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

October 29, 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-Oct-29 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 29 October 2002 Mardi 29 octobre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO CHIEFS OF POLICE

FAG BEARINGS

POLICE SERVICES

ONTARIO WETLAND HABITAT FUND

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

EDUCATION

SCULPTURE PROJECT

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

NORTH BAY POLICE SERVICE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA SALUBRITÉ

DE L'EAU POTABLE

AUTISM AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE MOIS

DE SENSIBILISATION À L'AUTISME

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

PICKERING NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

HYDRO RATES

PICKERING NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

LONG-TERM CARE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

SCHOOL SAFETY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

HOME CARE

SMALL BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

YOUNG OFFENDER FACILITY

USE OF COAT OF ARMS

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

DÉRÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

EDUCATION FUNDING

NATURAL GAS RATES

LONG-TERM CARE

HYDRO RATES

LONG-TERM CARE

EDUCATION

HIGHWAY 69

NATURAL GAS RATES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Tuesday 29 October 2002 Mardi 29 octobre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO CHIEFS OF POLICE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I rise today to welcome the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police to Queen's Park. Certainly we're happy that

they're here helping to raise awareness of policing issues like the integrated justice project, how to fight organized crime, police recruitment, and the very important issue of traffic.

We want to note especially the four northern chiefs who are here, people from northern Ontario who are doing a remarkable job at ensuring there is confidence in

our police community. I think of Robert Davies, the chief of Sault Ste Marie, whose unique integrated educational experience with Lake Superior State and Sault College is truly something that we

should all be very proud of; Bob Herman from Thunder Bay, whose community-based policing project has instilled confidence in the people in Thunder Bay; George Berrigan, whose public participation

forums have enhanced the positive aspects of policing; and of course Sudbury's own Ian Davidson, whose initiative against elder abuse will be a model for this entire province to follow.

In short, our chiefs of police have something very positive to offer all Ontarians and they deserve the respect that this House will give them today. But also,

in the broader community, they should know we all appreciate them very much.

FAG BEARINGS

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I too would like to welcome the chiefs to our Legislature today.

We have heard a lot over the last few weeks about lowering greenhouse gas emissions and how, according to the opposition, this government's restructuring of the

electricity system will raise those emissions.

Today I want to tell the House about a company in my riding of Perth-Middlesex which is doing its part to lower greenhouse gas emissions and how the Ontario

government has facilitated that.

Stratford-based FAG Bearings, a major supplier of bearings to the North American automotive and aerospace sectors, has opted to purchase Ontario Power

Generation's Evergreen Energy. Evergreen Energy is produced using renewable resources like wind, solar, biomass and small hydro generation.

Frank Lang, president and CEO of FAG Bearings, said, "We are always looking for innovative ways to support the environment, and buying green electricity for our

operations will help promote additional electrical generation from renewable resources. We are very pleased that Ontario Power Generation offers consumers like us this environmentally friendly

energy option."

That option to buy green electricity can only be available in an open market where consumers can choose to buy their energy based on how it's produced.

I want to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate FAG Bearings for leading by example and thank them, on behalf of all members of the House and all

residents of Ontario, for choosing to use green electricity.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise in the House today to speak on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals to recognize the Ontario

Association of Chiefs of Police here at Queen's Park today. We welcome the chiefs and thank them for their important and difficult work.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to highlight some important issues surrounding policing in Ontario. We have been calling on this government to assist

municipal police services by providing stable funding for the needs of the communities they serve. Instead, many smaller communities that have municipal police services have been starved of

resources, causing restructuring that doesn't always fit small-town Ontario. I am calling on this government to conduct an evaluation of police services restructuring to ensure our Ontario

communities have the best services possible and the funding to provide them.

I am also concerned today with the demands placed on our police services to transport prisoners to Ontario's so-called mega-jails. This is taking the resources

of the front-line officers off the streets of their communities, at an outrageous cost to police services and communities.

It was interesting to hear the Minister of Public Safety and Security announce new funding this morning for additional police personnel to deal with criminal

intelligence, but only on the condition that the municipality can afford to share half the cost, and capped at $30,000 per officer.

It is time that this government recognized the value of our front-line emergency personnel and our police and made a commitment to providing the adequate tools

and funding necessary to protect Ontario citizens. Again, I look forward to our discussions, and we will work with you.

