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

June 3, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Jun-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 3 June 2002 Lundi 3 juin 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY 69

AGRICULTURE ROUND TABLE

LAURIER BRANTFORD

EDUCATION

JAMES MORDEN SCHOOL

SCHOOL CLOSURES

TERRY RYAN

HIGHWAY 77

FILMING IN MILLBROOK

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SENIOR CITIZENS

RAPPORT DE L'ENQUÊTE

SUR WALKERTON /

WALKERTON INQUIRY REPORT

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 65

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

HYDRO ONE

HOME CARE

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL

HEALTH CENTRE

EDUCATION FUNDING

CANCER TREATMENT

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

POLLUTION CONTROL

TRUCKING SAFETY

DISTRICT HEALTH COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

HYDRO ONE

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

EDUCATION FUNDING

HYDRO ONE

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES /

SERVICES DE SANTÉ POUR ENFANTS

PODIATRIC SERVICES

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CORMORANTS

HYDRO ONE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

STUDENT OPPORTUNITY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

OFFRANT DE NOUVELLES POSSIBILITÉS D'ÉDUCATION POSTSECONDAIRE

AUX ÉTUDIANTS

Monday 3 June 2002 Lundi 3 juin 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Today I challenge the new Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the new Minister of Transportation to

commit immediately to the four-laning of Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound.

For too long this government has paid lip service to the wishes and needs of my constituents. This government says they're now different. They can prove it:

commit in a tangible way to putting money toward the four-laning of Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound.

For too long there have been too many accidents, too many personal injuries, too many deaths and too much carnage along Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound.

The time for action is now.

In 1996, I launched a postcard campaign "Highway 69 Worth the Investment." Some 13,000 Sudburians responded to that postcard, saying that this government should

act. Today I launch a petition campaign to reinforce the message that my constituents have not changed their minds. It is time for this government to four-lane Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry

Sound.

My constituents and northern Ontarians want to see the plan and the timeline. They are demanding that this government prove that it is different. They want the

four-laning of Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound to take place immediately.

AGRICULTURE ROUND TABLE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize the efforts of Premier Ernie Eves and the agriculture minister, the

Honourable Helen Johns, for this year's Premier's round table on agriculture, which will be held on June 6, 2002.

As a former parliamentary assistant at the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and chair of the Premier's Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal, I

know that there are several areas where consultation with stakeholders will have positive results. Moreover, this will be an opportunity for the farming community to have a direct line to the

highest level of government in Ontario.

The Premier's round table will focus on important rural issues such as the success of OSTAR and OSTAR-RED, which provide $600 million over five years for

infrastructure in rural Ontario. As well, these upcoming discussions will be an opportunity to review the ideas outlined in the report of the Premier's Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal, which

was released last year.

Only a few short months ago, Premier Eves committed to holding a Premier's round table on agriculture. I congratulate him on moving forward so quickly on this

issue. I look forward to the new initiatives which will be generated at this conference.

Our government recognizes that farmers are an important part of Ontario, and no one more so than our new Premier, Ernie Eves. He is sending a great signal to the

people of rural Ontario. Thanks again to Premier Eves, Minister Johns and all those who are working so hard to make this event a reality.

LAURIER BRANTFORD

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Laurier Brantford in my riding, a campus of Sir Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo, opened its doors to students and

to a university education in September 1999. The first degrees were granted last week on Wednesday, May 29, 2002.

Many members of the Brant community played an important role in bringing the university to Brantford. Some of the key players, along with Laurier, included the

Grand Valley Education Society, the mayor of the city of Brantford, Chris Friel, and city council, and the mayor of Brant, Ron Eddy, and county council.

Since its inception, Laurier Brantford has been characterized by academic innovation. It stands as a testament to the conviction shared by the university, the

city of Brantford and the county of Brant, that advanced education plays a vital role in establishing and sustaining a flourishing community.

Further, I would like to congratulate Dr James Hillier, who was granted an honorary degree last week by Laurier. Dr Hillier's long and distinguished career began

in Brantford. A scientist, engineer, inventor with over 40 patents and a research director, his contributions have made a significant impact on all of our lives and our understanding of the world

around us. Among his many accomplishments, Dr Hillier played a significant and pivotal role in the development of the electron microscope. Dr Hillier continues to contribute to scientific

endeavours by supporting a scholarship for students from the riding of Brant continuing their studies in science.

Congratulations to everyone involved. Our dream has become a reality.

EDUCATION

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise today to commend the parents, the teachers, the students, all of those who assembled yesterday

afternoon on Queen's Park lawn in a program of "Need to Succeed" for our students.

There was a group there, People for Education, which last week did a whole analysis of what is happening in the Toronto area in education. What they have said is

chilling and startling. What they have said is that 21% of the school librarians are now gone from the schools in Toronto. They told us that 22% of the physical education teachers are now gone from

the schools in Toronto. They have told us that the music teachers are down 25% in the city of Toronto. They have told us that 31% of the ESL teachers are gone from the city of Toronto, and they

have told us the only thing that has gone up is the waiting list for special-needs students, up by 11% in just one year.

In my own riding of Beaches-East York, Earl Haig Public School has talked about what will happen if they are forced to have a compliance budget. They will lose

half of a library teacher, half of a secretary, four lunchroom supervisors, two music teachers. They will have no attendance counsellor, and they will have no school community adviser.

The people yesterday said that we need to succeed for our students. We all need to do that. We need the government to move. We need them to change direction.

JAMES MORDEN SCHOOL

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): This year in celebration of James Morden School's 50th anniversary, an open house was held at the school on

Dorchester Road in Niagara Falls on Saturday, June 1. I had the great pleasure of dropping in for a visit with many former students and staff, who exchanged memories of their experiences at James

Morden School. James Morden School officially opened in 1952. Since then there have been students who have become teachers at the school and others who have their children currently enrolled

there.

During my visit, I toured the school with teacher Kerry Felstead who, among other things, took me to see his Detroit Red Wings shrine. I also toured the school

with Mr McLean, a young new principal at James Morden.

I should also note that over the years, many principals and vice-principals in other Niagara schools first started their careers at James Morden. Some staff at

the school have been there for 15 to 25 years. The school has a real family atmosphere, and I was really impressed by the number of people who came by for a visit with their former teachers and to

look at old class photos that were on display.

I'd like to thank James Morden for their 50 years of service to Niagara kids. Best of luck in the years ahead as you continue to serve the citizens of Niagara

Falls.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Sarnia-Lambton has had an unprecedented number of school closures. Four elementary schools have closed in

the city of Sarnia since 1997, ever since the Conservative government introduced the controversial funding formula. Closed were Clarke, Parkview, Our Lady of Mercy and St Josephs, and others have

closed in the rural part of the county as well.

The St Clair Catholic District School Board has recently put St Helen school on the chopping block. St Helen school does not even meet any of the criteria for

closure: its junior kindergarten class is at capacity, the school is in good condition and its enrolment is not in decline. St Helen is 90% full, with an enrolment of 305 students, and it's located

in a growth area. Most of these students walk to school.

It is well documented that students actually do better in small schools, yet 88% of schools closed in Ontario have been small schools.

The Minister of Education has admitted that there is a problem with the funding formula, so stop all the school closures and fix the real problem, which is this

government's education policy, a major factor in all these schools being shut down.

TERRY RYAN

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a fallen police officer, Terry Ryan, chair of the Police Association of

Ontario.

Terry passed away last Friday as the result of a tragic motor vehicle accident. Our thoughts and prayers are with Terry's family and the 13,000 police officers

who are very much part of Terry's extended family. He served them with distinction and commitment.

Police personnel across Ontario and Canada have lost both a friend and a leader. Durham Regional Police Chief Kevin McAlpine was visibly moved when he commented

on Officer Ryan's death.

In my role as MPP for Durham, I, as well as the other members from Durham, met Terry on many occasions. I remember him as a capable and respected spokesman for

the police officers, both as president of the Durham Regional Police Association as well as chair and director of the Police Association of Ontario.

Terry Ryan was also a career police officer of almost 30 years. He spent 20 years on the board of directors of the Durham Regional Police Association. Terry Ryan

championed safer communities for the men and women of Ontario's police departments and the communities they serve.

I respected his advocacy on behalf of the association. He was always firm but fair.

I would like to express my condolences and the condolences of this House to fallen police officer Terry Ryan's wife, Carol, his sons, Kevin and Jamie, as well as

his family and many friends and colleagues. He will be missed.

HIGHWAY 77

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): About 25% of the provincial highways in my riding are in disrepair. That in itself would be a startling figure, I am

sure, except that the government of the day has downloaded so many provincial highways in our area that there are hardly any left.

But I speak specifically of Highway 77. I am told there are currently two capital construction projects for Highway 77. They are currently on the five-year plan.

If you know what the five-year plan is, it means that something can be on the five-year plan forever, just in five-year instalments.

Highway 77 is in considerable disrepair. I would like the minister to know just how bad it has gotten, so what I have suggested is this: since the condition of

the highway is so unacceptable and since the construction projects are in fact on the books, I would like to invite the Minister of Transportation to join me for a leisurely drive on Highway 77.

But he'd better bring a soft pillow, because it's a rough one. To entice him even more, I have offered that I would buy the minister lunch when he comes down to see us.

FILMING IN MILLBROOK

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Hollywood is alive in Peterborough county. The village of Millbrook, part of the amalgamated township of

Cavan, Millbrook and North Monaghan, is being transformed into River City. With the arrival of work crews constructing the set of Disney-Touchstone Television's The Music Man, the main street is

being changed into River City, Iowa, circa 1912.

The movie crews arrived this past week, and filming of the remake of the 1962 movie is set to begin in the village on June 12. It will air on ABC next year.

The changes to the small Ontario town have been interesting to the residents and local business people. For example, the historical society's offices on the main

street are being turned into an old-fashioned ice cream parlour. The interior has been painted a bright minty-green colour. A barn-style feed mill is being constructed in front of the Masonic

Lodge.

