Ontario Hansard — 9 December 2002 (37th Parliament, 3rd Session)
2002-12-09
Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">
December 9, 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-Dec-09 (PDF)
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO
Monday 9 December 2002 Lundi 9 décembre 2002
ESTIMATES
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
HAZARDOUS WASTE
PORT PERRY LIONS CLUB
GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS
THE ARTS PROJECT
RACIAL PROFILING
FIRST NATIONS MINING
AND FORESTRY REVENUES
SANTA FUND IN NIPISSING
EDUCATION FUNDING
DRINKING AND DRIVING
VISITORS
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
REENA FOUNDATION ACT, 2002
GENOCIDE MEMORIAL WEEK
ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR LA SEMAINE COMMÉMORATIVE DES GÉNOCIDES
ONTARIO HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR LE JOUR
DU PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO
VISITORS
MOTIONS
HOUSE SITTINGS
DEFERRED VOTES
KEEPING THE PROMISE
FOR A STRONG ECONOMY ACT
(BUDGET MEASURES), 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RESPECT
DE L'ENGAGEMENT D'ASSURER
UNE ÉCONOMIE SAINE
(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)
VISITOR
FUNERAL, BURIAL AND
CREMATION SERVICES ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002
SUR LES SERVICES FUNÉRAIRES
ET LES SERVICES D'ENTERREMENT
ET DE CRÉMATION
ELECTRICITY PRICING, CONSERVATION
AND SUPPLY ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR L'ÉTABLISSEMENT
DU PRIX DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ,
LA CONSERVATION DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ
ET L'APPROVISIONNEMENT
EN ÉLECTRICITÉ
VISITORS
ORAL QUESTIONS
PROPERTY TAXATION
GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS
HYDRO ONE
HYDRO RATES
ADULT EDUCATION
WEST NIPISSING ECONOMY
MINISTER'S COMMENTS
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
ASSISTED HOUSING
DRINKING AND DRIVING
ONTARIO SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS
FISHING
SAULT STE MARIE SAWMILL
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
PETITIONS
LONG-TERM CARE
HEALTH CARE
ASSISTIVE DEVICES
PROGRAM CENTRE
NATURAL GAS RATES
MEDICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CAT SCANNER
HIGHWAY 69
ADOPTION DISCLOSURE
WATER TESTING
NATURAL GAS RATES
LONG-TERM CARE
NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION
ORDERS OF THE DAY
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EXPENSES ACT
(CABINET MINISTERS AND
OPPOSITION LEADERS), 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR L'OBLIGATION
DE RENDRE COMPTE DES DÉPENSES
(MINISTRES ET CHEFS D'UN PARTI
DE L'OPPOSITION)
Monday 9 December 2002 Lundi 9 décembre 2002
The House met at 1330.
Prayers.
ESTIMATES
Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant
Governor signed by his own hand.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates and supplementary estimates of certain sums required for the services
of the province for the year ending March 31, 2003, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Sarnia-Lambton is becoming a toxic waste haven, thanks to the Harris-Eves government. Their lax
regulations saw that the now Clean Harbours site near Brigden expanded in 1997 to become the largest toxic waste landfill and incinerator in the country, yet only about 5% of the waste is local.
Most of the waste comes from outside the province. Next month, this facility will receive untreated toxic sludge from the Sydney tar pond site in Nova Scotia.
Dalton McGuinty took the time last Thursday to speak and listen to the people in Lambton county. Dalton called the tar pond sludge proposal what it is: a
disgrace.
In Ontario, we will take untreated hazardous waste from anywhere and simply dump it into the ground, a practice that has
been outlawed in every other jurisdiction on this continent.
The residents have said enough is enough, and thousands are now joining forces to stop the toxic sludge.
The fundamental difference between the values of an Ernie Eves government and a Dalton McGuinty government is that the Harris-Eves government does not stand up
for strong environmental laws. But Dalton McGuinty understands that the way to compete is not to have the weakest toxic waste laws in North America but to build strong communities by having the
strongest toxic waste laws on the continent.
PORT PERRY LIONS CLUB
Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House to recognize the Port Perry Lions Club on its 65th anniversary. I would like to congratulate Wayne
Burrell, president of the club, and all the members who have given so much to the community.
Lionism in Port Perry began on November 16, 1937, when the local club was founded with 20 members and sponsorship from the Newmarket Lions Club. Ernest Hayes was
the first president.
The help they provided to the community included building playgrounds, sponsoring street dances and providing 700 sacks of candy for the Santa Claus parade. Over
the years they contributed gift bags for soldiers in World War II, raised funds for the hospital and helped build the first ice pad at Scugog arena.
Today, Port Perry Lions continue to serve the community with hospital fundraisers, support for the guide dog program, Breakfast with Santa, the annual soapbox
derby and the Santa Claus parade. Port Perry Lions sponsor a youth fastball team and also volunteer at a local vision screening program for junior and senior kindergarten students. Those are just a
few of their projects.
Their roster includes Gord Prentice, who has belonged to the Port Perry Lions for 38 years and has been honoured with the Helen Keller Award. Among the other
dedicated Port Perry Lions are Tom Wilson and Maurice Patterson, who each have more than 40 years' service to Lionism in Port Perry and with other Lions clubs. Mr Rob Rice, a past governor for the
Lions, is also among its members.
The Port Perry Lions are but one example of the many community organizations that make a difference in Durham and make everyone's lives better with the families
they touch. I wish them continued success.
GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Last week the Provincial Auditor put the lie to the myth this government has propagated that Progressive Conservatives
are good money managers. The auditor pointed out that this government spent $662 million on consultants last year, almost $400 million more than was spent in 1998.
Ontarians are rightfully outraged at this flagrant breach of taxpayers' trust. This is a shameful amount to waste when our kids are without schoolbooks.
It's simply disgusting that the Ministry of Finance allowed a consultant to be paid $681,000 in error. It's sickening that the same ministry awarded a $3-million
contract, despite the fact that the lowest bid was less than half that amount, when our hospitals are running deficits. It's appalling that Management Board awarded a $1.7-million consulting
contract without any competition.
This echoes the kind of mismanagement that left taxpayers on the hook for $5,000 per Ministry of Natural Resources computer last year. This same government
refuses to give us the numbers on this and other contracts with MFP and refuses to table any consultant contracts for public scrutiny.
This government obviously doesn't know and doesn't care what they're doing with our taxpayer dollars. It's typical of their mismanagement over the past seven
years. Good money managers? They couldn't manage a two-car parade.
THE ARTS PROJECT
Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to inform members about The Arts Project, based in the great city of London. The Arts Project, otherwise
known as TAP, is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to encouraging, aiding and promoting artists and arts groups in the London area by providing a multi-use facility where they can meet, work,
share information, learn new skills and exhibit their art.
The goals of The Arts Project include providing artists, arts groups, schools and non-profit organizations with affordable artists' studios, printmaking studios,
education workshops, exhibition space, a performance area, arts-related programs and an on-line art gallery.
There are approximately 6,200 artists living in the London area, plus a large student population that attends arts programs offered by their schools. There are
also some 60 arts organizations operating in the area. Historically, these individuals and groups have worked in isolation and there has been little communication and collaboration with each other.
The Arts Project is primarily designed to bridge this divide.
The general public and visitors to the city also gain from a strong multidisciplinary arts centre in the heart of London. The following are some of the key
benefits that TAP provides: affordable space, accessible public art, unique education opportunities, cross-pollination of the arts, enhancement of London's reputation and downtown revitalization.
Through its various activities, shows and events, TAP has seen some 20,000 people pass through its doors to date this year.
The Ontario Trillium Foundation recently awarded The Arts Project with two years of operations funding, which will give the London-based arts centre the required
time to become self-sufficient.
I know all members will join with me in congratulating The Arts Project members, volunteers, sponsors and staff for providing such a worthwhile service to the
London area.
RACIAL PROFILING
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I rise today to speak about the lack of leadership when it comes to racial profiling. Several weeks
ago, a coalition of black community leaders held a press conference and openly called upon this government to finally address the severe problems of racism that exist with some in the police force.
To their credit, the police have made some steps in meeting with the concerned community. But where is the leadership by the government of Ontario?
A summit was held, sponsored by Lincoln Alexander, and they too took some steps forward. But where is the leadership by the government of Ontario?
The Toronto city council has passed a resolution and made some steps forward. But where is the leadership by the government of Ontario?
Dalton McGuinty, my colleagues and I just a week ago met with some 35 leaders of the black community, and we are fully committed in eradicating racial profiling
unequivocally, with a zero tolerance policy. But where is the leadership by the government of Ontario?
This is not an issue that only concerns the black community. Racial profiling is abhorrent and vicious and impacts us all. This is an issue that requires
leadership, integrity and understanding. This is an issue that required a clarion call for justice and the involvement of government, society and the police. This is not about pegging one group
against the other. It's about rectifying a wrong, bringing everyone to a conclusive and final agreement. This does not require any more studies; it requires action. Where is the government of
Ontario?
FIRST NATIONS MINING
AND FORESTRY REVENUES
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): This coming Thursday I'll be introducing in the House a motion for debate, and I'll be looking at various
members across the assembly from the three parties to support it.
The motion is quite simple. It reads as follows: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should, in consultation with First Nations
communities of northern Ontario and with other levels of government, develop and implement a mechanism where those communities can share in the revenue from mining and forestry operations that are
conducted in their traditional territories."
This motion speaks to a long-standing problem we've had in the province of Ontario and, I would argue, across Canada. This is the first time something like this
is being attempted anywhere in the nation; that is, if you have a mining or forestry operation set up, let's say, next to North Bay or Timmins or wherever it might be, there's an automatic
mechanism for municipalities to be able to share in the revenue from those projects by way of taxation. It's well understood that if you start up a new forestry plant in North Bay, there's going to
be taxation paid by that company to the city of North Bay in order to be able to offset the costs of running infrastructure and for the betterment of the community. First Nations communities have
no such mechanism.
This motion calls for the provincial government, in consultation with First Nations, to develop a process by which if a project like De Beers diamond mine was to
start up in Attawapiskat, there would be a mechanism where De Beers would have to pay some form of taxation to the community of Attawapiskat so they can benefit from the full benefits of such a
project, just as they would if they had set up that mine in Timmins, Kirkland Lake or Kapuskasing. I call on all members of the assembly to be here Thursday and to vote on behalf of this
motion.
SANTA FUND IN NIPISSING
Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): Today I'd like to speak about an event that occurs every holiday season in my riding of Nipissing. It is known as
the Santa Fund, a fundraising effort that provides assistance to families in need over the holiday season.
Every year, the Santa Fund has a fundraising goal to be met, and this year they are aiming to meet their $100,000 goal. So far, they are just shy of $20,000.
