the lunch bill because it was a business meeting with respect to the building trades. If you had wanted

to ask me beforehand, you could have asked me or you could have phoned Mr Dillon, who would have agreed that was in fact taking place, that we had lunch there -- no golf, no golf balls, nothing

involved. I'm beginning to understand what kind of person I'm dealing with now.

VICTIMS' RIGHTS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Attorney General. In the throne speech the government committed to passing two

pieces of legislation focused on protecting victims of crime. The first one is Bill 69, which would prevent criminals from profiting by retelling their crimes; the second is Bill 86, which deals

with child prostitution. I know that victims' rights have been a major focus of our government and our initiatives have gone further than those of any other government. I also know that people in

my riding care about what we do to help innocent --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member's own member is yelling. We'll just wait. We're almost done. I lost track of the time, too, so

hopefully you're almost done.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Speaker. I'll just address my question. Minister, what will these new pieces of legislation mean to victims of crime, and

what new supports will they put in place if passed?

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

coming to office, there has been a paradigm shift with respect to the role of victims through the court system. I will say to you that it wasn't that long ago that victims really had no voice at

any stage of criminal prosecutions. That has changed. They have a very integral and important place in the system. These two bills will serve to enhance, to fortify, to solidify their place in the

system.

In the case of Bill 69, dealing with literary proceeds, it will prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes. It will prevent victims from being

revictimized. It will do that by returning any proceeds, any profit, that those criminals might derive, and that money will be paid back to victims.

In relation to the other bill that my friend referenced, it is rescuing children from sexual exploitation, a very important bill. It will give police and child

care workers an extra tool to help those individuals in our society who are most vulnerable and most in need.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister, for the response. I know that our colleagues on the other side often try to criticize our record on victims'

rights. In watching some of the debate yesterday afternoon, you'd think that we had done nothing for victims if you believed what the opposition was saying. It's a well-known fact that the

opposition and the New Democratic Party are soft on crime. It's been their track record, particularly in that lost decade back in 1985-95.

In my view, the measure of success is how much you're doing for victims in need, how much you reach out to them and how you're willing to help them in

difficult times. I know there has been a flurry of legislation on victims' rights in this House over the past seven years, and much of our time has been spent debating those bills in the House and

in committee. I personally have spoken to them a number of times.

Minister, what I'd like to know today is how much of that legislation has been translated into real action, and what services are available today that weren't

seven years ago?

Hon Mr Young: Indeed there are now over 40 programs that are offered to victims, day in and day out, to people who unfortunately find

themselves in a position where they are in front of the court or know of someone in front of the court or are the victims. Those services are available. As well, we now have programs that we spend

in excess of $140 million on to support victims throughout criminal proceedings. These programs include a victim support line, which, I should reference, has been expanded of late; the

victim/witness assistance program, which operates throughout the province; as well as domestic violence courts, the number of which has been significantly increased over the past few years.

PETITIONS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

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

"Whereas the auto industry accounts for approximately 50% of Ontario exports to the United States, supports another three or more jobs elsewhere in the

economy, and contributes billions of dollars in tax revenues to governments; and

"Whereas the auto industry is the economic lifeblood of communities such as St Catharines, Oshawa, St Thomas, Alliston, Windsor, Oakville, Cambridge, Kitchener

and Waterloo; and

"Whereas the auto industry has experienced job losses and seen challenges due to competition from industries in Mexico, the recent recession in the United

States, and delivery problems at Ontario's borders; and

"Whereas the prosperity of the province of Ontario is dependent in large part on an auto industry that is competitive and dynamic; and

"Whereas select committees of the Legislature tend to be task-oriented and non-partisan in their deliberations;

"Be it resolved that the Ernie Eves government convene a select committee on the auto industry that consults with labour, business and the public in a timely

fashion to address the challenges and opportunities that the engine of Ontario's economy will be facing in the future."