ONTARIO WETLAND HABITAT FUND

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'd like to pay tribute to the hard work of the Ontario wetland habitat fund and its supporters across Ontario. The

fund's 500th landowner celebration was held in my riding of Durham at the Woodside Farm. This is a fourth-generation family farm owned and operated by Jennifer and Robert Henderson. On Monday,

October 28, my assistant, Sheryl Greenham, represented me at the Hendersons' as they became the 500th landowner to participate in the Ontario wetland habitat fund program.

The farm includes a 10-acre marsh at the headwaters of the Ganaraska River. The Hendersons wanted to fence cattle out of the wetland and surrounding woodland,

which is currently home to a variety of wildlife, including wood ducks, turkeys, bullfrogs and a number of other species. By protecting Ontario's marshlands, we are promoting ecologically sound

landscapes that benefit wetland waterfowl and wetland wildlife, as well as people.

The Ontario wetland habitat fund is a landowner-based stewardship that now protects 23,000 acres across Ontario. It provides technical and financial assistance

for hands-on wetland conservation projects on private land. I would also like to thank and congratulate Herb and Linda Gasser, who are members of the wetland fund, and Irv Harrell, another Durham

riding resident who also participates in the program.

I'm pleased to note that my neighbour, the Honourable Jerry Ouellette, Minister of Natural Resources, was present. The ministry has contributed $850,000 to the

wetland fund and Wildlife Habitat Canada has contributed over $1 million. I'd like to thank Jean Cinq-Mars of Wildlife Habitat Canada for joining in the celebrations, along with councillors Charlie

Trim and Gord Robinson of Clarington council, as well as Mike Barker of the Ontario wetland habitat fund. This is a very worthwhile project, and I commend the residents of my riding.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I wanted to congratulate Toronto Police Chief Fantino for asking Justice Dubin to prepare a report on

the issue of the relationship between Toronto Police Service and the Black community. The issue of our Black community's relationship with the police will require enormous sensitivity by all of us

and a recognition that it is a far broader issue than just a police issue.

I have these views: just like in any community, the overwhelming majority of the Black community -- like 98% -- are decent, law-abiding citizens, and we cannot

allow an entire community to be stigmatized by a small group of criminals within that community. Young Black males do face discrimination on a daily basis, much of it unintended, but real. If you

see three Black males on a corner at 10 o'clock at night, I think they're treated differently from three white males by all of us, myself perhaps included. A young Black male enters a store at

night and he is treated differently. This has to have an effect on a young person.

How we solve this, I don't know. I do not believe our police forces to be racist, but I do believe that if there are two identical young men in the same type of

car, wearing the same clothes, and one is white and one is Black, the Black young man is more likely to be pulled over by the police. So I would urge all of us to accept that there is a problem,

that the problem is complex, and to seize this moment to now look for long-term solutions that will involve far more than our police services.

EDUCATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I just want to say to the public watching that last night I went to an education forum at the Scarborough

Civic Centre. It was a very successful meeting. There were about 80 people there, the usual number of people who care passionately about education. They did say, of course, that they invited the

Conservative members, but none showed up. Every meeting I go to on education, it's difficult to find a Conservative member who is willing, ready and able to come and debate.

Interjection: Missing in action.

Mr Marchese: Always missing in action. You can never find one Tory who is willing, able and ready to come and debate educational issues, and

there are so many of them.

Does it surprise anybody watching that this should be the case? It shouldn't, because that is always, as a matter of fact, the case. Not one of them, and there

are so many -- look at them.

about librarians, they talked about international languages. They talked about so many important issues that connect to the public. I have to tell you that I'm surprised there are so many people

with so much energy to defend public education in spite of the fact that these people never listen and in spite of the fact that they never show up.

SCULPTURE PROJECT

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I rise in the House today to share with everyone more background about "The Fish are Here" campaign on

behalf of the Walkerton Tourism Recovery Partnership Committee. The fish sculpture campaign came from the idea by Chris Hughes, tourism coordinator for the county of Bruce. It compares to a similar

campaign when Toronto first introduced the moose campaign. Placed at various locations, they were decorated in different colours and designs.