The filming of the movie in an Ontario village is a boost not only to the community but also to the surrounding area. Ads ran in local newspapers a few weeks ago

seeking cast members. People are employed in the construction of the sets. The workers from outside our area are purchasing gasoline, food and accommodations.

The filming of a movie in Millbrook creates excitement and a positive mood for everyone living there. Congratulations to Millbrook on being chosen the Hollywood

of Peterborough county.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'd like to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a copy of an order in council appointing Mr Rick

Bartolucci, MPP, as a commissioner to the Board of Internal Economy, appointed by the caucus of the official opposition in place of Dominic Agostino, MPP.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon John R. Baird (Associate Minister of Francophone Affairs): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45

pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, June 3, Tuesday, June 4, and Wednesday, June 5, 2002, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1347 to 1352.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, Al

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 75; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Hon Mr Baird: I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Thursday, June 6, 2002, for the

purpose of considering government business.

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

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

All opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1356 to 1401.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, Al

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Sorbara, Greg

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 77; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

VISITORS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to introduce visitors in the visitors' gallery. Mike Reader is executive

director of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and with him is Greg Farrant, also of the federation.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: May I introduce in the gallery the parents, Stephanie and Ludy Carter,

grandmother and uncle, Vera and Viktor Djatschenko, and best friend Elizabeth Robinson of our own page, Emily Carter.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SENIOR CITIZENS

Hon Carl DeFaria (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): It is a great honour to rise today to acknowledge Ontario's

senior citizens. June is Seniors' Month in Ontario. It is an opportunity to reflect on the important role older Ontarians play in the ongoing growth and vitality of this province and to support the

concept of learning for life.

Ontario is currently home to more than 1.5 million seniors. Our seniors' population will continue to grow steadily as the baby boomer population ages. By 2041,

a quarter of Ontario's population will be over the age of 65. The needs of our growing seniors' population are a priority to us.

This government is planning for our aging population. We are doing this in conjunction with other provincial, territorial and federal ministers responsible for

seniors. We are guided by the five principles agreed upon as part of the federal-provincial-territorial national framework on aging: dignity, independence, participation, fairness and security.

As Ontario's Minister of Citizenship and minister responsible for seniors, I am proud of the far-sighted approach we are taking to planning for the needs of

older adults. This approach includes a multi-ministry focus and includes the co-operation of a variety of stakeholders, including major seniors' organizations.

The government has invested in a wide range of strategies and programs. We are increasing our annual long-term-care spending by $1.2 billion by 2006. This

money adds 20,000 new long-term-care beds and rebuilds 16,000 existing beds. All 36,000 beds will be built to new state-of-the-art design standards.

Our $1.2-billion health investment also increases annual spending on long-term-care community services by $550 million for services. These services include

visiting nurses, therapists and personal support workers, Meals on Wheels, day programs, volunteer transportation and friendly visiting.

Ontario currently spends $1.5 billion annually on home care and community care services, more per capita than any other province. Spending on home care has

increased by approximately 70% since 1995.

Our strategies include our five-year, $68.4-million strategy for Alzheimer disease and related dementias and also our recently announced $4.3-million strategy

to combat elder abuse.

Today, my colleague the Attorney General, David Young, and I joined Mel Lastman in launching the elder abuse awareness strategy for the city of Toronto just a

couple of hours ago.

Both are examples of this province's world leadership in addressing issues affecting the health and well-being of older Ontarians. These strategies affect

140,000 Ontarians who suffer from Alzheimer disease or related dementias and the estimated 4% to 10% of Ontarians who suffer from elder abuse.

Through our Alzheimer strategy, we produced and recently released A Guide to Advance Care Planning. The guide is designed to educate people about the benefits

of advance care planning. Through advance care planning, seniors can communicate to loved ones their wishes about their future care.

Starting this fall, a series of Ontario seniors' seminars will provide seniors across the province with valuable information on healthy aging and healthy

lifestyles. They will include seminars on advance care planning, seniors' safe medication use, avoiding financial frauds and scams, safe driving for seniors and healthy eating for healthy

aging.

Like all of the work of the Ontario Seniors' Secretariat, the education series is developed and delivered in partnership with Ontario's major seniors' groups

and provincial organizations serving seniors.

I hope all members of this House will play a role hosting seminars with local seniors' groups, and I'm looking forward to assisting any member of this House

who would like to do so.

Later this year, as part of our public education activities for seniors, we'll be launching a guide to programs and services for seniors in Ontario. This guide

will provide valuable information in one place about the programs and services to which seniors are entitled.

Much of the prosperity that we enjoy today in Ontario is due to a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice by our seniors. This government values the contributions

that seniors make to this province and is committed to an Ontario where all seniors can live safe from harm with dignity and independence in their own communities and where their contributions are

recognized and respected.

I encourage all Ontarians to pay tribute to at least one senior in their life, to reach out to a relative, a neighbour, a friend or a colleague, a community

member, and thank them for their contributions.

Mr Speaker, I am very pleased to make this statement today in this House on behalf of the seniors of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Further statements by ministries? Seeing none, responses?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): The first thing I would like to do is to officially welcome the minister responsible for seniors to

his portfolio and to congratulate him on that post. It is my first opportunity to do this.

I'm delighted on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus to acknowledge the seniors and their leadership in our communities, not only today but across

the decades. We appreciate their contributions tremendously.

Last week I was wandering up to the Legislative Building and I noticed the bed of tulips and I thought how fitting it was that we would set aside the month of

June to recognize seniors. After all, June is the month of promise and rebirth; it is the month of hard work to ensure the gifts of the summer.

I see seniors in our communities taking their grandchildren to very many special places to bring back memories. Just last summer I visited Leeburn, where a

group of seniors had refurbished a schoolhouse. It brought back the early years of this pioneer community for all to see and for all to understand. I see them labouring over their quilts and over

their handiwork to donate those to worthy causes in their community. I see them preserving and teaching the lessons of our collective past and of their individual past. I see them taking up

recycling with a vengeance. I see them sitting at malls selling raffle tickets for community organizations. I see them volunteering at long-term-care facilities. I see them at hospitals and animal

centres. I see them volunteering in classrooms. I see them as the backbone of their places of worship. I see them at the Royal Canadian Legion functions, passing on the torch, as it were, to the

next generation.

Just yesterday at the Manitoulin cenotaph -- every year since 1921 people have been coming to that cenotaph to remember the sacrifice of people. The Royal

Canadian Legions in Gore Bay and Little Current deserve to be congratulated for that, and what I really want to do is acknowledge our Silver Cross mother who was there, Joey Hanson, from Little

Current.

I see seniors embracing life's challenges to the best of their abilities or disabilities, and I think how fortunate younger generations are that they have

continued to play such vital roles, in spite of bodies that are not as strong as they once were, in spite of having lost friends, perhaps spouses, even children, in spite of living often on fixed

incomes. They keep on as long as life allows, trusting that their labours will not be in vain.

These are the people who built this great province, this great country. They've defended this province and this country. That is why I'm incensed when I learn

that an ailing constituent in my constituency is getting less health care than they deserve. I am angry when I hear people in nursing homes getting shortchanged in hands-on care. Just last week, we

presented tens of thousands of petitions asking for adequate staffing levels in our long-term-care facilities. I'm upset when the seniors I represent in the great riding of Algoma-Manitoulin have

to travel sometimes hundreds of kilometres just to see a general practitioner. That is not acceptable.

I would also like to bring to your attention on behalf of the seniors we advocate for that the government has cut back dramatically on the number and amount of

services that are provided to our seniors in communities. The cutback to chronic in-home services has been huge. There isn't a member on any side of the House who hasn't received hundreds if not

thousands of phone calls in their office from seniors whose home care has been cut off. These are people who need home care, these are people who deserve home care, these are people who have earned

home care, and it is up to this government to quit playing with numbers and fix this problem on their behalf.

Seniors in our province have built this province. We owe a great debt of gratitude to these seniors. We need to understand that their contributions are

important to us and that they have earned all the respect this society can pay to them.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): On behalf of New Democrats, it is my pleasure to acknowledge Seniors' Month and the enormous contribution

that has been made by seniors to life in Ontario, not only in terms of seniors' contributions during their paid working life but the contribution they make now as volunteers to thousands and

thousands of organizations across the province.

When I think of that worthy contribution, I am astonished at the blatant disregard this government shows to Ontario seniors. I want to spend my time talking

about the cuts to services and funding that this government has made to seniors.

Let's deal first with the delisting of OHIP services. This government last August delisted hearing-aid evaluations and re-evaluations so that seniors have to

pay for that out of their own pocket. Male seniors in particular who worked in heavy industry would have a significant need for that type of evaluation and re-evaluation. Many of those who are now

on a fixed income can't afford those kinds of costs. That's how the government shows how committed it is to seniors.

Let's look at funding for community-based long-term-care services. I'm astonished to hear the government say that they are increasing the investment in

community-based long-term-care services by over $550 million. If that's the case, why is it that community care access centres had their budgets frozen last year, are living with that same frozen

budget this year, and thousands of seniors across this province can't get home care services, can't get homemaking services, can't get discharged from hospital because they can't get the home care

they need in order to be discharged, are on a waiting list for services or have to go through a waiting period for services? Why doesn't the government tell the truth, which is that the government

has stopped funding increases to community-based services at about $275 million and hasn't allocated the funding it promised over an eight-year period in the last two years? That's why seniors

can't get the home care they deserve.

Let's look at some of the regulation changes this government has made which have dramatically affected seniors. This government in 1999 limited the number of

hours of home care services that clients can receive to two hours per day. We know there are many seniors across Ontario who need more than two hours per day of home care services. What has

happened with that reduction is that many seniors who want to stay in their home, and could with adequate nursing supports, have now been forced into long-term-care institutions.