According to Lachlan McLachlan, the fund chairman of the Santa Fund, they feel very confident that within the next couple of weeks they will be able to meet their goal with the assistance of local
businesses, community organizations, churches, schools, carollers and individuals throughout Nipissing.
The Santa Fund has been very successful over the years in helping out those less fortunate. This organization began in 1947 and was founded by the late Sam
Jacks, and Doris and Art Haley. The motto is, "No family should go without food." They have maintained this motto, with over 300 volunteers delivering baskets of food, turkey, toys, and clothing
for children. The Santa Fund now is one of the city's largest and longest-running fundraising efforts. It continues to grow stronger over the years thanks to the help of many people.
It is a well-known fact that Ontario continues to be the best province in Canada to work and raise a family. Unfortunately, there are still families and
individuals who go without. It is organizations like the Santa Fund that truly bring the spirit of the season forward and help out members of their communities through efforts such as this.
EDUCATION FUNDING
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I rise today to speak about us heading into the holidays. People don't realize that this is likely our
last week. These are less than happy holidays for the 280,000 children in the Toronto District School Board that this government has made into political pretzels. Students have been losing needed
services like guidance counsellors in education systems every day.
Today, Kathleen Foley and a few dozen parents made a public presentation on behalf of those students and they have named who to blame. They named, in fact, Ernie
Eves as the grinch that stole education in their city and, of course, in communities around the province. They say it's the grinch that stole special education, occasional teachers, educational
assistants, parenting centres, and so forth.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): Oh, yeah?
Mr Kennedy: We hear some "oh, yeahs" on the part of some members opposite, but this week, as they sit there complacently, headed toward their
holidays, we have a pregnant mother here today who talked about a social worker who helped keep her going. That social worker was laid off this week. Another student told us of a three-year-old
work order on a ceiling that's falling in their classroom.
They also told us about the fudge cookies they brought as a present for Mr Eves because of the fudging that happened with the books here in Toronto. Most
importantly, these parents still have hope. They hope that, like the grinch, Mr Rozanski may be able to make Mr Eves have his heart grow three times bigger and change his mind and admit his
mistakes. But these children and their parents believe they are more likely to be like disappointed kids at Christmas: that they'll find a lump of coal. But that coal may come in handy in their
stocking, because the heat has been turned down in Toronto schools.
DRINKING AND DRIVING
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I want to say first of all how nice it is to see so many of the students here today in our galleries.
With just over two weeks before Christmas, I, like all members of the House, look forward to spending quality time with my family and friends back in the riding.
It is the festive season and the focus is placed on the dangers of drinking and driving.
We now see evidence of this everywhere. Turn on your TV to see it in the form of commercials, or look on the streets of your neighbourhood to see the police
authorities implement a RIDE program.
The festive season provides us with the opportunity to get together with people we may not have seen all year long.
Unfortunately, getting together often means having a few drinks too many and being faced with the decision of whether or not to get behind the wheel of a car.
I encourage everyone who has to make this decision, perhaps more than once over the holidays, to remember that drinking and driving is the principal cause of
death and injury in Ontario. But there is much more at stake. By drinking and driving, we not only risk injuring or killing ourselves or other people; we also risk leaving our family and friends
without us.
Our government has implemented a number of measures to fight drinking and driving. For example, we increased fines and suspension periods for convicted drunk
drivers and doubled grants to RIDE programs. I introduced a private member's bill to implement an ignition interlock program for people who violate drinking and driving law in Ontario. We will see
these devices installed early in the new year.
But no matter how much we do, the decision still counts down to a personal decision, so please remember to make the right choice this holiday season. Please
don't drink and drive.
VISITORS
Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today marks the 25th anniversary of the air
ambulance service in our province. It's my pleasure to recognize four members of the service who are joining us in the members' gallery today. We have Dr Chris Mazza, the CEO of the Ontario air
ambulance base hospital program; Steve Farquhar and Steve Darling, two critical care flight paramedics from Bandage One; and Captain Jerry Beatty, a pilot from Bandage One.
I ask that all members of this House recognize these members of the air ambulance service and to congratulate the service for their 25 years of hard work and
commitment to Ontarians from north to south and east to west.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm also very pleased to have with us today in the Speaker's gallery Her Excellency the Vietnamese ambassador to
Canada, who is accompanied by her husband. Please join me in welcoming our honoured guests.
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to wear a button that says "Stop
the Toxic Sludge."
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
REENA FOUNDATION ACT, 2002
Mr Arnott moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill Pr17,
An Act respecting the Reena Foundation.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Pursuant to standing order 84, the bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private
bills.
GENOCIDE MEMORIAL WEEK
ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR LA SEMAINE COMMÉMORATIVE DES GÉNOCIDES
Mr Wood moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 222,
An Act to proclaim Genocide Memorial Week in Ontario / Projet de loi 222, Loi proclamant la Semaine commémorative des génocides en
Ontario.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
The member for a short statement?
Mr Bob Wood (London West): This bill proclaims the week beginning on the fourth Monday in March of each year as Genocide Memorial Week. It is
similar to a bill I introduced earlier, but adds the United Nations definition of genocide to the
preamble and makes a few editing changes to the
preamble.
I will be asking the House soon to give second reading to the bill and refer it to committee for consideration.
ONTARIO HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR LE JOUR
DU PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO
Mr Agostino moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 223,
An Act to proclaim Ontario Heritage Day and to amend other Acts to include Ontario Heritage Day as a holiday / Projet de loi 223, Loi proclamant le
Jour du patrimoine de l'Ontario et modifiant d'autres lois en vue de l'ajouter comme jour férié.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
The member for a short statement?
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): If this bill is passed -- if the government will bring it forward -- it certainly would give us an
opportunity to have a day to celebrate our heritage and history in this great province. I think Ontarians from all walks of life who have come here from many countries would love to participate in
that. It would be the second Monday in June and would be declared a statutory holiday.
VISITORS
Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): On a point of order, Speaker: It gives me the greatest of pleasure to stand and introduce the
class from Our Lady of Perpetual Help school, created in the great riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale, and the home class of our page, Victoria.
MOTIONS
HOUSE SITTINGS
Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding the motion passed by the House on
Monday, November 18, 2002, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(ii), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm until midnight on Monday, December 9, 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 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 1355 to 1400.
The Speaker: Would the members kindly take their seats, please.
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.
Bryant, Michael
Caplan, David
Chudleigh, Ted
Clark, Brad
Cleary, John C.
Clement, Tony
Coburn, Brian
Colle, Mike
Conway, Sean G.
Cordiano, Joseph
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
Hoy, Pat
Hudak, Tim
Jackson, Cameron
Johns, Helen
Johnson, Bert
Kells, Morley
Kennedy, Gerard
Klees, Frank
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Levac, David
Marland, Margaret
Maves, Bart
Mazzilli, Frank
McDonald, AL
McLeod, Lyn
McMeekin, Ted
Miller, Norm
Molinari, Tina R.
Munro, Julia
Mushinski, Marilyn
Newman, Dan
O'Toole, John
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Parsons, Ernie
Peters, Steve
Phillips, Gerry
Pupatello, Sandra
Ramsay, David
Runciman, Robert W.
Ruprecht, Tony
Sampson, Rob
Sergio, Mario
Smitherman, George
Sorbara, Greg
Spina, Joseph
Sterling, Norman W.
Stewart, R. Gary
Stockwell, Chris
Tascona, Joseph N.
Tsubouchi, David H.
Turnbull, David
Wettlaufer, Wayne
Wilson, Jim
Witmer, Elizabeth
Wood, Bob
Young, David
The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
Bisson, Gilles
Churley, Marilyn
Hampton, Howard
Kormos, Peter
Martel, Shelley
Martin, Tony
Prue, Michael
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 82; the nays are 7.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
DEFERRED VOTES
KEEPING THE PROMISE
FOR A STRONG ECONOMY ACT
(BUDGET MEASURES), 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RESPECT
DE L'ENGAGEMENT D'ASSURER
UNE ÉCONOMIE SAINE
(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)
Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 198,
An Act to implement Budget measures and other initiatives of the Government / Projet de loi 198, Loi
mettant en oeuvre certaines mesures budgétaires et d'autres initiatives du gouvernement.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1404 to 1409.
The Speaker: Will the members kindly take their seats, please.
All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
Arnott, Ted
Baird, John R.
Barrett, Toby
Beaubien, Marcel
Chudleigh, Ted
Clark, Brad
Clement, Tony
Coburn, Brian
Cunningham, Dianne
DeFaria, Carl
Dunlop, Garfield
Ecker, Janet
Elliott, Brenda
Galt, Doug
Gilchrist, Steve
Gill, Raminder
Hardeman, Ernie
Hastings, John
Hudak, Tim
Jackson, Cameron
Johns, Helen
Johnson, Bert
Kells, Morley
Klees, Frank
Marland, Margaret
Maves, Bart
Mazzilli, Frank
McDonald, AL
Miller, Norm
Molinari, Tina R.
Munro, Julia
Mushinski, Marilyn
Newman, Dan
O'Toole, John
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Runciman, Robert W.
Sampson, Rob
Spina, Joseph
Sterling, Norman W.
Stewart, R. Gary
Stockwell, Chris
Tascona, Joseph N.
Tsubouchi, David H.
Turnbull, David
Wettlaufer, Wayne
Wilson, Jim
Witmer, Elizabeth
Wood, Bob
Young, David
The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
Agostino, Dominic
Bartolucci, Rick
Bisson, Gilles
Bountrogianni, Marie
Boyer, Claudette
Bradley, James J.
Bryant, Michael
Caplan, David
Christopherson, David
Churley, Marilyn
Cleary, John C.
Colle, Mike
Conway, Sean G.
Cordiano, Joseph
Crozier, Bruce
Curling, Alvin
Di Cocco, Caroline
Dombrowsky, Leona
Duncan, Dwight
Gerretsen, John
Gravelle, Michael
Hampton, Howard
Hoy, Pat
Kennedy, Gerard
Kormos, Peter
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Levac, David
Martel, Shelley
Martin, Tony
McLeod, Lyn
McMeekin, Ted
Parsons, Ernie
Patten, Richard
Peters, Steve
Phillips, Gerry
Prue, Michael
Pupatello, Sandra
Ramsay, David
Ruprecht, Tony
Sergio, Mario
Smitherman, George
Sorbara, Greg
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 49; the nays are 42.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
VISITOR
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We have in the members' west gallery Ms Barbara Sullivan, the member for Halton Centre in the 34th and 35th
Parliaments.
FUNERAL, BURIAL AND
CREMATION SERVICES ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002
SUR LES SERVICES FUNÉRAIRES
ET LES SERVICES D'ENTERREMENT
ET DE CRÉMATION
Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 209,
An Act respecting funerals, burials, cremations and related services and providing for the
amendment of other statutes / Projet de loi 209, Loi traitant des funérailles, des enterrements, des crémations et des services connexes et prévoyant la modification d'autres
lois.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Same vote? No. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1413 to 1418.