I affix my signature, as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

YOUNG OFFENDER FACILITY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition, which states:

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

and into the hands of a private sector employer;

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

demanding outrageous concessions;

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

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

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

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

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

about their rehabilitation;

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

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

negotiate in good faith with its employees."

I have affixed my signature as well.

COLLINGWOOD GENERAL

AND MARINE HOSPITAL

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which I'm reading on behalf of Jim Wilson

and the citizens in his area.

"We, the undersigned, feel, with the current situation at the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital, namely the partial withdrawal of emergency department

services, that the ministry's involvement is required to stabilize the operation of the local hospital to ensure it continues to meet the needs of the surrounding communities of the Georgian

triangle.

"We respectfully ask that you undertake an immediate review of the governance structure of the General and Marine Hospital and appoint an interim supervisor to

administrate and oversee the operation and development of the new governance plan."

I also delivered a letter to the minister, and this is on behalf of the citizens of Jim Wilson's area.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I have an important petition to the Ontario Legislature.

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

economy;

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

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

for consumers;

"Whereas selling the grid will not benefit consumers -- the only Ontarians to benefit will be Bay Street brokers and Hydro One executives" -- we know that, Mr

Speaker;

"Whereas selling Hydro One and the grid is like selling every 400-series highway" -- highways up in northern Ontario -- "to private interests -- selling the

grid means the public sector will no longer be responsible for its security and protection;

"Therefore,

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

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

Ontario."

I am very proud to sign my name to this.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions from the disability community.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the recipients of benefits under the Ontario Disability Act have not received a cost-of-living increase since a $2.50 increase in 1987; and

"Whereas the cost of living in Ontario has increased in every one of the years since, especially for basic needs such as housing, food, utilities,

transportation, clothing and household goods; and

"Whereas disabled Ontarians are recognized under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, and as such have the right to have their basic needs met,

including adequate housing, a proper and healthy diet, a bed that does not make them sicker and clothing that fits and is free of stains and holes; and

"Whereas their basic needs are no longer being met because the Ministry of Social Services has not increased the shelter and basic needs allowance of disabled

Ontarians eligible to receive benefits under the Ontario disability support program to reflect the increased costs of shelter and basic needs (and in fact have reduced these benefits for those

recipients who receive a disability benefit under the Canada pension plan);

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, request the Ontario Legislature to urge the government to respect their own definition of basic needs and

provide a cost-of-living increase to recipients of benefits through the Ontario Disability Support Program Act that is sufficient to cover the increased costs of their basic needs as of 2002

prices, and that this benefit not be reduced as a result of increases in the Canada pension plan benefit."

I add my name to this petition as I am in total agreement.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas our society recognizes the rights of parents and students to be educated in a manner conforming to their beliefs and alternative methods of achieving

academic excellence;

"Whereas freedom of choice is fundamental to a free and democratic society;

"Whereas the undersigned support the Ontario government's initiative to provide tax relief for tuition paid while attending an independent school; and

"Whereas thousands of students are currently enrolled in Ontario independent schools and both the opposition Liberal Party and NDP oppose this tax credit;

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

"To maintain and support the policy of education tax credits for those attending independent schools while continuing a fully funded public system."

I sign my name thereto.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the decision was undertaken by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to remove pediatric cardiac surgery from the Children's Hospital of Eastern

Ontario; and

"Whereas the centralization in Toronto of this life-saving surgery will place an excessive emotional and financial burden on critically ill children and their

parents; and

"Whereas the centralization of pediatric cardiac surgery will jeopardize the health of children needing immediate surgery...."

There are a number of other "whereases," but I will move to the demand:

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

"We demand the Premier of Ontario direct the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to announce immediately the government's intention to keep pediatric cardiac

surgery as close to home as possible due to the expertise and the ability to provide this regional service for critically ill children at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and not to

centralize the surgery in Toronto, and to keep `Ontario's Promise' to the children of eastern Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition as well.