The second regulation change is a change that says that clients must now have personal support needs in order to even be considered for homemaking services. So

if you don't have a need for personal hygiene services or daily living services -- and many seniors don't -- you are therefore ineligible to receive housekeeping services, laundry services or

assistance with shopping. So those very same seniors who don't have a need for basic life supports now can't stay in their own homes because they can't keep up with the maintenance and care of

their homes, and we force them into long-term-care facilities, which is far more expensive to the health care system in this province.

Look at copayments in medication. This was the government that brought seniors a copayment for their prescription drugs, be it a flat $2 fee, depending on

income, or now they have to pay the dispensing fee as well. This is the government that gutted rent control and cancelled our government's affordable housing program. Many of those seniors were

housed in units where housing costs were affordable, and with this government we now have the scenario that many, many seniors are being forced to go to food banks because they cannot pay their

rent and cannot pay for some of their other basic necessities.

This is the government that cancelled the requirement of 2.5 hours of hands-on care for seniors in our long-term-care facilities -- cancelled that requirement.

We are now in the unenviable position, according to a study done at the behest of this government by PricewaterhouseCoopers and released in January 2001, that seniors in Ontario are at the bottom

of the heap when it comes to hours of hands-on nursing care, hours of rehabilitation care and hours of care provided to seniors who present themselves with behavioural problems in long-term-care

facilities. If this government had actually gone forward with my patients' bill of rights last week -- the Tommy Douglas patients' bill of rights -- a health care standards commissioner would have

had the authority to set standards in long-term-care facilities to ensure that seniors are receiving the decent quality of care that they deserve in facilities.

Finally, one other point: in their brief to this government, among many other things United Seniors of Ontario say the following: "Don't privatize water, don't

privatize hydro, because we know that will have an increased cost on people who can't afford it."

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to introduce the following resolution:

That this House deplores the derogatory, untrue and unkind comments made about Maritimers by Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper, and seeks to reassure the

people of eastern Canada of their value and worth as an integral part of Canada. This House expresses our regret for Mr Harper's unfortunate comments and conveys our good wishes in writing to the

citizens of the Maritime provinces through their respective Premiers.

Mr Speaker, I grew up on the east coast, specifically Labrador, and I'm sure if this resolution is passed --

Interjections.

Ms Churley: -- many of whom live in our communities in Ontario.

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

RAPPORT DE L'ENQUÊTE

SUR WALKERTON /

WALKERTON INQUIRY REPORT

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): Vous savez que le mois de janvier de cette année le gouvernement a déposé le rapport de

rapport serait disponible dans les plus brefs délais.

La semaine du 27 mai -- justement le 27 mai -- le gouvernement a déposé le deuxième rapport de Walkerton ici à l'assemblée même.

Le ministre de l'Environnement est venu me voir et il m'a assuré que le deuxième rapport ainsi que le premier pourraient être disponibles « cet après-midi, le

27 » ici à l'assemblée. Je me suis levé pour un point d'ordre et j'ai demandé à travers l'assemblée, « Est-ce que vous allez garantir que ce

M. le Président, je vous demande simplement d'assister les membres francophones de cette assemblée et les francophones à travers la province

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister of Francophone Affairs on the same point of order.

L'hon John R. Baird (ministre associé des Affaires francophones): M. le Président, mon collègue le ministre de l'Environnement

et de l Énergie a dit très clairement que c'était son choix que les rapports seraient disponibles aussitôt que possible, et le but doit toujours être d'avoir le

à mon collègue la semaine dernière. Je suis sûr du travail qui a été mis en place pour rendre les rapports disponibles aussitôt que possible. Cette politique doit

être la priorité.

The Speaker: The member on the same point of order?

M. Bisson: Très brièvement, j'ai été assuré la journée du 27, quand le rapport avait été

déposé, que cette même après-midi-là le rapport serait disponible. Aujourd'hui encore, ni le premier ni le deuxième rapport n'est disponible. Je veux avoir l'assurance

que le rapport Walkerton sera disponible aujourd'hui même. Tout ce que je demande, ce sont mes droits comme francophone.

The Speaker: On a point of order, the minister responsible.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): I just want to respond to what the member said. I think

what I said at the time was "as soon as possible." I appreciate the fact that can mean different things to different people. The O'Connor report, I think, is some 700 pages. We're in the process of

translating it as quickly as we possibly can. If you'd like, I think we can partially put it up, as far as we've translated it, and that may accommodate you to some degree. But it's a 700-page

report, which takes some time to translate. I said at the time you asked me the question, "I will undertake to get it up as soon as humanly possible." I understand that can mean different things to

you and me but, honestly, it's going to take more than a couple of weeks to translate a report that voluminous.

The Speaker: That wasn't a point of order, but I do thank the minister for his clarification and the member for bringing that to the

minister's attention.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 65

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if the government House leader could clarify something for me.

Today's orders and notices paper indicates that we will be considering government order G135 in this afternoon's session. That's time allocation on Bill 135.

My verbal understanding is that in fact the government intends to call G65, which is the bill with respect to post-secondary institutions introduced by

Minister Cunningham,

An Act to enact, amend or revise various Acts related to post-secondary education and opportunities. I wonder if the government House leader could confirm the agenda for this

afternoon.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): Yes, that's the agenda.

Mr Duncan: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker, arising out of what's happened in the House today: one of the components of Bill 65 deals with

the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. That institution was promised by the government and was in fact part of another piece of legislation that was introduced in December. The

government has chosen to put this piece of legislation with some others, but the point of privilege I raise with you, sir, relates to what I would define as contempt.

In order to place my case, I'd like to refer to a ruling by then-Speaker Stockwell with respect to advertising and an advertising campaign that had been raised

by the government of the day with respect to another issue that appeared to anticipate the action of the Legislature, and I'm referring specifically to the Journals of this House, volume CXXVI,

1995-96-97,

part 2 of 2, 36th Parliament, first session, page 455. Quoting from the Speaker's rulings, he rejected the argument at the time that privilege had been violated but addressed the issue

of contempt of the Legislature. He cited Erskine May's definition of contempt and, if you'll permit me, I'll read that into the record:

"Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or

impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even though there is no

precedent of the offence. It is therefore impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to a contempt, the power to punish for such an offence being of its nature

discretionary...."

It's come to our attention that the University of Ontario Institute of Technology has in fact hired staff, it has set up a Web page, it has taken a number of

steps that would appear to contemplate the Legislature having already passed the enabling legislation.

Speaker Edighoffer, some years ago, and you yourself, Mr Speaker, have dealt in different rulings with the question of whether it's appropriate for public

servants to begin the implementation of projects that would emanate from legislation. The Speaker will be aware that on a number of occasions Speakers have found that -- and I'll quote Speaker

Edighoffer's original ruling -- "It is perfectly valid for the public service to proceed" -- and I highlight the word "proceed" -- "with plans based on a bill that is already in the system in order

to be able to act swiftly...."

The point I'm raising with respect to contempt is that, (1) this House has not in fact passed the legislation that would enable the university to be

established, and (2) from the perspective of the official opposition the actions that have been taken to date -- and this is where we need your help, Mr Speaker; we can't determine if it's by the

government or by officials associated with the school -- go beyond planning. They are a contempt of this Legislature that is impeding our ability to deal with this issue meaningfully without the

bill being passed. In fact, one of the parties in this Legislature, the third party, blocked passage of that bill in December.

Mr Speaker, I would ask that you review this. It is our understanding that a number of people have been hired and the proposed university contained in this

bill has everything ranging from Web sites through to other expenditures, which would appear to go well beyond planning, and that would therefore hold this Legislature -- paraphrasing previous

rulings -- up to ridicule or impugn its ability to deal with bills before it.

Accordingly, and given the fact that the government just this morning notified us that they wish to call the bill this afternoon, I would ask you to look into

this situation as we believe that if the bill hasn't been passed, how can we have staff on, how can we have Web sites up and running, how can we be doing things that on the face of it appear to go

well beyond planning for the implementation of this legislation?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Niagara Centre on the same point of privilege.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Speaking very briefly to this matter, clearly the Liberal House leader has changes of mind as well. I want

to advise the House that the New Democrats have no intention of joining with the Liberals in this obstructionist tactic to this legislation. We want the legislation to proceed through debate,

second and third readings, in due course. If the Liberals want to obstruct and delay it, God bless.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I would heartily suggest to you that the sage and thoughtful advice for the House leader of the third party is

the position you should probably follow on this. It is truly obstructionist. Any person who has spent some time in this House would understand by a reading of the rules that contempt needs to fall

under categories. I don't know how this argument about contempt today meets any category that could remotely be classified as contempt of the Legislature, let alone any category I've seen.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I appreciate what he said; I heard him. I'm just responding.

First and foremost, it is the University of Toronto that is moving forward, not the government of Ontario. They have seen legislation that is before this House

and, by being before this House, they have done what every government has done in the past 30, 40 or 50 years. Speaker Edighoffer was correct: you may proceed and plan for eventualities. The civil

service often moves when legislation is drafted and before the House to proceed and plan. There's a long, long way to go between proceeding and planning, and simply advertising -- implicating --

that the legislation in fact moves forward.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat. I've said on numerous occasions that it's fine to argue, but during points of privilege

or order, I need to hear without the heckling. I would ask for all members' co-operation. The other side waited patiently for the point of privilege from both sides. I expect the same co-operation

from the official opposition. Sorry for the interruption, government House leader.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I suggest if you check through the history of this place, you will find circumstances within universities and

outside universities where significantly more than 16 people were hired in preparation -- significantly more. In fact, my first thought would be hundreds when setting up a new or different

administrative process to prepare and plan to proceed if an eventual adoption of legislation proceeds forward in this House.

Everybody would know that. Anybody who has spent any time in the Legislature as a government minister would know this happens on a routine and regular basis.

That's why Speaker Edighoffer ruled as he ruled, to prepare and proceed with plans. That's exactly what is taking place. They're preparing and proceeding with plans in the eventuality that this

legislation would pass. That is a common, century-old tradition that has been used by every government in this place and every administration that has happened to sit in this place at the time it

was in fact the government.