The Speaker: Would the members take their seats, please.
All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
Arnott, Ted
Baird, John R.
Barrett, Toby
Beaubien, Marcel
Chudleigh, Ted
Clark, Brad
Clement, Tony
Coburn, Brian
Cunningham, Dianne
DeFaria, Carl
Dunlop, Garfield
Ecker, Janet
Elliott, Brenda
Galt, Doug
Gilchrist, Steve
Gill, Raminder
Hardeman, Ernie
Hastings, John
Hudak, Tim
Jackson, Cameron
Johns, Helen
Johnson, Bert
Kells, Morley
Klees, Frank
Marland, Margaret
Maves, Bart
Mazzilli, Frank
McDonald, AL
Miller, Norm
Molinari, Tina R.
Munro, Julia
Mushinski, Marilyn
Newman, Dan
O'Toole, John
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Runciman, Robert W.
Sampson, Rob
Spina, Joseph
Sterling, Norman W.
Stewart, R. Gary
Stockwell, Chris
Tascona, Joseph N.
Tsubouchi, David H.
Turnbull, David
Wettlaufer, Wayne
Wilson, Jim
Witmer, Elizabeth
Wood, Bob
Young, David
The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
Agostino, Dominic
Bartolucci, Rick
Bisson, Gilles
Bountrogianni, Marie
Boyer, Claudette
Bradley, James J.
Bryant, Michael
Caplan, David
Christopherson, David
Churley, Marilyn
Cleary, John C.
Colle, Mike
Conway, Sean G.
Cordiano, Joseph
Crozier, Bruce
Curling, Alvin
Di Cocco, Caroline
Dombrowsky, Leona
Duncan, Dwight
Gerretsen, John
Gravelle, Michael
Hampton, Howard
Hoy, Pat
Kennedy, Gerard
Kormos, Peter
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Levac, David
Martel, Shelley
Martin, Tony
McLeod, Lyn
McMeekin, Ted
Parsons, Ernie
Patten, Richard
Peters, Steve
Phillips, Gerry
Prue, Michael
Pupatello, Sandra
Ramsay, David
Ruprecht, Tony
Sergio, Mario
Smitherman, George
Sorbara, Greg
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 49; the nays are 42.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 4, 2002, the bill is ordered for third reading.
ELECTRICITY PRICING, CONSERVATION
AND SUPPLY ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR L'ÉTABLISSEMENT
DU PRIX DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ,
LA CONSERVATION DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ
ET L'APPROVISIONNEMENT
EN ÉLECTRICITÉ
Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 210,
An Act to amend various Acts in respect of the pricing, conservation and supply of electricity and
in respect of other matters related to electricity / Projet de loi 210, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l'établissement du prix de l'électricité, la conservation
de l'électricité et l'approvisionnement en électricité et traitant d'autres questions liées à l'électricité.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1422 to 1427.
The Speaker: All those in favour 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.
Bryant, Michael
Caplan, David
Chudleigh, Ted
Clark, Brad
Cleary, John C.
Clement, Tony
Coburn, Brian
Colle, Mike
Cordiano, Joseph
Crozier, Bruce
Cunningham, Dianne
Curling, Alvin
DeFaria, Carl
Dombrowsky, Leona
Duncan, Dwight
Dunlop, Garfield
Ecker, Janet
Elliott, Brenda
Galt, Doug
Gerretsen, John
Gilchrist, Steve
Gill, Raminder
Gravelle, Michael
Hardeman, Ernie
Hastings, John
Hoy, Pat
Jackson, Cameron
Johns, Helen
Johnson, Bert
Kells, Morley
Klees, Frank
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Marland, Margaret
Maves, Bart
Mazzilli, Frank
McDonald, AL
McLeod, Lyn
McMeekin, Ted
Miller, Norm
Molinari, Tina R.
Munro, Julia
Mushinski, Marilyn
O'Toole, John
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Parsons, Ernie
Patten, Richard
Peters, Steve
Phillips, Gerry
Pupatello, Sandra
Ramsay, David
Runciman, Robert W.
Ruprecht, Tony
Sampson, Rob
Sergio, Mario
Smitherman, George
Spina, Joseph
Sterling, Norman W.
Stewart, R. Gary
Stockwell, Chris
Tascona, Joseph N.
Tsubouchi, David H.
Turnbull, David
Wettlaufer, Wayne
Wilson, Jim
Witmer, Elizabeth
Wood, Bob
Young, David
The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
Bisson, Gilles
Christopherson, David
Churley, Marilyn
Hampton, Howard
Kormos, Peter
Martel, Shelley
Martin, Tony
Prue, Michael
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 76; the nays are 8.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
VISITORS
Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to welcome the chief and deputy fire chief of the
Quinte West Fire Department, Cliff Jeffrey and John Whelan, in our west gallery. I am very proud of the work that they and their department do.
Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to introduce Mrs Lamis Boland, who has
come to see her hard-working son, page Anthony Boland, here at Queen's Park.
ORAL QUESTIONS
PROPERTY TAXATION
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Finance. I have in my hand lists that have been put together by the
Municipal Property Assessment Corp. This is a corporation that you created and that is run by your provincial appointees.
The Toronto list is entitled "fine-tuning," and for Windsor it's called the "sensitive" list. The people on this list for fine-tuning of their property tax
assessments read like a Who's Who of who can make trouble for the government: along with local politicians, media types such as Moses Znaimer, Peter Mansbridge, Garth Turner, Gord Martineau, and on
and on.
The agency is a creature of your government. You created it; you appoint the board. There's a list like this for every region in Ontario, and it's a list about
damage control. You went out of your way to go over the assessments for the people on these lists with a fine-toothed comb because you don't want anyone with a high profile causing trouble for you,
but the rest of Ontario waits on hold while they complain about their high tax assessments.
Minister, how do you rationalize the creation of these lists?
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): As the honourable member may well know, this organization is an independent corporation that is run by
the municipalities on property tax assessment. However, it is very, very clear that the issue here is that some taxpayers may well have received treatment that is different than other taxpayers. I
think any perception of favouritism by MPAC is unacceptable. That's why I wrote to them this morning and asked them to look into this to assure taxpayers that everyone has been treated equitably
and fairly. They have written back to assure us that an investigation is going on into the existence of that list and what it means and to make sure that no taxpayers have been treated
unfairly.
Mrs Pupatello: Well, Minister, let me say to you again that this is an agency you created. You appointed the board members. It is your agency,
and you can't sidestep this one. You've politicized the bureaucracy so much that they put together secret lists for special treatment to do their damage control.
It's you who cut the civil service to the bone so there aren't people to do these assessments and reviews like there used to be. There's about half the staff
there used to be. There aren't enough employees to handle the complaints by the public, but they've got the time to make these special lists for special people: for city newspaper columnists,
journalists, politicians. They get special treatment and an assessment to the 11th degree, and that covers your bases. But for normal people: please, Minister, explain why there would be two
standards for people in this province, one for that special list of sensitive people and another for the rest of Ontario complaining about their tax hikes.
Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, there are not, nor should there be, two standards for taxpayers in this province. That's why I have written to
MPAC to ask them to explain themselves and to ensure that all taxpayers are treated fairly, that there is to be no special treatment. They have written back and said to us that they are reviewing
this to make sure that is indeed the case.
This organization was set up at arm's length from the government to govern the property tax assessment system on behalf of municipalities. Municipal
representatives constitute the majority of the governance of this board. But what is important here is that all taxpayers must be treated fairly, and steps are being taken to ensure that is indeed
the case.
Mrs Pupatello: Minister, the list exists and there's a secret list of people who get special attention. You appointed the people to run this
organization. In Toronto it's called "fine-tuning"; in Windsor it's called the "sensitive" list. Tell us why it could possibly include columnist Gord Henderson on a Windsor list, but you want to
stay out of trouble. We've heard that people on the list get special treatment and the average family can't get through on the line. They're put on hold and they don't get answers on why their
property taxes are going through the roof. They can't get the service, but special people are getting all the service they require.
Last week we learned that half of Ontario companies aren't even filing their income tax. That's your ministry's problem. Today we learned that half of the
people can't get through on the phone lines. They're put on hold when they're trying to call about their property tax assessments, but these special people, the elite of Toronto, are the ones who
get all of the attention.
Minister, this is in your bailiwick, and it's about time you do something about it.
Hon Mrs Ecker: That particular list contains a number of politicians on it from all political parties, so if the honourable member believes
she or a member of her party have had special treatment, I would be very pleased to look into that.
The assessment rolls are public. We have told MPAC this is not acceptable. We have written to them this morning to ensure that this is not acceptable
behaviour. They indeed are launching an investigation to ensure that no taxpayers have received preferential treatment. That would not be right. That is contrary to government policy, and I have
encouraged them to do the right thing.
GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I have a question for the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet. I want to follow up on some concerns
raised by the Provincial Auditor last week. He tells us in his report that spending on consultants has more than doubled under the Harris-Eves government.
Over the past three years, the Ministry of Energy has paid one company, Enterprise Canada, over $600,000 in consulting fees. We've checked the lobbyist
registry, and at the same time as you were paying them as consultants for the Ministry of Energy, they were also being paid by Direct Energy and National Grid.
Minister, how could you allow such an obvious conflict of interest to occur?
Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): First of all, I point out that last week -- and in
fact every day that I answer these questions -- I indicated that the auditor is making certain recommendations that we accept fully. In fact, what we're doing right now is bringing in rules that
will address all the concerns the auditor has. We're trying to make sure that we have that type of full accountability for the taxpayers' money.
These are some of the rules I indicated last week, which I certainly indicate again. The ministries will be required to also provide annual reporting to the
Management Board on their use of consulting services. In addition to that, we are requiring full documentation. I also am looking right now, at the request of the Premier, at going further than
addressing the concerns the auditor indicated in his recommendations, which we have either implemented or are in the process of implementing now; to go further than that to see if there are any
other ways in which we can make sure the public service is far more accountable than it is now.
Mr Duncan: One of the principals is Hugh Mackenzie, a good friend of the Premier's. I should say that our beef is not with him or that firm;
it's with you. You are the ones who have allowed the conflict of interest to occur.
Senior civil servants have a cooling-off period. They aren't allowed to profit from their government work. The same either isn't true or hasn't been enforced
with regard to government consultants.
Minister, Enterprise Canada's Web site says they offer "an energy practice designed to assist clients in influencing the restructuring of Ontario's electrical
and natural gas sector."
The Ministry of Energy paid Enterprise Canada $600,000. While they were working as government consultants, Direct Energy and National Grid were paying them to
influence government energy policy. If this isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.