OHIP SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government's decision to delist hearing aid evaluation and re-evaluation from OHIP coverage will lead to untreated hearing loss; and

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

"Whereas OHIP will no longer cover the cost of miscellaneous therapeutic procedures, including physical therapy and therapeutic exercise; and

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, stimulation and

biofeedback; and

"Whereas one of the few publicly covered alternatives includes hospital outpatient clinics where waiting lists for such services are up to six months long;

and

"Whereas delisting these services will have a detrimental effect on the health of all Ontarians, especially seniors, children, hearing-impaired people and

industrial workers; and

"Whereas the government has already delisted $100 million worth of OHIP services,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately restore OHIP coverage for these delisted services."

This petition is signed by thousands of Ontario residents. I agree with the petitioners and I've affixed my signature to it.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): This petition is in regard to the very controversial issue of selling our hydroelectric system. It's addressed

to the Parliament of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of Toronto, demand that the government immediately stop the process of privatizing our electricity transmission system, the

network of steel towers, transformers and wooden poles which transmit power from generating plants to our homes, and further postpone the electricity deregulation process until the Ontario public

is given proof that privatizing will not result in price increases, and place a moratorium on any further retailing of electricity until the Ontario Energy Board comes up with a standard contract

to be used by all retailers; and

"That a standard contract spell out in clear terms that the residential users are waiving their rights to future rebates in exchange for fixed rates over a

specified period of time."

Since I agree wholeheartedly, I'll sign this document as well.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have a further petition from my riding of Hamilton West to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

to earn full profit; and

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

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

I add my name to those of these petitioners.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

transportation; and

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

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

Because I support this petition, I'm very happy to sign it as well.

PRIVATE HOSPITALS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario government has proposed that for-profit corporations build, design, finance, own and maintain the Brampton Memorial hospital of the

William Osler Health Centre; and

"Whereas this incursion by for-profit corporations into public medicare is unprecedented in Canada; and

"Whereas very similar projects in England have resulted in huge cost increases that require, on average, a 25% reduction in health care staff and services;

and

"Whereas the burden of any extra costs will, in part, fall on the local community; and

"Whereas Brampton deserves a hospital that is fully accountable to the public and not shrouded in commercial secrecy;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call on the Ontario government to construct a fully public Brampton Memorial hospital."

This has been signed by hundreds of people who live in Brampton. It was sent to me by Ed Schmeler of the Brampton Health Coalition. I agree with the

petitioners, and I have affixed my signature to it.

OPPOSITION DAY

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Hampton does not appear to be present.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): With the indulgence of the House, my leader is on his way. We just need a couple of moments, if you

don't mind. He's just on his way up now.

The Acting Speaker: We could ask for unanimous consent for someone else to make the motion in his place. Do we have unanimous consent for --

which member?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I will do that.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the member for Trinity-Spadina to place the motion? Agreed.

Mr Marchese: Shall I read the motion for the record, Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: Seeing that the leader of the third party is here, perhaps he would want to do it himself.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): This is the NDP opposition day.

Be it resolved that this House declares unequivocally that the government should:

Abandon electricity deregulation and privatization in Ontario;

Set up a new system of accountable public power;

Shut down the so-called competitive market that was opened on May 1;

Cancel retail competition and free consumers from contracts signed with electricity marketers;

Ensure that no sale, lease or other privatization of Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation or the assets of either company, will take place;

Give the Ontario Energy Board the power to set electricity rates and approve or veto major generation projects by the major power provider;

Enact a legislative requirement that affordable energy conservation initiatives be given priority over new generation projects; and that when new generation is

built, that renewable green power be given priority. Premier of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Hampton has moved opposition day number 2.

Mr Hampton: It's very timely that we're debating this motion today because it's been disclosed that once again the government is fattening up

the pockets of the people it has appointed to the executive positions at Hydro One, and we suspect in due time we will find they've done the same thing at Ontario Power Generation.