Third, Mr Speaker, I don't know what the member would expect if there is nothing given to you in actual form, because he provided no evidence, nor have I been

provided with any, that in fact this is taking place, just hearsay documentation that I've seen. He may have, I guess, a couple of news Web sites and so on. That wasn't provided to me. I can only

presume, Mr Speaker, that if he didn't provide it to you, he hasn't provided it. So ultimately he's making an argument on evidence that he doesn't want to supply the opposition with, which of

course is kind of bizarre. He's asking you to rule on something, claiming we should take his word for it and providing absolutely no evidence.

Lastly, I don't know what he suggests you do -- go on a fact-finding mission to the University of Toronto? It is patently absurd that in this chamber a member

of the opposition would suggest there's legislation before this House that could potentially change the role of universities to offer degrees, and he wants you to go on a fact-finding mission to --

where? -- Ryerson, the University of Toronto and the other ones. This is absurd. This is not a contempt motion; this is a dash through the woods to see if they can hear any trees falling.

To suggest for a moment that this is contempt is ridiculous. I'm in favour of holding up our calling this bill today for the purpose of reviewing, until of

course the time to call it is concerned, because in the old vernacular of the schoolyard, this is what you call a slam dunk. There's nothing here.

Mr Duncan: In response, the minister forgets his own findings and ruling when he was Speaker. In fact, we did not call a point of privilege,

because privilege does have specific categories. What you found, Minister, when you were the Speaker was that contempt is much broader and you don't have to be specific.

We will table this. In fact, it had been our hope to give a more full presentation, but the government told us Thursday they'd be calling one thing this

afternoon and then late this morning dropped another thing on our laps without giving us the opportunity.

What the minister will find, if he reviews a number of Speakers' rulings, is that the issue does revolve around what is proper planning. I cannot find a ruling

that defines what is appropriate planning. I will table today copies of the information we have. Today's Web site posted a new hiring: director of public relations. There have been a number of

newspaper accounts outlining what has been undertaken.

We believe it's important for you, sir, to define this carefully. You may in fact find there is no contempt of the House. We ask you to look into it.

The Speaker: I thank the member very much. The member for Niagara Centre very quickly, if he could, please.

Mr Kormos: Perhaps I have to accept some responsibility, because I've given a number of interviews to the media over the last week where I've

explained that the government has a majority and that if the government wants this bill or any of its predecessor stand-alone bills to pass, they indeed will pass. The only problem is that to date

the government hasn't wanted it to pass.

The Speaker: I've heard enough. Let me say very clearly that the member hasn't provided very much information. If in fact it's just people

hired and Web sites set up, that wouldn't be enough to go through with it.

You will also know, as the government House leader pointed out, that I do not do the investigations. If you do want to provide me with some subsequent

information, I will take a look at it. But let me be very clear: based on the information you've given me today, we can proceed with that bill this afternoon. If the member does provide some

information, I will take a look at it and see if it warrants any investigation.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Today my education critic, Gerard Kennedy, and I put forward an

emergency plan to help students who are falling behind because of your flawed funding formula. Kids can't wait, Premier, until your review is completed and then, after that, until such time as you

finally make your changes.

One of the things that our plan calls for is a moratorium on school closures until the review is completed. It simply does not make sense to close schools

which could very well be kept open under a revised funding formula. Would you not agree, Premier, that we should be putting school closures on hold until you get the funding formula right?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): As the leader of the official opposition well knows, school closures have

been going on in this province and in every board for many, many decades.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Not like these.

Hon Mr Eves: I say to the honourable member for Windsor, she may be interested to know that between --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Premier, take your seat. The member for Windsor West, please come to order. He's trying to answer the question

and you're yelling across. You're very close and it interferes with his being able to reply.

Sorry for the interruption, Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: This new-found concern for the education system by the honourable members opposite -- between 1985 and 1990 when David Peterson's

government, of which they were a part, was in power, there were 37 public and separate school closures in Toronto in those five years. In seven years, between 1995 and 2002, there have been 20

school closures in Toronto. So I'm glad to see that the leader of the official opposition is now concerned about school closures.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, just so we're clear, so far under your funding formula 178 schools in Ontario have closed and 10 more are scheduled to

close in Toronto next year -- just so we have that right.

Tests show that there is a record number of students who are falling behind. This is another matter that we think cannot wait. In fact, double the number of

students are failing under the new curriculum in comparison to the old. The group that is particularly having difficulty, the group that is really struggling, is next year's grade 12 class. They're

having a very hard time, particularly with maths and sciences. As you will note, Premier, they are the first group to be in the compressed high school curriculum, going from five to four years;

they're going to be competing, as well, as part of the double cohort. I am sure you will agree, Premier, that next year's grade 12 students are not stupid, they are not lazy, and I know they can

make it if they just get the necessary supports.

My question to you, on behalf of them and their parents is, will you act to put in place necessary supports like remedial classes and homework help?

Hon Mr Eves: I'm sure the Minister of Education can provide a very direct response.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): Our government has worked very hard in order to provide the appropriate level of

support for the students in our secondary and our elementary schools. In fact, I think it's important to note that since 1999 we have provided $55 million in funding for remediation. In fact, this

additional funding for the school year 2002 to 2003, including $15 million for the learning opportunities grant to help students who are at risk of not achieving their academic goals. We are giving

the appropriate level of support, we are responding to the needs of parents, students and teachers, and we will continue to be responsive.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, you and your predecessor in your government were so responsive that you took $1.8 billion out of education

funding in Ontario. That's the degree to which you've been responsive.

There are 39,700 students on a waiting list for their first special-education assessment. These are our highest-need kids, and you are making them wait the

longest.

Hon Mrs Witmer: How many?

Mr McGuinty: Thirty-nine thousand, seven hundred students, Madam Minister.

This year, it's going to cost somewhere between $50 million and $70 million of scarce education money on a very bureaucratic paper-shuffling approach -- this

is something the boards have to go through to get the funding necessary for these kids. These kids can't wait. That money could be better spent on meeting their needs.

Why not replace your convoluted paper-shuffling exercise with a simpler audit system and turn that money over to the kids so their special-ed needs can be

met?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have consistently increased special-education funding. Overall, it's 17% since 1998 and 1999 --

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's too loud. Order. The Minister of Education.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I say, we have increased the funding by 17%. But more importantly, we have kept our promise to protect funding for

vulnerable children. We are providing over $1.37 billion in special education.

I might recommend to the leader of the opposition that the numbers he is throwing around today should be checked and verified. In your news release today,

there is more fiction than fact. You have drawn numbers out of a hat, you have referred to data that has questionable methodology, and you have based it on very, very limited information. I would

be very careful about the data. It's not our data; it's your data.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question to the Premier. Premier, as much as you would like Ontarians to forget it,

you were Mike Harris's Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance. You were a four-star general in the Common Sense Revolution.

In those roles, you were instrumental in the decision to exempt the new Ontario Hydro companies from both the freedom of information act and the salary

disclosure act. Can you tell us why you decided to hide the pay and perks over at Hydro One and OPG from public view?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): If the facts were hidden from public view, we wouldn't have had questions

about them in the House for the last two weeks.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you would know that was the result of a prospectus being filed. Had that not happened, we would never be aware of those

salaries.

By choosing to exclude Hydro One's board from the FOI laws, you laid the groundwork for outrageous salaries. Then over the course of the past three years,

behind closed doors, you quietly supported the ridiculous increases in pay. In 1999, the president and CEO got a salary of $1 million. You agreed to that. In 2000, it went to $1.5 million. You

agreed to that. In 2001, it went to $2.2 million. You agreed to that. Not once did you speak out against these numbers. Not once did you say they were wrong and that you were not going to stand for

it.

Your job was to protect hydro ratepayers. You had an option. Why did you roll over for the board? Why did you not stand up for ratepayers?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, Hydro One salaries are listed in publications and posted on the Ministry of Finance Web site: for 1997, April 1,

1998; for 1998, April 1, 1999; for 1999, December 27, 2000; for 2000, May 24, 2000. They were all there for everybody to see. They were not, quite frankly, at the ridiculous amounts for 2001 that

the leader of the official opposition points out in 1997, 1998, 1999 or 2000.

Mr McGuinty: Apparently the Premier was well informed of these issues at all times: he was aware of the $2.2-million salary, he was aware of

the $6-million severance, he was aware of the $175,000 for a car, he was aware of the $172,000 for vacation pay, he was aware of the money that was sunk into a yacht as a promotional exercise. He

was aware of all these things, and yet he did nothing.

Can you tell me once again, Premier, why it is that when push comes to shove, you're on the side of the board of directors and you didn't stand up for

ratepayers?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition knows, or should know, full well that the huge increases to the CEO and other executives at

Hydro One occurred on March 28, 2002, and on May 8, 2001. For his information, I was not a member of the Legislative Assembly on either of those dates. He was --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. It's too noisy. Order.

New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. People across Ontario are furious about the way your government is

wasting their money. Under your government, public money, the people's money, is used at Hydro One to sponsor luxury sailboats and multi-million dollar salaries.

Now we learn that under your government Hydro One has also been sponsoring politicians. Last year, under your government, Hydro One gave $7,500 to the

Conservative Party and $5,000 to the Liberal Party.

Premier, is it acceptable under your government for a government-owned corporation, Hydro One, to be giving the people's money to the Conservative Party and to

the Liberal Party?

Hon Mr Eves: I'm not aware of the amounts that the leader of the third party is talking about. I'd be happy to take them under advisement if

he has them available.

Mr Hampton: Well, Premier, this happened in the by-election in your old riding after you decided to go to Bay Street as an investment banker.