Minister, were you aware of this situation? If not, what investigations will you undertake to ensure that the public interest was never compromised by your
government's incompetence?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm going to send the second part of this over to the Minister of Energy for the response.
Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I read with great interest the report tabled last week
by the Provincial Auditor. I think all of us on this side of the House value the contribution that he makes to public administration in the province of Ontario.
I've gone on record a good number of times saying that the taxpayer is well served by the Provincial Auditor. The Premier, on receiving the Provincial
Auditor's report, said that with respect to the use of consultants by government ministries, we should not only adopt what he has recommended but perhaps indicate to the Chair of Management Board
that we should look even further. I totally agree with the Premier in that regard.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Final supplementary?
Mr Duncan: Minister, documents filed with the lobbyist registry indicate that Enterprise Canada was lobbying on behalf of Direct Energy on the
electricity market opening. They were lobbying on behalf of National Grid on both the market opening and the sale of Hydro One. At the same time, the Ministry of Energy was paying them $600,000.
These are two of the biggest decisions your government has taken. These decisions are worth billions of dollars.
In addition to the energy contracts, they were paid by Management Board while lobbying for Accenture. They were paid by the Attorney General while lobbying the
government for changes to the Public Accountancy Act. Last year, Enterprise Canada was paid by the Ministry of Health. This year, it's lobbying them for private MRIs.
Taxpayers have paid Enterprise Canada in excess of $3 million. They have worked for 11 ministries while representing 113 private interests. Will you authorize
the immediate release of all their contracts, and will you release what rules you have, if any, governing these consultants and how these conflicts have come to happen? Will you do that today?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What I will indicate today is what I've been indicating for the last week: the auditor has made certain recommendations,
we're following them fully and we're looking to go further than that. I put on the record again, in case the members of the opposition haven't listened fully, that part of what we need right now,
and what the auditor said we needed, is full documentation.
Interjections.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: By the way, we do have lobbyist registration legislation. We brought that in, folks, not you.
It's important for us to make sure there's accountability for money that's being spent. We also indicated clearly that we want to have follow-up reports as
well for any use of consultants. We've also asked all the ministries to look first in terms of using internal resources we have in the public service. If they're not available, we will allow the
use of consultants. But as part of any consultant's job, they have to make sure we have a transfer of that knowledge to the public service, so that in the future we can depend on the resources we
have at hand.
HYDRO ONE
Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I wonder if Enterprise Canada has any connection with Groupe Action Québec, or is it Groupe
Action Canada?
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Enron was a company that engaged in a number of side deals to cover up the bad financial shape of its books. We
know from your financial statement that your government is facing a $2-billion shortfall, so you're going to do a side deal and sell off 50% of Hydro One in order to make your books look
better.
Can you tell the people of Ontario why you're going to use the discredited Enron style of economics here in Ontario?
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): We are not; we would not.
Mr Hampton: I think it's pretty clear that the government has indicated it wants to sell up to 49% of Hydro One. I think it's also pretty
clear from your financial statement just a couple of days ago and your budget in the spring that you're $2 billion short. We've asked for estimates out there of what Hydro One might be worth. Even
some of your cabinet ministers have indicated that you'd like to get about $2 billion for the sale of half of Hydro One. That sounds very much like the Enron style of economics. You do a side deal
over here and try to cover up the difficulties you're facing with your budget, in terms of your finances. Except the problem here is that when you sell off half of Hydro One, you also sell off half
of its profits, $200 million a year, which the people of Ontario then have to make up either through higher hydro rates or through some other means.
Can you tell me how the people of Ontario come out ahead in this kind of Enron-style deal?
Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate the honourable member's concern about balanced budgets in this province. It would have been more helpful for
Ontario taxpayers if he and his government had paid attention to balanced budgets instead of racking up an $11-billion deficit, having the government spend $1 million more an hour every hour of the
day than they were taking in.
This government, because of the economic planning and policies we put in place under Premier Harris, under Ernie Eves, under Jim Flaherty -- those policies
have given us balanced budgets for three years in a row. We're on track for another balanced budget this year. We have more jobs, more growth and less debt interest as a percentage of our GDP. The
management that we have put in place, and will continue to have in place, is delivering what Ontario needs to generate more jobs and more growth for this province.
Mr Hampton: Your own budget discloses that you have to sell off $2 billion of assets to give the appearance of having a balanced budget. The
Provincial Auditor in his report last week pointed out that currently the stream of revenues, the profit from Hydro One, goes toward the stranded debt. If a private company is interested in half of
Hydro One, it's only so they can get their hands on those profits, which means the money will no longer be going to the stranded debt. But you still have to pay on the stranded debt, so you either
have to raise the debt charge that people pay on their hydro bill or you have to raise their hydro rates. Any way you look at it, the hydro consumers of Ontario get stuck paying over and over and
over again just so you can use a little bit of Enron-style flip-flop to hide the fact that you've got a $2-billion deficit. Wouldn't it be better to tell the people of Ontario that you've got a
$2-billion shortfall, rather than sticking it to hydro consumers year over year over year with high hydro bills? Wouldn't that be a more honest way of doing it? Why don't you come out and admit
that that is what's really going on?
Hon Mrs Ecker: Again, I appreciate the honourable member's concern for the debt of Ontario Hydro. Why was it that his government, when they
left office, had racked up the debt of the old Ontario Hydro to $38 billion? He thought that was acceptable to taxpayers. We did not think that was acceptable. As a matter of fact, the debt has
come down for Ontario Hydro. We laid out the plan in the June budget with revenue and expenditure forecasts as we always do, with a plan in place to ensure there is support for more jobs and more
growth, and we laid out our plan for a strategic partner in Hydro One: to have them come in with the private sector discipline that I'm sure the honourable member would agree needs to be done with
the investments and improvements that will benefit electricity consumers in this province.
HYDRO RATES
Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. In September I asked you about the situation in Wawa, a
northern Ontario town where people were facing skyrocketing hydro bills. Pensioners were paying more for their hydro bill than they were paying for their rent; Main Street businesses were looking
at the prospect of going out of business -- the major employers in the community having to question whether they could stay in business. Then you brought in your so-called hydro rebate scheme and
you tried to tell everyone that this was going to make a difference for people. We were talking with folks in Wawa just last week. They're still paying 50% more on their hydro bills. Can you tell
them why, despite your much ballyhooed rate cap, they're still going to be paying 50% more on their hydro bills?
Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): As the member opposite will be aware, I spoke to him in
September in this place about the cross-subsidization that had occurred in that particular community. The announcement the Premier made on November 11 said that the price of delivery of electricity
in Ontario would be frozen.
Mr Hampton: The people there have a different version of it. The people there noticed that the company which now owns virtually all of the
hydro system is Brascan. This is the same Brascan that contributed over $100,000 dollars to your Premier's leadership campaign. Brascan has been allowed to arrange the hydro rates so that people
are on an ongoing basis being stuck with hydro bills that are at least 50% more than what they paid before.
You're spending $1.5 million advertising on television and in newspapers a hydro rebate scheme and a hydro rate cap. Why are the people of not just Wawa but of
the surrounding communities going to continue to be stuck with hydro bills that they can't afford to pay? Don't you recognize any responsibility to them, or is your responsibility solely to your
corporate friends at Brascan?
Hon Mr Baird: I find it passing strange that the leader of the third party and his entire caucus just stood in their places in the Legislature
and voted against Bill 210, a bill that would have provided substantial relief to consumers in Ontario. It would have provided relief to farmers, small business people and working families, and he
and his party said no; they wanted none of it. They voted against it at second reading, at time allocation and at third reading.
The member opposite has raised a tremendously serious concern with respect to how this government may have been influenced. If he has any evidence, I would
encourage him to take it directly to the Integrity Commissioner, because I don't believe he has any.
ADULT EDUCATION
Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): My question is for the Minister of Education. Today a number of students from the York Adult Day
School have come to Queen's Park to tell their story. It's a story about how your government has turned its back on them and shut the door on their education.
Your appointed supervisor to the Toronto District School Board, Paul Christie, ordered the closure of the York Adult Day School effective January 2003. That
means that these students will have no chance to complete their education. How do you answer to the students at York Adult Day School when they say you are being insensitive? Students who are here
today, students like Inez Lawrence, Diana Lopez, Michelle Allen, Caroline Moran, David Silva, Jay Singh and John Chan, who are in the gallery today, want to know why your government is turning its
back on them and absolutely shutting the door on their continuing education. Why is that, Minister?
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm sure that the member opposite knows
that as well. I understand the decision was made in order to ensure that any underutilization of space could be taken into consideration. A decision was made to consolidate in order to respond to
underutilization. There have been no programs reduced or eliminated. Students are all going to continue to be accommodated at the four remaining sites.
This was an administrative decision that has been made. I can assure the member opposite that the programs will still be there. They will be at different
locations but I understand they are in each part of Toronto in order that all the people in the city continue to have access to adult programs.
Mr Cordiano: Minister, I don't know what planet you're on but the facts are clear. The closure of York effective January 2003 means that these
students will have nowhere else to go because the other schools have waiting lists. They are at capacity. There is nowhere for these students to go.
As a matter of fact, since your government took office in 1995, the number of adult education spaces in Ontario has dropped from about 50,000 to about 8,700
spaces, a tremendous drop of 83%. Not only that, but you reduced the grant per adult student from $7,000 to about $2,300. So boards can't fund these spaces. Is it any wonder that the number of
spaces has been reduced drastically and these students have nowhere to go?
So I'd like to ask you again, Minister: what do you say to these students who are single moms and people trying to help themselves get back in the workforce?
You're turning your back on them. You're shutting the door to their continuing education. That's the end of the story. How do you answer to them? There's no other way to explain it.
Hon Mrs Witmer: Last week I spoke to CESBA, which is an organization that deals with adult learners and continuing education. I congratulated
them on the tremendous job that they do with our adult learners. I would say to the members opposite that the decisions that are being made will not eliminate any programs. They will not eliminate
the opportunities. According to the information that I have received from the Toronto District School Board, it is simply the consolidation of underused space and making sure that people can be
accommodated at the other sites.
Adult education, I would mention to the member opposite, is very important. I understand that the Toronto school board is going to continue to ensure that
students can be accommodated at the four sites.
WEST NIPISSING ECONOMY
Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Last month, residents of west Nipissing were
hit hard by the announcement that Weyerhaeuser was closing its facility there. Being the neighbouring MPP for the area, I understand the feelings and the losses those workers and their families
have experienced. What has the government been doing to help residents of west Nipissing?
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): My colleague from Nipissing is quite right: west Nipissing is currently in a very
unfortunate situation. However, our government is committed to helping this community in its time of need. Our commitment is very clear. On November 7, I was welcomed to the community of west
Nipissing -- Sturgeon Falls, to be precise -- bearing some very important news.