This campaign involves 12 large fish sculptures, each one located in a high-traffic area throughout the counties of Bruce and Grey. The surrounding

municipalities were contacted to take ownership of the sculptures, find a location and maintain it for the future. A paint-the-fish contest was held, requesting artists to submit a full-colour

sample of how they would design their sculpture. Twelve local artists were selected from all the artwork submitted.

The exhibit has taken countless hours of preparation and effort from a team of hard-working people. It is promoted through an extensive marketing campaign to

encourage visitation by local residents and visitors. Tourism directors will promote the exhibit for Grey and Bruce. They will include information about the fish sculptures in promotional materials

when attending trade shows. Visitors will receive a passport with the location of each sculpture and are able to tour the area and view sculptures.

I invite everyone to come to Grey-Bruce and tour the fish sculpture exhibit. I mentioned this last week and I mentioned the artists. I just want to congratulate

them again.

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): When it comes to being wishy-washy, when it comes to flipping and flopping, when it comes to saying

absolutely anything at any time, the man of the hour is Ernie Eves. Where does Ernie stand on Hydro One? Does he want to sell it, or doesn't he? Who knows? We do know that Dalton McGuinty is clear:

keep Hydro One in public hands.

Where does Eves stand on education? He's willing to let private schools dictate education policy. He's willing to cut special education teachers. Dalton McGuinty

has a plan that will put our kids first. He'll cancel the private school voucher, keep kids in school until they are 18 or graduated, will have turnaround teams for schools in trouble, guarantee

better test results and improve child care.

Where does Ernie Eves stand on health care? He was in favour of two-tier, then he backtracked to one-tier, and now he's back to two-tier on health care. Dalton

McGuinty says no to two-tier on health care. He has a plan to reform primary care, one that will actually work. He'll put his plan forward to get foreign-trained doctors actually working. He put a

plan forward more than a year and a half ago.

Where does Ernie stand on clean air? Nowhere. He's straddling the fence while 1,900 people die every year. Dalton McGuinty has a clear plan to close dirty coal

plants, bring more jobs to Ontario farmers, clean up our gasoline and get more electricity supply on-line. Ernie Eves spins more than a washing machine.

NORTH BAY POLICE SERVICE

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): Today I rise before the House to bring attention to a very worthwhile event that took place in my riding of

Nipissing this past weekend. On Saturday a public consultation was held to discuss policing issues in North Bay. It was extremely well attended. Over 100 community leaders participated in

discussions that proved to be very positive.

The police services board had many strengths identified, including strong community partners in and out of the judicial system with specific strengths that deal

with victims of crime. They are very much a hands-on type of organization in which the officers are seen in and around the area, participating in fundraising and local neighbourhood events.

This great team was led by none other than Chief George Berrigan. His great team included Amelia Rising, the Transition House, VCARS and the crown attorneys'

office, along with many others who made this public consultation happen and indeed succeed. They are all strong advocates of listening to local people and receiving input on how to make North Bay

and surrounding areas run smoothly.

The North Bay police force has been in existence since 1892, and currently has 90 sworn members and approximately 35 civilians. They're a progressive

organization that is well known for their work in our community. Our community has definitely benefited from the presence of the North Bay Police Service. I would personally say how pleased I am to

have such a wonderful organization on our side. North Bay is one of the safest places to live in Ontario, thanks to our local police force and their willingness to hear the community's

concerns.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I could, I'm very pleased to introduce a community leader, a phenomenal volunteer and the chief of police for the city of

North Bay, George Berrigan.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Maybe we could welcome all the chiefs. I know a lot of the members have the chiefs here. If we could do it once and

welcome all of the chiefs: we're very honoured to have you here today.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA SALUBRITÉ

DE L'EAU POTABLE

Mr Stockwell moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 195,

An Act respecting safe drinking water / Projet de loi 195, Loi ayant trait à la salubrité de l'eau potable.

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

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I'll defer until ministerial statements.

AUTISM AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE MOIS

DE SENSIBILISATION À L'AUTISME

Mr Wood moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 196,

An Act to proclaim Autism Awareness Month / Projet de loi 196, Loi proclamant le Mois de sensibilisation à l'autisme.

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

The member for London West for a short statement?