Hydro One contributed $7,500 to the Conservative campaign and $5,000 to the Liberal Party.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Trinity-Spadina, please put that down. Sorry for the interruption, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Premier, we could slap a sticker on you and Mr McGuinty: "Sponsored by Hydro One," or "Property of Eleanor Clitheroe and Hydro

One." But Hydro One is owned by the people of Ontario, and the people of Ontario never authorized your government to use Hydro One to funnel public money to the Conservative Party or to the Liberal

Party.

Premier, the people of Ontario need to know that the government of the day, your government, is not funnelling their money, their public money, into the

Conservative Party. Will you guarantee that the Conservative Party will return the $7,500 to Hydro One, and will you admit it was totally wrong for this to have happened in the first place?

Hon Mr Eves: I'm not aware of the amounts and the circumstances he talks about. I'd be happy to take them under advisement.

Mr Hampton: It is there in the auditor's report from the 1991 by-election: $7,500 to the Conservative Party, $5,000 to the Liberal Party. But

the bigger issue, Premier, is that if democracy is to work, the political process must be clean and must be seen to be clean. Instead, we've got Admiral Eves and First Mate McGuinty joining Captain

Clitheroe on HMS Hydro One Excess.

Is this what you mean when you say that Hydro One must submit to private sector discipline, that Hydro One should start doling out million-dollar salaries and

political contributions, like the rest of your friends on Bay Street, to the Conservative Party? That might work for the Conservative Party; you might get a lot of political donations from

privatized hydro. But the only thing that happens to the ratepayers is their hydro rates get increased to pay for this kind of excess.

Premier, the bigger question is this: will you listen to the people and cancel the privatization of Hydro One so more excesses like this can't happen --

The Speaker: I'm afraid the member's time is up. Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: I have several comments, actually. First of all, I don't believe there was a by-election in 1991, but he may or may not wish to

change his mind about that. Hydro One I don't believe even existed in 1991, to start with.

I am certainly not qualified to be an admiral; I'll leave it to the leader of the official opposition to decide whether he wants to be a first mate or is

qualified to do so.

With respect to his question about the privatization issue, the formation of Hydro One and the continuance of it, you can't have it both ways, I say to the

leader of the third party. He argues on the one hand that he wants Hydro One to stay exactly the same as it is today because it's doing such a great job, and on the other hand he stands up and asks

questions every day about what a crummy job it's doing and asks, "Why won't you fix it?"

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: Premier, wherever privatized hydro has happened, whether it's California, Montana, Pennsylvania or Alberta, people are paying more

for their rates and they have less control over an essential public service. But the issue here is that you have known about this, or you should have known about this, for over a year. The

by-election in 2001 -- the financial reports were in almost a year ago. I warned your Minister of Energy six months ago about the bloated salaries that were being paid out at Hydro One under your

government, and so far you have done next to nothing.

So I'm going to give you a hand. I'm going to introduce tomorrow a private member's bill, the Clean Up Hydro One Act. It will bring Hydro One senior management

salaries down to the level of companies like Hydro-Québec or BC Hydro and the severance packages will be in accordance with the law. Premier, If you want to do something about this, will you

pass my Clean Up Hydro One Act and start to do something about what's happening here?

Hon Mr Eves: Obviously I would be interested in looking at any proposed legislation that the leader of the third party might have, as indeed I

was interested in looking at Ms Churley's legislation.

Mr Hampton: We know on the record that even though BC Hydro and Hydro-Québec are much bigger companies than Hydro One, their executive

salaries are limited to $400,000. So a generous

interpretation would keep Eleanor Clitheroe's salary down to $500,000 or less.

But there are other measures that need to be implemented. We need to make it illegal, if it isn't illegal already, for government-owned corporations to then

make financial contributions to the government party. Are you in support of those measures, Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: I'm just as concerned as he is about compensation levels of senior executives at Hydro One.

Mr Hampton: Then do something.

Hon Mr Eves: With respect, we are doing something.

The Ministry of Energy asked the board at Hydro One to rectify the situation that they had created with respect to issues that concern all of us in this

Legislature. There has been a response, as I understand, a fairly detailed response from Hydro One's solicitors to the solicitors for the government, for the Ministry of Energy. Unfortunately, that

response seems to be somewhat qualified and somewhat unacceptable, and we will be required to take further action.

HOME CARE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. I want to talk to you about the Leatham family, who have joined

us today in the Speaker's gallery. They have written to you twice now and have written a number of times to the Minister of Health, and they are looking for your help.

Marlo is suffering from cerebral palsy, spastic quadriplegia and developmental delay. She cannot walk, dress or even roll over on her own. The Leathams used to

receive 54 hours a week of care from their local community care access centre. That has been cut by your government to 15 hours a week -- from 54 hours a week of help to 15 hours a week. This

family is in a desperate position, Premier, and they're looking to you for help. What help will you provide for them?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'd ask the Minister of Health to directly respond to this concern.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I believe I have replied to the honourable member in writing but perhaps he has not

received it yet. I can tell this House that of course CCACs make decisions every day. Some of those decisions are difficult and some of them involve facts that are certainly not brought before the

government, are particular to the particular circumstances. I'm not about to talk about a particular case in this Legislature, but if the honourable member has not received my letter in due course,

I'd be happy to brief him on it.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I want to go back to you and quote to you a letter just recently sent to you, I think in the last week and a half, from

the Leathams. It says, "We have already been in contact with the Honourable Tony Clement ... on several occasions.... He has refused to meet with us, speak with us or assist us.... we have had no

assistance from him in the past 16 months. We are asking you to help us."

They have come here today -- and that is a considerable undertaking in and of itself, Premier -- and they're asking you to agree to look into their personal

circumstances and to take an interest in their plight, and then after having done that they want you to help them. It is unfair to plead that this is somehow the independent activity of a CCAC.

CCAC boards are now appointed by the government and their funding is controlled by the government. That funding was cut from 54 hours to 15 hours every week. This family is struggling to keep up

with a tremendous responsibility and they want you to look into this and they want you to help, Premier. Will you do that?

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

Hon Mr Clement: I hope the honourable member understands that I'm at a bit of a loss. There is some information that I do have on this file. I

do not feel it is appropriate to release this information publicly in this venue. I'd be happy to do so if I get a release from the family to do so, but in the meantime I want to assure this House

that there are efforts underway. I suppose that is the best I can do, given the state of our laws and for very good reasons.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the minister responsible for francophone affairs. For several decades the province

of Ontario has provided all official documents and reports in the two official languages. Most of the time reports and documents in both official languages are tabled in the Legislature at the same

Hon John R. Baird (Associate Minister of Francophone Affairs): The French Language Services Act, adopted by all three parties in this House

more than 10 years ago, requires that documents, like government reports intended for broad public distribution, be made available to the public for both anglophones and francophones in both French

have equal access to the important information contained in these reports.

Mr Galt: I certainly agree with your response, Minister. However, the need for French adaptation has caused a significant delay in tabling

reports such as that of the select committee on alternative fuel sources. As you're well aware, the committee was given a mandate to report by May 31, 2002. The all-party committee worked extremely

hard, and I compliment the members for meeting the deadline. They worked hard to meet that required deadline only to find out that the translation could not meet the deadline of the end of May.

Minister, in many cases the private sector is delivering services in a cheaper, faster and more efficient manner. However, in this case, where is the

accountability of the private sector firm in delivering the French translation services?

Hon Mr Baird: It may come as a surprise to the member of my party that the Ontario Legislature is not covered by the French Language Services

The select committee in question, on which the honourable member has very capably served, did meet all of its timelines, as did all members of this House, in

providing their report. The committee did request from all three House leaders that an extension of one or two weeks be granted to allow for a proper translation of the report. There was absolutely

We want to ensure that when reports are translated, they not just simply be translated but they be translated in a quality format so that all Ontarians,

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I just want to respond to

Mr Bisson's question with respect to the French translation. I've been informed it should be on the Web site in French before the end of question period today.

Part 1 is still a couple of weeks

away.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the House leader for the clarification.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier regarding your standards for conflict of interest. You will be aware

that Mr Al Leach is on the board of directors of the Highway 407 corporation, a private company that owns the 407. They have seen their company quadruple in value in the last three years. It's an

enormously profitable operation for them, and it benefits from congestion. Your government, however, has recently appointed the same Al Leach to be the vice-chair of GO Transit, a public company

that is designed to relieve congestion in the GTA.

It is, in my opinion and the opinion of many, a direct conflict. He is serving the private owners of the 407 corporation and trying to serve the public as

vice-chair of GO. My question to you is this, Premier: is it acceptable for Mr Leach to be on both boards and to try and serve both masters?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'd be happy to take the circumstances outlined by the honourable member

today and get back to him with a response.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate that, but it is a relatively straightforward matter dealing with your principles of conflict. The facts are that Mr

Leach is on the board of directors of the 407 corporation. The 407 corporation initially had an equity investment of about $750 million three years ago; now it's worth $3 billion. It has quadrupled

in value. The 407 corporation is an enormously profitable operation and he is on the board. But you have just recently appointed him to be the vice-chair of GO, and their job is to relieve

congestion. Every single decision made by Mr Leach will have a financial implication for the 407 corporation. We see it today. We see that as GO is seeing some labour disputes the 407 is benefiting

substantially.

It's a fairly straightforward question, Premier, on your principles. Do you see this as a conflict of interest and will you move to eliminate this and other

similar conflicts?

Hon Mr Eves: I don't recall appointing Mr Leach as vice-chair of GO Transit. My memory may not be serving me well today, but I don't recall

that appointment going through any cabinet meeting that I was at. So I will be happy to take the honourable member's question under advisement and get back to him.

PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL

HEALTH CENTRE

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question today is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, last Friday I attended an

event to announce the relocation of the Peterborough Regional Health Centre helipad. I am pleased to tell you that at that announcement we drew more than 100 people, which gives you and this House

an idea of just how important this initiative is for a new hospital in Peterborough. Minister, can you give this House some additional details of that particular announcement and initiative?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the member for Peterborough for the question and, if I may, Mr Speaker, also

indicate to the leader of the official opposition that we are arranging for a meeting with the London family to which he referred in a previous cycle. I neglected to mention that.