Before I get into that, though, I would like to commend Mr McDonald, my colleague, for his concern for the people of west Nipissing. AL was the first MPP to
voice his concern over the Weyerhaeuser plant closure and to pledge our government's support and action to help overcome the challenges ahead.
Our government stepped up to the plate by announcing in west Nipissing that it would be the first community eligible for the northern Ontario heritage fund's
economic diversification program. We've made west Nipissing eligible to receive up to 75% or $5 million per project. These are economic development programs to bring jobs back to the community, and
we've set no limit on the number of projects or the number of $5-million tranches the community can receive to get itself back on its feet. I know there's a local recovery committee working very
hard on doing just that right now.
Mr McDonald: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Speaking with some of the residents of west Nipissing, I can tell you they were thrilled
with your recent announcement. Can you tell me of any more help the Ontario government is willing to provide for the residents of west Nipissing?
Hon Mr Wilson: I too have had the opportunity on many occasions to speak with workers who are directly affected, and their families, and it is
a difficult period. I think many people continue to be in shock in that area, but they're in good hands. Their community leaders and the committee they've put together are great people. I've had an
opportunity to meet with some of them.
Our ministries are working together. My ministry, with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, is also implementing a community adjustment program
to help ensure that adequate resources are available to address the needs of the community. As I said, the local community adjustment and recovery committee is working very hard and are now just
getting their minds around the huge potential they have as a community and to move that potential into actual new jobs and economic diversification for the community.
I know that their neighbour next door, AL McDonald, will continue to keep us posted on progress and will continue to work hard on behalf of those constituents,
who aren't in his riding but who live next door and whom he cares very much about. I know he will continue to bring to our attention the needs of that community as they arise.
MINISTER'S COMMENTS
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Security. By now you would have received the
letter that was written by the Provincial Auditor to you on December 6 with respect to certain comments that you made both inside and outside the House last week. Specifically, I'm referring to the
summary he provides on the third page of his letter. I would just like to ask you for your comments on this.
He states, "I would appreciate if you could clarify to the Legislative Assembly that:
" -- the number of 10,000 was an estimate agreed to by your ministry at the time of the audit;
" -- the CPIC number of 5,900 had never been communicated to my office and represents more current information which was obtained by you in November 2002;
" -- the CPIC number may be somewhat low because it may exclude information from some police forces;
" -- my report is not misleading...."
Now, would you please confirm, Minister, that the auditor is correct in his assessment as set out in his letter to you?
Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): Again, as I indicated in the House last week, as a former chairman of public
accounts I have enormous respect for Mr Peters, the office and the role his office plays. With respect to these matters, maybe I'm misinterpreting the letter, but I think Mr Peters does not take
issue with respect to the number we have provided off of CPIC, the 5,900 number. I guess the question is whether there was any disagreement at the time of publication. That's a matter -- I've asked
my deputy to sit down with Mr Peters, hopefully this week, to discuss this situation.
I think the important part of this is that the auditor's report raised some serious issues with respect to outstanding warrants. We agree with that. We are
addressing that very vigorously with additional probation and parole workers, the additional monies we've put into the ROPE squad and a number of other initiatives undertaken by this
government.
Mr Gerretsen: Well, Minister, you still haven't answered the question. He specifically asks you in his letter to clarify to the Legislative
Assembly that the number 10,000 was an estimate agreed to by your ministry at the time of the audit. He also specifically states, "My report is not misleading, but you have more current
information, which you wanted to provide to the Legislative Assembly and you and I agree that there are thousands of outstanding arrest warrants, many of which are for serious (Level 1) offenders."
He goes on to say, "My report does not indicate that there are 3,000 serious offenders in our community being unmonitored." You made those statements last week; that is not contained in this report
in any way, shape or form.
You attacked the integrity of his office, an office on which we all rely in this assembly. Minister, will you not do the right thing now and apologize to him
and to the people of Ontario for the language that you used last week?
Hon Mr Runciman: I think I handled the issue appropriately last week. With respect to the question of the 3,000 offenders, I am writing back
to Mr Peters. I think there has been a misinterpretation, perhaps fuelled by members of the opposition, with respect to this.
Interjections.
Hon Mr Runciman: They're very thin-skinned, aren't they, Mr Speaker? Maybe it has something to do with last week's poll results; I'm not
sure.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): You can't bully him.
Hon Mr Runciman: The number 3,000 -- and I'm sure Mr Phillips wants to hear this -- was in respect to the 10,000 figure in the auditor's
report. There was an estimate made by the auditor that 30% of those 10,000 individuals with outstanding warrants were level 1 offenders, or serious offenders. That's where the figure came from. So
there was a misunderstanding, a lack of communication with respect to that number.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
Mr Bob Wood (London West): My question is to the Attorney General. It relates to the public accounting provisions of the recently passed Bill
213. There have been concerns expressed by many people with respect to whether standards for public accounting are going to be lowered and with respect to what process is going to be used to
determine what changes are to be made to the current governance of public accounting. Can the minister assure this House that Ontario's standards for public accounting are not going to be lowered
and that all interested parties will be fully consulted before any changes flowing from Bill 213 are implemented?
Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the honourable member for his question. With regard to
the public accounting provisions of Bill 213, which passed through this Legislative Assembly last week, and as the Minister of Labour reminds me, unanimously, I say to you, sir, that I'd be quite
happy to share with you what I have shared with interested parties and indeed with members of this Legislative Assembly, members from all three parties of this Legislative Assembly. No part of the
public accounting provisions will be put into effect until there has been full consultation with the interested party. That will include the ICAO, the CMAs and the CGAs. The standards will not be
lowered, and any new rules will reflect the high expectations of our trading partners, both internationally and domestically, and only serve to strengthen Ontario's reputation as a jurisdiction in
which individuals from around the world have comfort and great confidence in their investments. That will allow for us to continue to grow as an economy and to create jobs in this great
province.
Mr Wood: The minister will be aware that one of the key principles of good regulation supported by the Red Tape Commission is that all parties
affected should be fully consulted before regulatory changes are made. Will the minister outline for the House the process of consultation which he has in mind for the public accounting changes
being contemplated?
Hon Mr Young: We have asked Dean Daniels to look into this matter and indeed to consult with stakeholders, including the ones I mentioned just
a moment ago. We've given him the task of making sure that accounting standards in this province continue to be internationally respected and reflective of the high expectations of business and
indeed investors. He will not only work at establishing a tough exam but he'll also consider educational and experience requirements, public oversight, codes of professional conduct and monitoring
and discipline. All his work will ensure that these standards will operate to protect investors, businesses and citizens. He will consult with parties like the ICAO, the CGAs and the CMAs, and he
has already started those consultations. We encourage all parties to co-operate with Dean Daniels, and we certainly look forward to receiving his report in the new year.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. The Conservative government is forcing people to work overtime
against their will. Three men who work at the Toyota assembly plant in Cambridge have spent the last half year fighting for the right to go home after putting in an eight-hour day -- the right to
go home to rest, to recuperate, to see their families -- because Toyota claims those workers don't have that right. Toyota claims that these workers and others have to work overtime, and it says
your government has given it the right to do this to those workers. Minister, why did you and your government enact a special regulation that allows bosses like Toyota to force workers to work
overtime?
Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): The member for Niagara Centre, I'm sure, would want to be factually correct in his statements. It was an
employment standards officer who issued an order against Toyota, and Toyota has disagreed with that and has taken it to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The employment standards officer, an
employee of the government, issued an order on this matter to Toyota, and Toyota disagrees and they've taken it to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. We won't comment further on it because it's
before the board.
Mr Kormos: Two years ago, your government brought in these new standards -- if they're standards at all, they're not standards for workers;
they're standards for bosses -- and New Democrats argued that workers would be forced to work overtime. Your government, of course, said it could never happen. The then-Minister of Labour, now the
Minister of the Environment, said, "The allegations made by the New Democrats are absurd. You're suggesting that somehow an employee would have to agree to overtime averaging for two years and
they'd have no way of getting out. That's absurd, absolutely absurd." Of course, the same member claimed that hydro prices would never go up. He was wrong on both accounts.
These workers have been fighting for over six months for the right not to have to work overtime. They and other workers are being forced to work overtime. The
issue is, what are you doing to protect those workers from being called upon, being forced, being required to work overtime? You said it wouldn't happen. It did, and those workers are telling me
they now have to hire lawyers and go through a process to do something you said could never happen. What are you doing to help those workers to ensure they aren't working forced overtime?
Hon Mr Clark: The member for Niagara Centre can growl all he wants; it doesn't change the facts. The facts are that employees of the
government of Ontario, employment standards officers, made a decision based on the complaints from employees at Toyota. Toyota has challenged that decision. They have that right, unless you believe
they don't have the right to disagree and don't have the right to go before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. If a union didn't have that right, you'd be flipping out. But a company has
challenged it, not the province of Ontario. A company has challenged the decision of our employees in this matter. This has nothing to do with your rhetoric. You're completely wrong in this regard.
Toyota has taken it to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and we're going to wait for the outcome of the board. You're just making all this up on the fly.
ASSISTED HOUSING
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services. On the coldest day of this
winter, mentally ill and disabled people have been turned away from lodging homes in the city of Hamilton. Many of these folks end up on the street, and some end up in shelters when they're not
full. Your government has caused this situation for a number of years now by capping the amount of money that is given for the city to operate lodging homes. This is a serious situation. You have
some of the most vulnerable people -- people who are mentally ill, people who are disabled -- getting turned away from a lodging home because the cap is there and they cannot accept any more
individuals. Where do they end up? They end up back out on the street, and many are on medication, many need that home to carry on from day to day.
The city of Hamilton has asked for $240,000 to fix this problem. Will you stand up and commit to that money now?
Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): We have a number of programs in many jurisdictions to help those
who are having challenges with housing. I believe the program the member across the way is referring to is a program to which we added per diem funding last year in response to concerns that were
raised on this very matter.
Mr Agostino: Minister, it is clear that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. You have capped this program for a number of
years. The reality is this: 65 people have been turned away from lodging homes -- mentally ill, disabled individuals; sick individuals; individuals on medication to control their mental illness.
They're being turned out on to the streets. On Saturday night, all the shelters in Hamilton were full. That is the sheer reality that the mentally ill and disabled are facing in my city and across
the province. Minister, I hope to God we don't have to wait for someone to die on the street before you act.
I made a very simple request. The city has said that $240,000 in emergency assistance would give them enough to cover this for the winter, would give enough to
ensure that nobody gets turned away from a second-level lodging home, that no one gets turned away from the home who needs its help.
Again, very simple, very clear: will you commit today to the $240,000 so no one gets turned away from one of these homes: people who need your help and are
looking to you to protect them?
Hon Mrs Elliott: In response to my colleague across the way, we have increased the per diem for domiciliary hostels by 16% to $40 a day,
adding another $7.6 million in provincial subsidy to try and address that concern.