It's also timely because yesterday one of the government's principal supporters in terms of its direction, first of all, to deregulate our hydroelectricity

system and then privatize it came out and said that the government has taken a major misstep, that it has put all Ontario consumers at risk of substantial hydroelectricity price increases this

summer, not to mention shortages of hydroelectricity.

This resolution in the name of the New Democratic Party is very timely in that I believe it probably addresses an issue which touches not just all individual

consumers across this province but also institutions like schools, hospitals and community centres, not to mention the major industries across Ontario.

Let me come right to point one, "Abandon electricity deregulation and privatization in Ontario," and let me refer to the comments of Mr Tom Adams yesterday. Mr

Adams is the head of Energy Probe. As you know, Energy Probe is a lobby organization that has a particular interest in electricity matters. In fact, Energy Probe is, by and large, financially

supported by a number of Bay Street corporations and the Donner Foundation, which as a body believes that virtually all public services should be privatized. So in terms of their philosophical

position, Mr Adams and Energy Probe are generally very much in favour of privatization and deregulation. But he is saying that this government, because it is choosing to deregulate at a time when

we face a potential serious electricity shortage, is essentially putting the consumers of Ontario in a position where they might see their electricity rates go through the roof, as they did in

California.

California is instructive here because when the government of California decided to sell off their electricity system and deregulate the so-called electricity

market, they believed they had about a 20% surplus in electricity. However, they found out that after profit-driven corporations like Enron got their hands on the hydroelectricity network, Enron

began shutting down generating stations to create an artificial electricity shortage and then used that artificial electricity shortage to force prices up, not two times, not just 10 times, but

literally in the magnitude of 100. In fact, the Governor of California was on television about three weeks ago making the statement that California now estimates that California consumers were

overcharged to the tune of $31 billion for their electricity by the likes of Enron and some of the other profit-driven corporations -- $31 billion in two years, essentially between the spring of

2000 and the end of 2001. What an incredible financial boondoggle.

Tom Adams is saying, "If you look at what's happening to electricity supply in Ontario" -- after this government has had its way for seven years, and now you

look at their move to deregulate the market -- "this looks very much like the setting in California." That's why he is concerned. One of the government's primary supporters is concerned that

hydroelectricity prices could go through the roof this summer.

But that's not the only thing that's happening out there. We know that hydro consumers in this province are being confronted at the doorstep by electricity

retail marketers who are, in many cases, providing misleading information, or in some cases are just outright lying to people, or in other cases we've had examples where they've forged people's

signatures.

I presented a private member's bill to this government last week that would have, among other things, allowed them to take some measures to protect the hydro

consumers of the province, and the government's position was no, they're not interested in protecting the hydro consumers. The government's position is they're interested in helping their corporate

friends out there, even if it means ripping off hydro consumers across this province.

When you combine all of these things, when you combine the fact, as Tom Adams says, that this government has set hydroelectric consumers up for the kind of

gouging and swindling and market manipulation that we saw in California, and that it is not prepared to pass adequate consumer protection legislation, then I think someone has to step up and say,

"Look, this has to be stopped," and New Democrats are saying that.

No matter where you look in the United States, whether you look at California, Montana, Pennsylvania, New York City, or you look at Alberta, there has been a

history of prices going through the roof and consumers and industries being forced to pay billions of dollars more than they should. In California and Alberta, governments even had to step in and

subsidize people, otherwise they would not be able to afford to pay their hydroelectricity bills.

I want to just mention a bit about privatization here. We can see in the last few days where privatization of hydroelectricity is leading. Let's remember, this

was the government that in 1998 passed the new electricity bill, a bill that carved up Ontario Hydro, created the new Hydro One, and then the government said to the Hydro One directors and

executives, "Behave like a profit-driven corporation." What is the first evidence that they intend to behave like a profit-driven corporation? The first evidence is they want private sector

salaries. The president of Hydro One, who was being paid about $400,000 as a vice-president of the old Ontario