Back to Peterborough; I can tell you that the Ernie Eves government has provided $750,000 in funding to make improvements to the Peterborough Regional Health

Centre. That will be toward the relocation of the air ambulance helipad, and this will allow the hospital in turn to have better access for incoming and outgoing air ambulance services. This means

better, safer, faster and more convenient and efficient service for all of his constituents. I believe this project is a giant and important first step to the hospital's ongoing redevelopment

project.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Minister, and you're absolutely correct; this is a major initiative for Peterborough and for all of the citizens in the

community.

Minister, it is my understanding that the helipad is just one of many initiatives this government has undertaken in the hospital in my riding, needless to say,

as well as in many hospitals throughout Ontario. Can you please tell the members of the Legislature some of the other initiatives your ministry has made at our hospital as you continue to make

health care one of Ontario's priorities?

Hon Mr Clement: I think it should be put on the record how important this project actually is for the people of Peterborough. And I should say

that Peterborough Regional has been working with us. It's been a true partnership. There has been a major fundraising campaign which has raised over $14 million locally, exceeding the goal of $10

million raised locally. In addition to the $200-million new hospital that that fundraising campaign is a part of, I can tell you in the meantime there have been ongoing investments by this

government for the city of Peterborough in health care: an additional MRI which became operational in July 2001; 120 additional acute-care beds; funding for surgical sites; funding for diagnostic

imaging; and emergency room expansion. This is the new and improved Peterborough Regional Health Centre and it will help the citizens of Peterborough, and too, the new hospital is up and running as

well. Congratulations to the entire city.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Premier. Premier, I want to draw your attention to the international language

program and the African heritage/black cultural program. Both of these programs have been around or taught in the city of Toronto since the late 1970s. You will know that in the international

language programs, Chinese is taught, Vietnamese, Portuguese, Italian, Farsi, Gujarati, Hindi, a multitude of languages, and what is taught in African heritage is the pride and the learning of

black heritage, black culture.

You know that the African heritage program is not funded at all by you but rather by the Toronto board, and the international languages get some money from you

but not a lot. The Toronto District School Board recognizes that these programs are vital in a globalized economy, but they're on the chopping block. They won't be able to do it without your help.

Are you going to be there to help them keep these programs?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll refer the question to the Minister of Education.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): We take very seriously the issue of funding for these students. I'd like to just

say that for 2001-02, the per pupil funding amount in the ESL component, the language grant, was increased. These changes increased board spending on ESL by approximately $20 million or 16.4%.

Mr Marchese: I do want to assist the minister by reminding her that the international program and the African heritage/black cultural program

are radically different from ESL. It's a different program. And she ought to know, given that she raised it, that teachers in the ESL programs have been cut by 60%. We know that. But that is a

different program altogether.

I want to help you, Minister, by saying to you that the international language program gets some money from you but not a lot. There's very little money for

coordination, there's no money for professional development, and the African heritage/black cultural program gets absolutely no money from you whatsoever. It's on the chopping block. It was about

to die last year and it will certainly die this September. They need you. Will you be there to keep these programs alive or will you abandon the field altogether?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We take very seriously the issue that has been raised by the member of the third party. I would just remind the member that we

have recently made available to school boards throughout the province an additional $350 million this year. As you know, there is a local funding component and certainly they have the opportunity

-- there's flexibility there -- to use that money as they would best see fit. This is what school boards have asked us for. They have asked us to provide flexible funding in order that, depending

on the circumstances of each board -- obviously, the needs of boards up in Thunder Bay are radically different from those in Toronto, so there is the opportunity there for them to use the local

priorities grant to respond to these types of initiatives.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, we've learned that you indeed have plans to cut

funding to radiologists in Ontario. Their response is that if you go ahead with this plan, it will literally force hospitals to shut their CT scanners off. This comes at a time when we already have

out-of-control waiting lists for diagnostic tests. You'd probably be interested to know that the waiting list for a mammogram at the Dufferin-Caledon Health Care Corp is eight weeks long.

Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among women. While you are making some women wait as long as eight weeks to get a medically necessary test done,

I'd like to know why you're choosing to put the lives of women in Ontario at risk by denying them proper, timely access to these diagnostic tests.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The first part of the honourable member's question had to do with funding and she's

just plain wrong. I don't know where she's getting her information.

Interjection: The Toronto Star.

Hon Mr Clement: Oh, the Toronto Star. That explains a lot. She's just plain wrong and there's nothing more that has to be said about that.

Indeed, it is the Ernie Eves government that has committed in the throne speech to add more diagnostic machines and to increase the number of OHIP-funded hours for MRI diagnostics, for

instance.

The honourable member mentions mammograms. She should be aware that I participated in a highly regarded celebration in Barrie, Ontario, recently with the

honourable member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford where we in fact opened up more time and more space and more procedures. This is happening across the province. So yes, there are additional challenges

to be met, but I can tell you that certainly this government and the previous government have made the right kind of investments to ensure that this is a priority.

Mrs Pupatello: In Oshawa people have to wait six weeks to get an X-ray to see if they have colorectal cancer. You'll know that colorectal

cancer is the third most common cancer among both men and women. We know that when it comes to diagnostics and treatment of cancer, timing is everything. It's often a matter of life and death.

In Ontario, under seven years of this government's watch, the problem has gotten worse. In our hospitals the average waiting time for radiology tests has

increased two and a half weeks in the past year alone. Ontario families want to know why you have not made this a government priority. Why have you allowed this problem to spiral out of control --

an average increase in Ontario hospitals of waiting times of two and a half weeks?

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member is now talking about another terrible disease which we all wish was not prevalent in our society, but

the fact of the matter is, new investments in cancer services have been the hallmark of this government. I believe it is close to a 30% increase over the last five years alone. The fact of the

matter is, whether we like it or not, we know that the incidence of cancer is increasing in our society. I wish it were not the case, but it is the case, and therefore our kinds of investments have

increased as well.

The honourable member should know that we have had an increase in the Ontario breast screening program, just to answer the previous part of her question, of

$24.3 million recently. So the investments, again, are there.

If the honourable member has a particular case where the standards of this government or of this society are not being met, tell us about the case. We should

be aware of that, certainly. But in terms of the investments being made, the concentration to ensure that we have the right investments in the right place, this government is doing what it said it

would do and doing the job for Ontario's citizens.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question today is for the Minister of Culture. Minister, first of all let me start off by

congratulating you on your recent appointment. We all know you as the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, but as many of us also know, you're a great aficionado of the arts. The people of

Ontario, I believe, will be well-served by you in this new portfolio.

Minister, we all know that this government has a proud record of sound fiscal management, unlike previous governments that we won't talk about. This government

has balanced the budget for two consecutive years, and we expect the 2001-02 budget to remain balanced despite the economic downturn. All along we've been able to invest record amounts into health

care, but we all know that there are other important areas, such as culture, in which this government plays a very important and critical role.

Minister, can you tell this House what this government is doing to support cultural institutions in this province?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): I'd like to thank the member from Scarborough Centre

for her kind remarks.

First of all, this government places a great value on arts and culture. Speaker, I'll indicate to you some of the ways in which millions of dollars have poured

into the arts and culture community which have tremendous returns not simply in culture but also in tourism and in the economy in this province: the Ontario Arts Council, for example, $25 million;

the Ontario arts endowment fund, $50 million; the cultural attractions fund, $50 million; the Trillium Foundation, of course; SuperBuild, $300 million. These are great investments we've made,

recognizing the value not only to culture and art but also the value to the economy.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that response, Minister. I had known that this government has always been very supportive of the arts in Ontario.

In fact, this is illustrated by the throne speech that was delivered by the Honourable James Bartleman on May 9 this year, which states our government's commitment to working with the federal

government to enrich the arts and cultural institutions in the province.

Minister, could you please tell me what specifically this government is doing to encourage co-operation between the federal government and the provincial

government and its cultural institutions? It would be interesting to know if the Liberal opposition is also interested in this question.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Last week marked two very important cultural events. First of all, on June 3, my grandson Ethan turned 3, and he indicated

that when he grows up, he wants to be exactly like Tie Domi.

The other event, equally as important, of course, is that last Friday I was able to be there at Premier Eves's announcement, along with the Prime Minister, in

support of a strategic investment in seven flagship cultural projects. I was pleased to be there as well with the associate minister of health, Dan Newman; the member for Scarborough East, Steve

Gilchrist; and the member for Scarborough Centre, Marilyn Mushinski.

This heralded a renaissance of growth and prosperity in Toronto for the cultural community. We have invested $233 million jointly between the federal

government and the province through the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program, which will directly assist the Royal Ontario Museum, the Canadian Opera Company, the Art Gallery of Ontario, the

National Ballet School, the Royal Conservatory of Music, the George R. Gardiner Museum of Ceramic Art and Roy Thomson Hall in their capital improvement projects. This will maintain these

world-class institutions in Toronto as leaders in their fields. Of course, this needs investment; I believe we have done so.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Last week you were bragging to this House about

your government's hard emission caps on Ontario's electricity sector. Your boasting came in defence of a scathing report on your government's environmental record. Last week, NAFTA told us that

your government, since its election in 1995, has been the worst environmental performer of any government in the North American jurisdiction. Your government has turned its back while over 20,000

extra tonnes of lethal toxic environmental contaminants have been released into the air, water and soil since 1995.

Today we learn of another environmental failure of the Eves government. We learn that your own coal-fired electricity plants exceeded their pollution caps by

6,600 tonnes last year. In other words, your government's plants exceeded pollution limits by over 6,000 tonnes in 2001 and you've done nothing. You failed to make this information public and, in

consequence, you failed to let the public know of the risk posed to their health due to your government's pathetic environmental record.

Minister, two questions: first, why are government-owned electricity plants exceeding pollution limits, and second, why has your government failed to notify

the public of this disturbing lethal breach of pollution laws by your own plants?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): I can honestly say that in one minute I didn't hear one

accurate statement.