With regard to the Hamilton situation, I understand that there are 100 units under the homelessness phase one and 93 under the homelessness phase two program,
for a total of 193 homelessness housing units. There is an organization in position to take up some of the individuals who may be displaced in this particular situation. So I can say to my
colleague across the way that we have been trying very hard to address this situation. We have already taken steps to try and address this very matter.
DRINKING AND DRIVING
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is to the Minister of Transportation. The holiday season is fast approaching, a time when
family, friends and co-workers gather together to celebrate our holidays. All too often, these holiday gatherings turn into tragedy because there are still those who drink, get behind the wheel and
drive: a deadly combination.
Despite valuable efforts from organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving and the Ontario Provincial Police,
drinking and driving remains the principal cause of criminal death and injury in our province.
Minister, clearly the message is not getting through to everyone. Perhaps selfish drivers who continue to drink and drive without any concern for other
people's lives will be concerned about the consequences they personally face. Minister, what can drunk drivers in this province expect to face when caught by our police?
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Transportation): A lot of people who are caught driving after they've been drinking think a suspension
will come in place and they are not aware of the heavy financial penalties that they pay as well. Normally, the fine is anywhere from $600 to $2,000 on the first offence. Court costs range anywhere
from $2,000 and up for a lawyer. There's a mandatory remedial program which costs the sentenced person over $500. There's a licence reinstatement fee of $100. Now, under the ignition interlock,
thanks to Garfield Dunlop, there's an additional fine of $1,140. In addition, we have learned from the insurance industry that insurance rates go up $3,000 a year for three years as a result of an
impaired driving charge. That totals $13,000 for an impaired driving charge. People in this province shouldn't drink and drive.
Mr Dunlop: Minister, it is reassuring to know that there are still financial penalties for this reckless offence, as there should be, but
perhaps not all drunk drivers are concerned about the monetary penalties. For some, the only answer may be to get them off the road. What has your ministry done to get these safety hazards off the
road and, to the greatest extent possible, prevent them from getting behind the wheel drunk again?
Hon Mr Sterling: I mentioned in the first question what the financial penalties were. The other penalties of course are the suspension of the
licence on the first conviction, one year; on the second conviction, three years; and the third conviction is a life suspension. Also, there's a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension.
In other words, the licence is taken right away from the person on their blowing 0.08. As well, there is vehicle impoundment for those caught driving while suspended if they had a conviction for
impaired driving before. And as I said in the previous answer, there are mandatory in-car breath screening devices installed in vehicles upon licence reinstatement, at the cost of the person who
has had their licence taken away.
Perhaps the most cogent reason for not drinking and driving is the life that somebody can save by not drinking and driving.
ONTARIO SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question is for the Minister of Education. Recently I've been contacted by
a parent who has been told by a Ministry of Education regional staff member that the Ontario scholarship program is being discontinued. Students who are graduating from secondary school after grade
12 do not qualify for consideration for an Ontario scholarship. One parent wrote to me to say, "Although Ontario scholars receive a certificate and no financial award, I believe that the
recognition by the province of academic achievement of students in this manner is very important."
Minister, would you please confirm for the students of Ontario who will be graduating from grade 12 this year if your government will continue to recognize
those students with honours achievement by awarding them an Ontario scholarship?
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I would certainly take that issue under advisement and I will respond
appropriately.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Minister, students in schools are beginning to prepare for their post-secondary experience. On the Ministry of Education Web
site today, policy memorandum number 53, which talks to the Ontario scholarship program conditions of award, very clearly describes the requirements for students to be considered Ontario scholars.
Students must obtain an 80% average in Ontario academic courses and they must be recommended by their principal. You would know that this year students who would graduate from grade 12 would have
no OAC courses and therefore would not qualify.
Students and schools need to know as soon as possible if this program will continue to be offered for students in Ontario. It's very important to students, to
their teachers, to their parents and to people in our communities. So I would ask if you would double your efforts to ensure that this kind of information gets to the school communities and
particularly to our students who have worked so very hard and who achieve very well so that they would understand --
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member's time is up.
Hon Mrs Witmer: I very much appreciate the question from the member opposite. I would certainly concur with her. I think we have every reason
to be proud of the students in Ontario. If we take a look at the international testing results, I think we're seeing that our students are performing better at the international level than ever
before. I think we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the students themselves, but also to the teachers and certainly the very supportive families. I can assure the member I will have additional
information.
FISHING
Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is for my good friend the Minister of Natural Resources. I know personally you have a very active role
in promoting youth and other fishing opportunities. I believe these opportunities are very important, as fishing plays a significant role in the recreational life of my riding of Durham. Your
actions have made a difference. I can say that for sure, as I participated with my constituents on Kids' Fishing Day.
I understand there was a national meeting held recently with representatives from other provinces and predominantly non-governmental organizations. Can you
inform James Gilchrist of Peterborough and each of us what the intent was of this meeting?
Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member for Durham for the question. A large number of organizations came
together from all across Canada, which included provincial organizations, national organizations, non-government organizations and representatives from the various ministries within each of the
jurisdictions. They were brought together to review how we can better put together future plans for fishing activities here in Canada, such as National Fishing Week or the family fishing weekend,
or moving forward on such things as national retail advertising. I'm sure a lot of people have seen the advertising that has come forward to promote that, because it's very significant. I know for
example that fishing in the region of Durham, in the member's riding, represents about $75 million annually in income, which is very significant.
This meeting was designed to discuss issues such as access and changing society's attitudes on immediate gratification and fast food. I just want to commend
and thank Rick Amesbury and all the people involved for their hard work in putting the meeting together.
Mr O'Toole: On behalf of not just the youth but indeed all outdoors people -- to see a leader like you as minister in this area is
reassuring.
Minister, I know that you pushed the representatives from the other provinces and territories for a Canada-wide fishing initiative. What is it that you and
your ministry are doing specifically to promote fishing, not just in my riding of Durham but indeed across the province of Ontario?
Hon Mr Ouellette: Ontario does have a family fishing weekend which usually comes around in July and it will continue on this year.
While I was in Halifax, I also was the lead person leading the other jurisdictions, provinces and territories to fully implement and endorse National Fishing
Week Canada-wide, which was well received.
Not only that; we have recently opened the Chatsworth fish hatchery, which is going to provide 2.8 million fish annually to be released in Ontario at a cost of
about $6.5 million.
Annually with our partners, we release over 10 million fish, and we stock over 1,000 rivers, streams and lakes throughout Ontario.
As mentioned, we have a Kids' Fishing Day. There are other programs, which include streamside development.
Not only that; youth is the future in the MNR. MNR is going to focus on those individuals of today to make sure they're there for future generations.
SAULT STE MARIE SAWMILL
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the same minister, the Minister of Natural Resources. He knows that over the last couple
of months we've had mills close. A sawmill closed in Kirkland Lake. We've had a mill close in Sturgeon Falls; we heard about that this afternoon. Another Domtar mill closed in St Catharines.
In the last couple of weeks we've heard Domtar announce that it's going to close its sawmill in Sault Ste Marie. This will throw 130 mill workers out of work.
When you consider the ripple effect throughout the community, hundreds more hard-working people will lose their jobs too.
Closing the mill is bad enough. Now we learn that Domtar wants to ship the wood, and our jobs, to mills in other communities, maybe even ship the wood across
the river into the States.
Don't let Domtar rub salt into Sault Ste Marie's wound, Mr Minister. Stand up for the jobs in the Soo. Stop Domtar from shipping away our wood and our jobs.
Will you do that?
Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): I know that any loss of a mill in any community in northern Ontario is very
significant, and we take it very seriously. The member should know that my office is already trying to bring other investors forward who may be potentially interested in that specific mill. There
are 50 employees who are going to be retained there, which is very significant, because some of the product that those 50 employees produce will support other mills throughout Ontario.
I don't intend to allow any fibre to leave Ontario. What will happen there is that we will talk with people in other locations to find out if there is a demand
within Ontario. If we can retain that wood here, we certainly will.
Mr Martin: We're not convinced over here. We've seen what happened in Kirkland Lake. We've seen the effort that my colleague from
Timmins-James Bay made there and you're still allowing them to ship that fibre. First you let Tembec ship Kirkland Lake's wood and jobs away. Now you're giving Domtar the same dirty deal.
Let me remind you that Ontario never wrote Domtar a blank cheque. We let Domtar harvest Soo-area wood because the company promised to build that mill and
create all those jobs.
Read my northern lips, Minister: no mill, no jobs, no wood. Stand up for jobs in the Soo. Stop Domtar from shipping away our wood and our jobs. Will you do
that?
Hon Mr Ouellette: This is a very in-depth question. He has mentioned Kirkland Lake in there. We met with the mayor from Kirkland Lake, and he
wanted us to keep the workers working in the bush. Rather than have those extra 100 or 200 people unemployed in Kirkland Lake, the mayor asked us to keep it there and make sure that fibre flowed
within the province of Ontario.
If I can keep people working in Ontario, I intend to do so. Domtar has been very active and has been working very hard, and has offered the employees early
retirement, relocation opportunities and severance and training opportunities to keep the people in the north. If we can help out in any way, shape or form, we will. First and foremost is retaining
the fibre, and we will look for options in the best interests of the people of Ontario.
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. In eight months, the
double cohort will come knocking on our doors. You have underestimated the number of spaces by approximately 6,000. Your own report shows that 6,000 students won't have a place at a college or
university by the fall.
We have discovered that you are holding conversations with the universities and colleges, asking them to consider not accepting non-traditional students --
mature students, college transfers to universities and anybody looking for a second chance in life by pursuing a post-secondary education -- because of the fumbling of the double cohort.
You had seven years to plan for this. You mismanaged it. Now, our students, including our adult and mature students, will not have an opportunity to pursue a
post-secondary education. Minister, what do you say to these 6,000 students across the province?
Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): Point by point, we have not
underestimated. We have planned for the 6,000 students. We have not just talked about these special arrangements we have with the colleges and universities; we had them last year and they worked
out. They are ongoing conversations. It isn't discovered now; this is part of a long-term plan.
I will also say, I'm wondering if the member opposite is saying we shouldn't put first our own high school graduating students coming from our secondary
schools. Is that what the member is saying: not Ontario students first? I'd like to know if that is her problem.
Mrs Bountrogianni: I think the minister should listen carefully. I was speaking about Ontario students. Twenty-five- or 30-year-olds are still
Ontario citizens.
I will agree with you on one point: you did know, way back in 1995, the exact number. Mike Gourley, who worked for then-Finance Minister Ernie Eves, told him
the exact number of double cohort students. You've recently had a report that confirmed Mr Gourley's numbers. Absolutely, you've known all along how many students will be graduating in the year
2003. You chose, for financial reasons, to ignore this. You chose to put your friends first and students last.
I was speaking about Ontario students of all ages who want to pursue a post-secondary degree. Don't twist my words; just stand up and tell us the truth. What
are you going to do?