Mr Bob Wood (London West): This bill proclaims October in each year as Autism Awareness Month. The passage of this bill will help those

interested in autism issues to work with the government of Ontario, school boards and other entities to promote better understanding and treatment of autism.

The Speaker: Motions?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding the order of the House dated October

29, 2001, Bert Johnson, member for the electoral district of Perth-Middlesex, be appointed Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the whole House; Mike Brown, member for the electoral

district of Algoma-Manitoulin, be appointed First Deputy Chair of the Committee of the whole House; and David Christopherson, member for the electoral district of Hamilton West, be appointed Second

Deputy Chair of the Committee of the whole House.

The Speaker: I'm informed that without notice, the minister needs consent to move that.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I apologize. I seek consent to do that.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid we didn't get unanimous consent.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): May 2000 marked a tragic turning point in how we think about our

drinking water. When seven people died and thousands more became ill from drinking water that had been contaminated with E coli, it was the gravest wakeup call our nation could have had. In the

aftermath, our government promised to make sure such a tragedy would never happen again.

We continue to honour that promise today by introducing the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, for first reading.

The act carries on with the decisive actions our government has taken to protect Ontario's drinking water since the summer of 2000. It also marks a major step

forward in implementing the recommendations made by Commissioner Justice Dennis O'Connor in his Report of the Walkerton Inquiry, parts one and two.

In recommendation 67, Commissioner O'Connor stated, "The provincial government should enact a safe drinking water act to deal with matters related to the

treatment and distribution of drinking water."

I stand before you today to deliver on this recommendation specifically, and 49 more, through the proposed act.

In addition to honouring this government's commitment to safe drinking water, we are also announcing the first step of our bold plan to develop a

watershed-based source protection framework in Ontario. Watershed-based source protection plans would be required and approved by the government to protect drinking water sources, as per O'Connor's

recommendation. These plans would bring us one step closer to comprehensive watershed planning in Ontario. An advisory committee is being finalized to guide the development of a framework that will

implement Commissioner O'Connor's recommendations on source protection planning.

Key organizations that will be represented include conservation authorities, municipalities, environmental stakeholders and agricultural groups. I am eager to

begin work with the advisory committee so that we can begin planning ways to protect drinking water sources for generations.

I would now like to give special thanks to some of the people who have helped bring this proposed Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, forward. Through his hard work

and dedication, my parliamentary assistant, Bill Murdoch, has helped make this a better piece of legislation; the member from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound deserves our gratitude. For her work on a private

member's bill that became an integral part of our proposed act, I would like to thank my colleague Marilyn Churley; the member for Toronto-Danforth should be applauded for her efforts and receive

appropriate credit.

I was asked by Premier Eves to work with the member across the floor to ensure that the act we develop creates strict new safety standards and enhances the

Ministry of the Environment's monitoring, reporting and enforcement powers. I believe the Safe Drinking Water Act achieves these goals.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge some visitors to the gallery who have been consulting with us on our comprehensive water strategy.

From the Ontario Municipal Water Association, we have President Sharon Crosby and some of her directors. From the Ontario Water Works Association, I'd like to welcome Tim Lotimer as well. From

Conservation Ontario, we have Executive Director Dick Hunter. Thank you for being here today and for helping with this bill. Your comments and feedback surrounding our clean water initiatives have

been well taken.

If passed, the act would require mandatory licensing and accreditation of laboratories that perform drinking water testing; require the minister to establish a

standards advisory council, and provide authority to set standards for drinking water treatment and distribution; require the certification of all drinking water systems operators; require

municipal water systems owners to meet all necessary conditions and obtain an owner's licence; hold municipalities with oversight functions to a statutory standard of care; strengthen compliance

and enforcement provisions, including the creation of the new position of chief inspector; and amend

section 62 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act to address vacancies of the position of

medical officer of health.

Under the proposed act, the government would also be required to submit to the legislature an annual State of Ontario's Drinking Water report. We will continue

to be accountable for our promises, and this report will provide a benchmark for doing that.

The proposed Safe Drinking Water Act has benefited from the ideas and comments put forward by stakeholders and members of the public alike. In addition to the

extensive public process Commissioner O'Connor undertook through the Walkerton inquiry, this government has consulted broadly on technical details of the act. Further consultation will be held

through upcoming legislative hearings and stakeholder meetings. I look forward to working with the opposition critics and the opposition House leaders to determine how those committee hearings will

be made, where they will go, and get input from the public. The public is also encouraged to provide their comments through the Environmental Bill of Rights registry posting.