Mr Bradley: Honestly say?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Not one accurate statement in one minute. First of all, we weren't the lowest-ranked jurisdiction in North America; let's

get that straight. Second, who were the highest-ranked jurisdictions? Hawaii, Guam, Prince Edward Island. Why? Because they don't produce a lot of product out there. They don't produce jobs; they

don't produce prosperity.

If we listen to the thinking of the critic for the environment, the only way he wants to get up to number one is that we close down all our infrastructure,

close down all our plants, close down all our manufacturing and lay everybody off and put them on welfare. Then we'll be number one. That's the logic the critic has: close everything down, don't

create any jobs, no prosperity, put everybody on welfare and we'll be number one. We'll be like Guam. That's the kind of logic.

Look, there were two parties that tried that for 10 years and they're both sitting over there. That's not the kind of prosperity we see. We're still hard on

pollution. We're putting the caps in place and we've introduced --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary.

Mr Bradley: As an environment critic I couldn't have asked for a better answer than that. Thank you very much.

Minister, this year over 1,900 people will die prematurely because of lung cancer, heart failure or other conditions related to smog, produced in large part by

your coal-fired plants. Thousands more will be hospitalized with respiratory problems. Your coal-fired plants already emit 23% of the acid-rain-causing, lung-irritating sulphur dioxide in the

province. Your coal-fired plants emit 23% of this province's lethal nerve toxin called mercury. Your coal-fired plants produce thousands of tonnes of the chief smog-causing pollutant nitrous oxide.

Despite this, you and your colleagues in the Conservative government are allowing your own coal-fired plants in Nanticoke, Lambton, Mississauga, Thunder Bay and Atikokan to commit breaches of

pollution limits.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Bradley: Given the serious threat posed to the health and safety of Ontario residents by your law-breaking electricity generators, and

given that your OPG plants' pollution emissions are spinning wildly out of control, will you today commit your government to the elimination of coal-fired electricity generation in Ontario and will

you provide us with a timetable for this elimination?

Hon Mr Stockwell: As Minister of the Environment I couldn't ask for a better critic.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Do you know what? I don't need notes for that question. Take my word for it. There are no notes needed for that question. If

there was anything accurate in it, I may need notes. But since there's nothing accurate, I don't.

Let's be clear: first and foremost, you were Minister of the Environment. You were running coal-fired plants. Why didn't you shut them down?

Mr Bradley: That was years ago -- a long time ago.

Hon Mr Stockwell: That was a long time ago. That was before you became an environmentalist, when you could actually do something about it.

That's when it was.

Second, we all know about the coal-fired plants and we all know about OPG. We all know that emission reduction credits were accepted by the pilot emissions

reduction trading program. I know he knows that, he quite often quotes it to me, and OPG is able to reduce their net emissions in line with voluntary commitments.

What does that mean in layman's terms? They've gone lower than the standards. They've reduced more than they've been told to reduce. They're below those

standards.

Finally, as Minister of the Environment, if you were so concerned about the coal-fired plants, why didn't you shut them down? You didn't because you know that

during peak periods of time, we need the coal-fired plants to keep the hydro on in certain people's homes.

So are you suggesting that we shut them down and turn out the lights for seniors across this province? If you're saying that, stand up and say it. Otherwise,

the question is moot.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. We all know that Ontario's economy is booming. Ontario is

expected to grow faster than any of the G7 countries in the next four years. Productivity in Ontario's manufacturing has improved dramatically, averaging 4.3% annual growth over the 1990-95

period.

Of course, all this economic activity brings an increase in truck traffic. With more and more trucks on the road, motorists grow more and more concerned about

truck safety. What action has this government taken to ensure that trucks on our highways are safe?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Transportation): Our government has a proven commitment to truck safety here in Ontario.

During Transportation Week I was glad to meet with owners, operators and people who drive trucks. They have indeed helped and benefited our economic viability

in Ontario to a tremendous degree.

Even though we have increased the number of trucks in Ontario because of the economic development that has taken place, our truck-related accidents have gone

down by some 26% or 27% over the last decade.

We have some of the toughest rules, regulations and laws surrounding truck safety. We have some of the highest fines in North America for unsafe trucks, up to

$20,000 per offence. We've made wheel separations an absolute liable offence of up to $50,000 -- no excuses; you are convicted. We have removed over 800 unsafe trucks from our roads during the past

number of years.

Mrs Munro: Minister, Ontario is one of the leading trading jurisdictions in the world. Ontario exported over US$130 billion worth to the

United States alone in 2000. As a separate jurisdiction, Ontario would have been in third position among the top suppliers of US imports, after Japan and Mexico. During 1995 to 2000, Canadian

exports to the US grew at an astonishing average rate of 11.5%. With so much interjurisdictional trade activity on our highways, it is clear that truck safety is a multijurisdictional problem.

I am aware of this week's truck safety blitz that is to take place across North America. What can you tell us about this partnership to increase truck

safety?

Hon Mr Sterling: The truck safety blitz, which is an international week of concentration on truck safety, is extremely important. It's

important so that we can compare our performance here in Ontario against the performance of other jurisdictions in North America.

Happily, last year when this same week took place, it was shown that, overall, our record was 4% better than all the rest combined. Four per cent may not seem

like a lot to some of the opposition, but that means that in our case, our trucks are safer with regard to each and every one that is checked at the truck safety station. We, again, are involved in

this particular week. We believe in working with other jurisdictions because many of the trucks that are travelling our roads come in from the United States and therefore we have to ensure that

their trucks are safe as well.

We have good comparisons with other jurisdictions in North America and we're doing better than most.

DISTRICT HEALTH COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, two years ago Ottawa city council chose two

councillors to sit on the Champlain District Health Council, councillors Alex Munter and Alex Cullen. You, Minister, were not happy with these choices and so you told Ottawa city council to submit

different names for consideration. It's not lost on the people of Ottawa that council's choices don't fit with your own personal ideology. Having said that, the net effect over the past two years

is that 700,000 residents of Ottawa, 70% of the population served by the Champlain District Health Council, have had no voice in decisions regarding local health care, because city council, to its

credit, refuses to bend to your demand to put forward different candidates.

Minister, when are you going to stop playing politics with these appointments and accept the legitimately chosen representatives from Ottawa city council?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): This is really too rich by a half. Every other city, every other district, has a way

to work with the provincial government under the rules that we set forth in consideration of them. We say to them, "Simply provide us with a list and we can make a choice based on the list." Every

other jurisdiction does that; Ottawa doesn't do that. I'm sorry; Ottawa has to play by the same rules as everyone else so we can be fair to everybody. Who is playing politics? You're playing

politics.

Ms Martel: It's clear that the only rules are your rules, because you would rather deny the residents of Ottawa two voices on the Champlain

District Health Council because those two councillors don't have a membership in the Conservative Party. That's why those appointments are being held up.

Your government took control of the CCAC boards in December because you didn't like boards that might publicly criticize you for the underfunding of health

care. Then, in that same bill, you also determined that the government and the government alone would determine what information would go from CCACs to the public, again to control any possible

criticism.

Now you have the scenario that two Ottawa city councillors, duly chosen by Ottawa city council, cannot exercise their right to sit on the district health

council because you don't like their politics. Minister, when are you going to stop playing these petty partisan games and accept the appointment of Alex Munter and Alex Cullen?

Hon Mr Clement: We have no problem finding excellent representatives in her region; we have no problem finding excellent representatives in

Windsor; we have no problem finding excellent representatives in Toronto or in Kingston or in Hamilton or in Niagara. We have no problem finding excellent representatives in Ottawa either; I'm sure

there are those that are, but they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If you can't understand that, that explains a lot about 1990 to 1995.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Minister of Energy, and it's with respect to your predecessor's comments last week in

published reports to the effect that the executive officers in the Hydro One board for some time had been uncontrollable. I think the minister said that they should fire the whole lot of them. I

think the minister said the board could not be controlled, and time after time he has said he tried to control the board and he could not. I say to you, because I have to say to you, because I

can't say it to this minister: he had an option, sir. He could have held that board accountable. He could have fired that board at the time. He could have taken responsibility as the sole

shareholder, and he sat back. He was there at the christening of the good ship privatization as it headed off with a tidal wave of spending of taxpayer dollars. And so I say to you, the Minister of

Energy, how are you going to take responsibility for what this board has done?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): I think the Premier responded to the question earlier in

question period. He suggested that we received a letter, through our solicitors, from the Hydro One board, and we decided that that response, by our definition, was unacceptable. So we're going to

have to take action with respect to how we're going to move forward on it, and we will take that action quickly.

I also want to enlighten the member opposite as well as the leader of the official opposition. All this information was in fact public: 1997 -- it was made

public April 1, 1998; April 1, 1999; December 27, 2000; May 24, 2000; May 8, 2001; March 28, 2002; May 17, 2002. I might add that during the last two public disclosures, the pay packages were

significantly less than they were very, very recently done. So we are taking the position that we're going to take very strong action.

To conclude, your member stood up today and said he had no idea what it was, we were keeping it a secret. All he had to do was go on the Web site, punch in www

PETITIONS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Petitions? The member for Sudbury.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is the first of many, many thousands of petitions concerning Highway 69, which is worth the investment.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas modern highways are economic lifelines for the north; and

"Whereas the stretch of Highway 69 from Sudbury south to Parry Sound is a treacherous road with a trail of death and destruction; and

"Whereas the carnage on Highway 69 has been staggering; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has shown gross irresponsibility in not four-laning the stretch of Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas immediate action is needed to prevent more needless loss of life; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of a government to provide safe roads for its citizens, and the Eves government has failed to do so;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Eves government to begin construction immediately

and four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on death road north will cease."