Hon Mrs Cunningham: The chair of the guidance counsellors for Ontario would refer to this question as one of the many double cohort horror
stories.
This is what's happening to our young people. This is a critic, and she knows that the government's priority is to accommodate Ontario high school students.
That's the priority. As a matter of fact, last year we were able to do both and this year we plan on doing both, but if you have to choose, you will choose a secondary school graduating student
first, period.
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE BOARD
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
Interjections.
Mr Wettlaufer: I can't even hear myself speak.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. It's your own minister yelling, I might add. Members, please. The member for Kitchener Centre has a
question. Sorry, member.
Mr Wettlaufer: Minister, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board comes under your responsibility. I guess for about the last 10 or 15 years,
I've heard from medium-sized and small employers in my riding -- and I'm sure we've heard them all across Ontario -- about the high costs of workers' comp. Many of them have said over the years --
and I know they continue to say so -- that they would like some kind of credit for reducing occupational injuries and illness and promoting overall workplace health and safety within their
plants.
I would like to know exactly what we've done. I know that we have a safety groups program in place, but I'd like to know a little bit more about it, whether or
not the employers in my riding and across Ontario are receiving any benefit from it. What kind of an investment is it?
Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): I thank the honourable member for the question. What he's talking about is the safety groups program.
Interjections.
Hon Mr Clark: They don't want to hear it, Mr Speaker. It's so typical. They laugh about these things. These things are so important for the
businesses in the community.
The program that we have in place allows for safety programs to be developed right with the employers. The reality is, it creates experience ratings. As a
result, if these businesses do things right and improve their occupational health and safety programs, it actually results in much lower premiums for themselves. Historically, we've lowered rates
by 30% across the province. We eliminated the unfunded liability down to $5 billion from the $9-billion, $10-billion or $11-billion deficit that was there before. Incidentally, it was the Liberals
who took that unfunded liability from $2 billion to $9 billion. We'd like to remind them of that.
At the present time, the employers are working with the WSIB, lowering their lost-time injuries and, as a result, lowering their premiums.
PETITIONS
LONG-TERM CARE
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I've got a petition here that is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads like
this:
"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid for by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities by 15% or $7.02 per diem
effective August 1, 2002; and
"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 a month; and
"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and
"Whereas the increase in the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day;
and
"Whereas according to the government's own funded study, Ontario ranks last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a resident for
nursing and personal care; and
"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need;
and
"Whereas government needs to increase long-term-care operating funding by $750 million over the next three years to raise the level of service for Ontario's
long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan in 1999; and
"Whereas this province has been built by seniors who should be able to live out their lives with dignity, respect and in comfort in this province;
"Therefore,
be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"Demand that Premier Eves reduce his 15% fee increase on seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities and increase provincial government
support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."
Thousands have signed this. I'm going to give this to Theresa to take to the desk.
HEALTH CARE
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have almost 7,000 signatures protesting the closure of the Chedoke hospital site and the closure of
the addictions rehabilitation services, effective tomorrow. Shame on the government for that. These petitions are calling on the government to reverse both those decisions and do it now. The
petition reads as follows:
"Whereas the Hamilton Health Sciences intends to close programs at the Chedoke hospital site and eliminate vital community services such as the young adult
complex continuing care, addictions rehabilitation and outpatient physiotherapy programs;
"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"We ask the Legislative Assembly to reverse these decisions and keep these valuable programs in our community" of Hamilton.
I proudly add my name to the list of thousands of Hamiltonians who are saying to the government, "Don't make these cuts."
ASSISTIVE DEVICES
PROGRAM CENTRE
Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I know my constituents are watching as I read this petition.
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas a proposal for the creation of an ADP regional vision centre, sight-enhanced and sight-substitution, was made to the Ministry of Health on August 19,
2002; and
"Whereas the proposal was made by a registered ADP vision authorized with the MOH" -- Ministry of Health -- "who prepared a 26-page report; and
"Whereas the proposal demonstrates the need and benefit that would be derived from such a centre for the people in Durham who are low-vision, blind and perhaps
blind and deaf; and
"Whereas ADP centres are more numerous west of Toronto, in the close proximity of Hamilton, Waterloo and the 401, this same privilege should be afforded to the
eastern regions instead of coming into the hard-to-reach centres in Toronto; and
"Whereas clients, ophthalmologists, school boards, families, communities and employers want a regional ADP centre in Durham and surrounding areas;
"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:
"
(1) Approve the proposal for an ADP centre in Durham region as submitted by Deborah Wilson on August 19, 2002, on this date, December 3, 2002;
"
(2) Undertake to further enhance access to ADP services east of Toronto, with Durham Region Vision Centre Inc."
This is signed by Susan Para and Nancy Diamond, the mayor of Oshawa. A number of people have signed and authorized this document, and I am presenting it to
Anthony, who is from the riding of Oshawa.
NATURAL GAS RATES
Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Over 1,500 of my constituents have asked me to read this petition to remind the government
that they are expecting it to overrule the Ontario Energy Board approval of the retroactive delivery charge that Union Gas has put forward. We're hoping the government review of the OEB will
accomplish that.
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system
operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totalling approximately $150 million; and
"Whereas Union Gas will recover accrued costs over the peak heating season, causing undue hardship" -- right now they're saying they will be collecting as of
January;
"Whereas this retroactive charge will affect all customers who receive Union Gas, including new homeowners and new customers to Union Gas;
"Therefore we demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under
section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act disallowing the retroactive
rate hike granted to Union Gas, and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes that will protect consumers from
further retroactive increases."
Some 1,500 people have signed this. I'm very grateful for their tremendous efforts. Hopefully the government will listen. I'm very pleased to add my name to
the petition.
MEDICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
"Whereas the OHIP
schedule of benefits is often unclear about its
definitions of good medical practice for many serious medical conditions: general checkups,
rechecks, psychotherapy counselling and often major illness care by specialists. The medical review committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons has been aggressively clawing back payments
to hard-working, conscientious doctors on the basis of these flawed
definitions and skewed statistical analyses.
"We, the undersigned, request the Minister of Health to suspend further reviews by the medical review committee; return the monies with its penalties, pending
a negotiated agreement of an unambiguous
schedule of benefits with representatives of affected practising physicians."
I have affixed my signature as well.
CAT SCANNER
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition that's signed by a great number of constituents in the city of Woodstock and the county of
Oxford. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
"Whereas various local partners have contributed capital funding for a CAT scan to be purchased by the Woodstock General Hospital; and
"Whereas a CAT scan is an essential piece of equipment for the practice of modern medicine; and
"Whereas a CAT scan is standard equipment for a hospital of this size in North America; and
"Whereas all hospitals associated with a city the size of Woodstock in southwestern Ontario have at least one CAT scan except for the Woodstock General
Hospital;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care approve the placement of a CAT scan at Woodstock General Hospital and provide the hospital with necessary
operating funds to continue with its use."
I will attach my signature to this, as I totally agree with it.
HIGHWAY 69
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it deals, again, with the multi-laning of Highway
"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 over the last three years 46 people have died tragically along that stretch of highway; and
"Whereas so far this year 10 people have died between Sudbury and Parry Sound in car accidents; 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 Harris-Eves government has failed to do so;
"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."
I proudly give this petition to our page from Sudbury, Michael Schonberger, to bring to the table, and together we encourage everyone to drive very, very
carefully along that stretch of highway.
ADOPTION DISCLOSURE
Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My petition reads:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas Bill 77 passed second reading on June 28, 2001; and
"Whereas Bill 77, the Adoption Disclosure Statute Law Amendment Act, received committee hearings in November 2001; and
"Whereas Bill 77 addresses privacy concerns for those who wish to avoid or delay contact; and
"Whereas adoptees are dying from genetic diseases in the absence of their family medical history; and
"Whereas birth mothers were never promised confidentiality;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"Immediately call Bill 77, the Adoption Disclosure Statute Law Amendment Act, for third reading and final vote."
I will of course sign my name to this petition, because I fully support it.
WATER TESTING
Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:
"Whereas Pine Meadows is a retirement community of 195 homes;
"Whereas Pine Meadows is self-contained with its own drinking water system and its own sewage facility;
"Whereas Pine Meadows' water supply was classified as excellent and high quality by the department of health;
"Whereas prior to the Walkerton concern, Pine Meadows' costs for water testing were $40,000 per year;
"Whereas the current costs amount to $88,000 per year;
"Whereas individual residents in Pine Meadows are charged $451 per year for these multiple tests;
"Whereas Pine Meadows is being penalized to a greater extent than larger surrounding communities, eg, Fergus, Guelph and Kitchener;
"Whereas residents of Pine Meadows are living on fixed incomes;
"Whereas residents of Pine Meadows can ill afford the unnecessary cost escalation;
"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to limit the number and frequency of water testing procedures occurring
upon an already healthy water system."
NATURAL GAS RATES
Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system
operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totalling approximately $150 million; and
"Whereas Union Gas will recover accrued costs over the peak heating season, causing undue hardship; and
"Whereas this retroactive charge will affect all customers who receive Union Gas, including new homeowners and new customers to Union Gas;
"Therefore,
be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under
section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy
Board Act disallowing the retroactive rate hike granted to Union Gas; and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes
that will protect consumers from further retroactive increases."
Hundreds and hundreds of individuals have signed these petitions from all across the riding, in such places as Wheatley, Tilbury and Harrow.
Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system
operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totalling approximately $150 million; and
"Whereas Union Gas will recover accrued costs over the peak heating season, causing undue hardship; ...
"Therefore,
be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under
section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy
Board Act disallowing the retroactive rate hike granted to Union Gas; and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes
that will protect consumers from further retroactive rate increases."
I'm in full agreement and will sign my signature to this petition.
LONG-TERM CARE
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; it deals with the
increase in co-payments in long-term-care facilities.
"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities by 15% over three years or
$3.02 per diem in the first year and $2 in the second year and $2 in the third year effective September 1, 2002; and
"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 a month after three years; and
"Whereas this increase is above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario for 2002; and
"Whereas, according to the government's own funded study, Ontario will still rank last among comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a
resident for nursing and personal care; and
"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need;
and
"Whereas government needs to increase long-term-care operating funding by $750 million over the next three years to raise the level of service for Ontario's
long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan in 1999; and
"Whereas this province has been built by seniors who should be able to live out their lives with dignity, respect and in comfort in this province;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"Demand that Premier Eves reduce the 15% increase over three years in accommodation costs to no more than the cost-of-living increase annually and that the
provincial government provide adequate funding for nursing and personal care to a level that is at least at the average standard for nursing and personal care in those 10 jurisdictions included in
the government's own study."
This is signed by a number of people in London and Milton. I agree with it, and have signed my name accordingly.
NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 37(a), I wish to advise the House of
my dissatisfaction with the response of the Minister of Public Safety and Security to my question today, Monday, December 9. The reason for my dissatisfaction is that he did not answer the question
nor the supplementary.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Hopefully, you will file that.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EXPENSES ACT
(CABINET MINISTERS AND
OPPOSITION LEADERS), 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR L'OBLIGATION
DE RENDRE COMPTE DES DÉPENSES
(MINISTRES ET CHEFS D'UN PARTI
DE L'OPPOSITION)
Resuming the debate adjourned on December 5, 2002, on the motion for second reading of Bill 216,
An Act respecting access to information, the review of
expenses and the accountability of Cabinet ministers, Opposition leaders and certain other persons / Projet de loi 216, Loi concernant l'accès à l'information ainsi que l'examen des
dépenses et l'obligation de rendre compte des ministres, des chefs d'un parti de l'opposition et de certaines autres personnes.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Further debate.
Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill 216,
An Act respecting access to information, the review of
expenses and the accountability of Cabinet ministers, Opposition leaders and certain other persons. I think this is a good opportunity to speak about the bill, what's in it and what's not in it. I
just want to say that basically this comes out of the disclosure that the former Minister of Tourism was found spending extravagantly on hotels, steak dinners and so forth and other things were
happening. Expenses by ministers were not being accounted for. There was no transparency. Through the freedom of information process, the member from Windsor, Sandra Pupatello, found out that these
ministers were spending way beyond the norm.
As a result of this, the government is trying to say, "Well, we're going to check this." But this bill, in trying to check expenses, seems to be targeted more
as a thing of getting back at the opposition for discovering these exorbitant expenses.
Interestingly enough, in this legislation the expenses of former Premier Bob Rae are included for scrutiny by the Integrity Commissioner, and so are the
expenses of former Liberal leader Lyn McLeod. Yet oddly enough, the expenses of cabinet minister Cam Jackson, who was the one who purportedly spent lavishly, are not included in this because he's
no longer a cabinet minister. So he's exempt from this act, as is Premier Mike Harris, who was in government since 1995. This act obviously omits a number of members of the government or former
members and tries to essentially go after the opposition side.
I would hope that the government perhaps gets rid of the accusation that this is meant just to bring an accountability chill over the opposition, and that they
will include former Premier Harris in this, and all former cabinet ministers on the government side, if they're serious about transparency and accountability. So we will see what happens with
that.
Day after day we've seen incredible disclosures about what expenditures are actually filed by government members and are basically paid by the taxpayer. These
are things like Smarties, movies -- it just goes on and on. It's almost the type of thing -- if it weren't so difficult for taxpayers trying to pay their bills, if they were to see what their money
is being spent on they would be outraged. Filing after filing indicates that things are not taken very seriously when it comes to filing expense accounts. You wonder who they are thinking of.
We've got one MPP, who is a parliamentary assistant, who spent $862 on a Palm Pilot and charged the taxpayers. Another MPP, a parliamentary assistant on the
government side, charged $178 for office supplies and to the Legislative Gift Shop for a mug, a souvenir plate, a glass. Former transportation minister Turnbull filed expense reports for food and
alcohol at the Albany Club. Former transportation minister Brad Clark billed taxpayers for flowers. Dan Newman, when he was Minister of Northern Development, charged bulk candy purchases: $23 for
Smarties, $16 for chewing gum. These are the types of things that are being charged to the taxpayer by members of the crown and parliamentary assistants.
I think something has to be done more than this government is doing to put a stop to this. We just see time and time again where it is impossible for the
taxpayer to get at this information. They hide behind freedom of information where the taxpayer or the opposition has to pay money to get the information the government has. This is public
information, and they are charging the taxpayers thousands of dollars to find out what their money is being spent on. So the government reluctantly tries to block this information and charges so
much money that the average person can't afford to find out where their tax dollars are going. This has been going on for years. For the last seven or eight years there has been a pattern of
blocking information, and that's why they wanted to block it. When you're spending this kind of money on things like Smarties and everything under the sun, you know why they did not want the public
to know this stuff. That's why they charge money to find out where the money is being spent. This government has again gone out of its way to make it impossible in some cases to find out
information about what these ministers are spending.
One of the areas that's very obvious too: you find out that the ministers here have spent $676 million on consulting companies. These are government tax
dollars that are supposed to be transparent and there's supposed to be due process, yet these contracts are being let out. As the auditor says, the Provincial Auditor whom they're attacking because
he told the truth, not only are these contracts exorbitant -- and these are just the same thing as other expenditures of government money. Here's a case where the Management Board, which is
supposed to be in charge of the other ministers -- in August 2001, a consultant was paid $14,000, twice for the same invoice. In another case, the Management Board permitted a consulting firm to
significantly increase its rates for two of its consulting staff for a period of time. Then this government allowed one consultant to raise his rates -- he raised his own rates; this is the
consultant -- from $725 a day in April to $1,800 a day in May to $2,600 a day in September. This is what the consultants do. This is how seriously they treat taxpayers' money. It is just
scandalous.
There are examples over and over again by the Provincial Auditor, who basically says that this is totally out of control; $672 million spent by this government
in expenditures that are impossible to get at. So if the public wanted to find out about these contracts, they could not. In fact, these contracts haven't been released, but the auditor -- thank
God for the auditor -- has been able to get to these contracts and saw the gross waste of money that this government has perpetrated on the taxpayers of this province.
Over and over and over again we've got blatant examples of expenditures by ministers. The ministers are supposed to be in charge. I'll give you some other
examples. This is the finance ministry. A math error in the finance ministry saw two financial advisers both get contracts for $681,000. This was a $681,000 math mistake made by the Ministry of
Finance.
Then we see that another consultant was given a contract for $3 million under the SuperBuild fund, a price which was double the lowest bid submitted for the
work. So someone who bid $1.5 million didn't get the contract. The person who bid $3 million got the contract. Why did that contract, twice as much, get the approval? These are the ministers, and
that's why if you look at their expenses -- and I think what they pay consultants should be included in this bill, because right now it's a free-for-all for consultants. They look at the ministers
of the Ernie Eves-Mike Harris government, and the consultants all across this country smile because Christmas has come early and often for consultants from Santa Claus Ernie Eves. They have given
these people blank cheques over and over again,
whereas if you're a principal in a school trying to get your roof fixed, they say they have no money. If you're a senior who's in a nursing home,
well, you have to get a 15% increase. They have no money to help seniors or kids in schools with leaky roofs, but if it comes to consultants, "Whatever you want." They even get twice what they ask
for.
Look at another one. At least 15 senior consultants were paid $1,200 a day to supervise other consultants. A senior civil servant performing the same job would
have been paid $340 a day.
If you look at what these ministers and their parliamentary assistants are spending on Smarties and Palm Pilots and dinners at the Albany Club, you'll see that
they don't really care who gets the money, where it's spent; it is totally out of control. That's why when this government comes forward and says it wants
An Act respecting access to information,
the review of expenses and the accountability of Cabinet ministers, Opposition leaders and certain other persons, well, there is a whole area where they're spending literally a billion dollars a
year on consultants under the sole control of these ministers. There is no scrutiny. There are no rules.
Then if you try and get the contract -- we've asked the minister responsible for all these contracts to make the terms of these contracts worth $676 million
public, to put them on the table. He refused. Why does he not want to put these contracts worth $676 million on the table? He knows why he doesn't want to: because the Provincial Auditor, who has
looked at some of them, is scandalized. The press has said that never in the history of this province has a Provincial Auditor found such gross mismanagement, such free spending without tender,
without contracts. That's why there are all these expenses and why they don't want to really tighten up on this kind of stuff. They're pretending now, "We're going to go after the opposition
leaders; we'll show them," because they don't want us to raise these issues. They don't want us to get at contracts they've signed. They don't want us to get at how much money they really spend as
ministers and parliamentary assistants. They're trying to keep it all hidden because there's a lot of dirty linen there, folks. There's $676 million that they tried to hide from the public.
Here's another example the Provincial Auditor found on how they control their expenditures. "At both the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Public
exceeded the ceiling price of contracts. In one example, we found that payments totalling $760,000 made by the Ministry of Public Safety and Security to a consulting firm were not supported by a
formal agreement." So you can imagine giving someone a contract for $760,000 without a formally signed contract. This is the government that's pretending now to clamp down on expenditures by all
members of this House, supposedly, especially cabinet ministers and the opposition leaders, yet in here there's not a mention of consultants, where they have given systematically, untendered,
without competition, with no watchdog, $676 million of money that comes from the pockets of Ontario taxpayers that could have gone to build better roads, better public transit, better housing and
better health care. Instead, they have thrown away $676 million.
I challenge all the ministers here: if that money was well spent, show us all the contracts. If you show us those contracts for $676 million, we'd then like to
have a real debate on whether you got value for money. We know the Provincial Auditor has basically said in his report that you did not get value for money. This is not the opposition saying it.
This is not the media saying it. This is the independent auditor of the provincial Legislature who does not report to government; he reports to this Legislature. As an independent auditor he has
slammed this government not only for not getting value for money, but basically for not having or not obeying any rules when it comes not to $1,000 or $10,000 or $10 million or $100 million;
basically there are no guidelines.
So when this government now says that they're going to put in some guidelines, I ask them why there are no guidelines here on what ministers expend not on
their Smarties, not on their bills at the Albany Club; I want to know why there are no guidelines in this bill for $676 million in consulting contracts, which are very clear in the auditor's
report. It's very clear that essentially there is a free-for-all here. It's not just one ministry; it's ministry after ministry. The ministry in charge, Management Board, is the worst of all.
They're the ones who are supposed to be the watchdog for the other ministries.
I don't think that in this province we have ever seen an indictment of the free-spending ways of a government -- and not only free spending. Basically a lot of
these contracts were done improperly or were given mistakenly, without following their own rules. They did not follow their own rules.
Time and time again we have examples of a government totally out of control when it comes to spending. Do you know why they can do it? Because they can assign
these contracts behind closed doors. The Legislature never sees these contracts. They're never reported in any minutes. The public ask me, "How could you ever vote on these contracts?" Well, we
don't vote on the contracts because these contracts are signed by ministers behind closed doors. That is frightening.
We saw today where one of the big consulting firms in Ontario, Enterprise Canada, got $3 million worth of contracts, among other things. Then they found out
they were working the other side of the table with the energy firms, advising the energy firms and then advising the government. How can that be value for money when you've got one company hired by
the government to advise them on energy policy -- like hydro and natural gas -- and they're also working for Direct Energy and private firms on the other side? This is a blatant conflict of
interest because it points to the lack of any kind of scrutiny.
I think the root of it is that all these