Of course I affix my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas many high school students in Ontario, outraged at the harshness of the new curriculum, choose to leave school on May 15, 2002;

"Inadequate funding made difficult the implementation of the new curriculum;

"High school students should not be used as forced labour in addition to the extra hours required for the new curriculum;

"There is inadequate funding for the double-cohort year. Universities and colleges will have trouble providing room for all those students;

"Therefore,

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

"We demand that a committee with government, teachers, trustees, parents and high school students establish a funding model to correct the shortcomings in the

system;

"Further

be it resolved that a committee with government, teachers, trustees, parents and high school students make recommendations to help those students who

have had to change their career paths due to the harshness of the new system;

"Further

be it resolved that students are no longer to do compulsory volunteer work;

"Further

be it resolved that adequate funding be given for the double-cohort year."

That's signed by Linda Mariage, Rachael Warriner, John Pruyn and hundreds of others. I've affixed my signature as well.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I have a petition here -- and they're coming in by the thousands -- addressed to the Ontario

Legislature. It states here:

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

economy;

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

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

for consumers;

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

Ontario."

I affix my signature in full agreement with this and I will give it to Naguib to give to the Chair.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES /

SERVICES DE SANTÉ POUR ENFANTS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I am very pleased today to present to this Legislature a petition that was gathered together

by the mother and grandmother of a seven-year-old beneficiary of the great work of the children's cardiac surgery unit at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. This petition, signed by over

200 of my constituents from the Arnprior area, reads, in part:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario has continued to provide excellent cardiac care coverage; and

"Whereas many citizens of eastern Ontario rely on the existence of a first-class pediatric cardiac surgery unit in close proximity to where they live;

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

"To immediately halt the proposed closing of CHEO's pediatric cardiac surgery unit."

I'm delighted not only to present this petition but to sign it and to endorse it.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): J'ai une pétition signée par 80 enseignants et enseignantes à la retraite de

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell qui ont à coeur la santé de nos enfants.

« À l'assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

« Attendu que le gouvernement de l'Ontario est en train de fermer le service de chirurgie cardiaque à l'intention des enfants fonctionnant

actuellement à l'hôpital pour enfants de l'est de l'Ontario;

« Attendu que cet hôpital traite chaque année 140 enfants gravement malades à proximité de leur foyer;

« Attendu que la centralisation des services de chirurgie cardiaque pour les enfants à Toronto obligerait les patients et les parents à

s'éloigner de 400 kilomètres à 600 kilomètres de leur foyer à un moment difficile;

« Nous, soussignés, demandons à l'assemblée législative de l'Ontario d'annuler immédiatement la décision du

gouvernement d'abolir ce programme, qui sauve des vies, et de veiller à ce que chaque enfant de l'est de l'Ontario continue d'avoir pleinement accès à des soins de santé de

qualité supérieure. »

J'y ajoute avec fierté ma signature.

PODIATRIC SERVICES

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's with respect to "Foot care is not a

luxury.

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

"Whereas Ontarians depend on podiatrists for relief from painful foot conditions;

"Whereas the new government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded podiatry across vast regions of Ontario;

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

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

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to demand the government move immediately to cancel the delisting of

podiatric services."

I concur with the petition and I will affix my signature to it.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): The provision of mental health services to children in Thunder Bay is truly threatened by a

lack of government funding. A major petition campaign has been launched, and I'd like to read petitions sent to me by hundreds of people.

"Whereas for the first time Lakehead Regional Family Centre has a deficit budget of $200,000 due to the lack of adequate funding from the provincial government

and the sharp increase in the demands for children's mental health services in the city of Thunder Bay; and

"Whereas referrals to Lakehead Regional Family Centre have increased 150% since 1995, and no additional permanent funding has been received to help meet the

needs of our community; and

"Whereas since 1993, the government's investment in core funding for children's mental health services has declined by 8%, and salaries for staff are up to 30%

lower than in hospitals and other government services; and

"Whereas according to the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 18% of children and youth in Ontario have a diagnosable mental health disorder, and yet Ontario only

treats one in six of these children; and

"Whereas without immediate additional permanent funding, children's mental health services could be severely restricted to those children and families who need

it the most,

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario and residents of the city of Thunder Bay, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"For the provincial government to provide an immediate infusion of additional permanent funding to the Lakehead Regional Family Centre to help fight the crisis

situation facing children's mental health services in the city of Thunder Bay."

This petition is signed by hundreds of people, and I am pleased to add my name to this petition.

CORMORANTS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I have a petition signed by literally thousands of people from and around the Gore Bay area, Sault Ste

Marie, Sudbury and various points around the province. It was put out by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is in year two of a five-year study on the impact of cormorants and possible management strategies which was to have

included experimental controls beginning in 2001; and

"Whereas recently the then Minister of Natural Resources, John Snobelen, reiterated at the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' annual general meeting

and wildlife conference that the MNR is committed to experimental control of cormorants at specific local sites in 2001; and

"Whereas cormorant populations in Ontario have increased to over 260,000 birds in the past several years;" -- that's a lot of birds -- "and

"Whereas cormorants are having obvious local effects on habitat and have demonstrated negative effects on fisheries on the New York side of Lake Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the now Minister of Natural Resources immediately begin control of the cormorant population in a meaningful way where there are

obvious habitat or fishery effects and to make public the experimental design and results to date."

HYDRO ONE

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a 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 who will benefit are Bay Street brokers and Hydro One executives;

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

Ontario."

I have signed this petition, which comes from Ridgetown.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Conservative government plans to sell off Hydro One, which includes Ontario's electricity transmission grid;

"Whereas there's been little evidence and no public case which proves that selling the grid will benefit electricity consumers;

"Whereas the selling off of the transmission grid is one of the largest privatizations in Canadian history;

"Whereas the Conservative government never campaigned on the selling off of this public asset, and the people of Ontario have not been consulted on this

plan;

"Whereas the government does not have a clear mandate from the owners of Hydro One -- the people of Ontario;

"Whereas this sale is proceeding hastily and without transparency;

"Therefore

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

"To demand that the Conservative government of Ontario under Premier Ernie Eves move immediately to halt the sale of Hydro One."

I affix my signature to this petition.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions 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 a 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 join with my constituents in adding my name to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

STUDENT OPPORTUNITY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

OFFRANT DE NOUVELLES POSSIBILITÉS D'ÉDUCATION POSTSECONDAIRE

AUX ÉTUDIANTS

Mrs Cunningham moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 65,

An Act to enact, amend or revise various Acts related to post-secondary education and opportunities / Projet de loi 65, Loi édictant, modifiant

ou révisant diverses lois liées à l'éducation postsecondaire et aux possibilités en la matière.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): It's my honour and my

pleasure to speak today in support of the Post-secondary Education Student Opportunity Act, 2002. This act brings together a number of bills which received first reading in the previous session of

the Legislature. In the interests of a full debate, we are bringing these forward as one bill which, if passed by the Legislature, would help us to increase the opportunities for post-secondary

education that are available to Ontario students.

Let me be very clear: never has it been more important to give our students the supports and choices they need to receive a first-class education right here in

Ontario. As the recent throne speech pointed out, our government is committed to choice and fairness in all levels of Ontario's education system. Our qualified and motivated students, regardless of

their economic circumstances or their geographic location, deserve the chance as generations before them did for a brighter future. They have hopes, they have dreams and they've never been more

excited about their opportunities.

Students and their parents want to know that a wide range of high-quality post-secondary educational opportunities is available here in Ontario and they are

increasingly motivated, more optimistic, because these are the times that these young people intend to let us know exactly what they want. Hopefully, we can improve upon what we already have by

implementing this legislation, and if it does indeed pass, it will pass in a timely fashion because we have more students entering our post-secondary system than ever before.

The legislation we are discussing today will accomplish so many of their great opportunities by bringing together four pieces of legislation. They are:

The University of Ontario Institute of Technology Act, 2002, which if passed would establish the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. The UOIT would

provide innovative and responsive training that would prepare students for a highly competitive and knowledge-based economy. Our government is working to be sure that we are ready for students to

enrol in 2003, which will be another important year of increased enrolment in this great province.

The second piece of this bill is the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002, which would set up a separate act for the establishment and

governance of colleges in order to give colleges the flexibility to meet the changing needs of students and employers and remove those powers from the Ministry of Training, Colleges and

Universities Act.

The third

part is the Ontario College of Art and Design Act, 2002, which would give the college the power to grant degrees and would officially change its name

from the Ontario College of Art to the Ontario College of Art and Design.

I was at OCAD not too long ago, as were other colleagues across all political parties of this Legislative Assembly, to witness, I believe, the groundbreaking

or the announcement of their new building, which I think will certainly change the face of Toronto and make us competitive across Canada and North America with this wonderful institution. At that

time I was reminded by a parent that this legislation is forthcoming and that they would very much appreciate our passing it, because he himself had a student graduating this year who didn't have

the opportunity, in fact, to receive a university degree. There are many examples of young people -- because this has been on the agenda of the Ontario College of Art for a number of years, and in

fact they have passed a very strenuous process in order to become qualified for the privilege of granting degrees to our students. So I'm hoping this will receive the timely attention of my

colleagues.

The fourth part of this legislation is the amendments to the Ontario Educational Communications Authority Act to allow the authority -- that means TVO -- to

give credit for distance education programs. This is necessary because the independent learning centre, which offers credit distance education courses -- it's been a long-standing practice in this

province to offer opportunities to our secondary school students to complete courses and to get credit, and this is now the responsibility of TVO. In order for them to have the authority to give

these credits, we must bring this legislation to this assembly.

There are many people waiting for us to move forward. We have had quite a length of time because we did table this legislation for the first time in November

2001. So I have had queries and opportunities to discuss what all of this means with my colleagues, as appropriate, and it's a very important time in the history of our province to move

forward.

In addition, the bill changes the name of private vocational schools to private career colleges. This is because across our country our private vocational

schools in every other province are referred to as private career colleges. So there's a sense here of consistency for our young people, and in the interest of labour mobility, both on

qualifi