Safe drinking water remains a top priority of this government. We are committed to ensuring that Ontario has and enforces the best and toughest clean water

policies in the world. We continue to make significant progress on several fronts with our clean water strategy, but there is more to be done. Our government is investing more than half a billion

dollars in the next two years on clean, safe drinking water for the people of Ontario. This year alone, we are providing $245 million, including investments to help municipalities upgrade and make

improvements to their water systems to meet our tough new standards.

In addition to today's announcements, this government has proven its commitment to taking action to protect our drinking water. In June, the Nutrient

Management Act received royal assent, and I want to compliment the Minister of Agriculture for that, and last month Bill 175 was introduced. The first stage of the Sustainable Water and Sewage

System Act will bring municipalities together with government to assess the full cost of water and sewage services.

The second stage will allow for development of full-cost recovery plans.

Safe drinking water is a non-partisan issue, and while a healthy debate is sure to ensue on the subject, I call on all my colleagues in the Legislature to help

us take a giant step forward in protecting public health. The Safe Drinking Water Act is an environmental milestone for this province. By passing it, the members of this House will make Ontario a

world leader in drinking water protection and preservation.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In response, first of all, I think we have to remember why the government is bringing in this legislation

at this time, some two and a half full years after the Walkerton tragedy. We must remember this is the government that cut the Ministry of the Environment to such an extent, damaging and deep cuts,

that this brought about a situation where the risk to the people of this province was drastically increased. I now quote Dr Richard Schabas, the former chief medical officer of health of Ontario:

"...the Premier looked at me and I was quite certain was hearing what I was saying, we weren't more than a few feet apart, and then he basically turned away from me and ... as far as I

was concerned, the Premier was turning his back on public health...."

Then we had a situation where we had, I think most people in this province would agree, some high-quality provincial regional laboratories operated by the

Ministry of the Environment. A decision was made by this government, in its efforts to slash so very quickly and without giving due consideration to the consequences of that slashing, and those

regional laboratories were closed. Municipalities in this province, one of them in London, I say to my good friend from London, were forced to scramble over the next six to eight weeks to find an

opportunity for someone to do their water testing. No specific rules were put in place at that time. The Red Tape Commission had intimidated Ministry of the Environment officials into not even

proposing some of those rules, because at that time the Red Tape Commission was looking for ways of cutting government involvement.

The Ministry of the Environment was cut: one half of the operating budget and one third of the staff were chopped by this government. Decisions were made,

despite internal memos that were shown to the Conservative caucus and to the Conservative cabinet, so that what the government was doing was increasing the risk measurably. That program of cutting

was still invoked by this government. The Provincial Auditor -- I think we all recognize, particularly those of you who sit on the committee that's involved with the Provincial Auditor -- warned of

the situation facing the sources of groundwater and drinking water in this province. In addition to this, two in a row of the Environmental Commissioners, one whom you fired because she was

critical of the government, Eva Ligeti, and the subsequent Environmental Commissioner you put in place, both warned of the problem.

The minister talks of a bold plan for water sources. I must say to the minister that a bold plan, after two and a half years, to deal with the sources of

drinking water in this province is not to appoint another committee to look into the matter and advise the minister. We would have expected some time ago that that bold plan would have been in

effect. I think the minister recognizes as well, because he read the report and he'd be aware of it, that the present Environmental Commissioner said that in fact this government had cut, from the

time it came into office to the year 2000, its number of water monitoring stations from 730 to 240, about 500 water monitoring stations cut, despite the fact that Justice O'Connor, the Provincial

Auditor and two Environmental Commissioners had recommended against that, and for much more extensive monitoring. This bill deals not at all with the issue of the sources of drinking water. We must

recognize that the contaminants getting into that drinking water are a major problem.

I say as well that the regulations to go along with the nutrient management legislation are nowhere near finished at this time. They're lacking in many areas.

I implore the Minister of the Environment, who has that special responsibility, to look carefully at that. I think what has to happen if this bill is to be successful is that we have to have the

Ministry of the Environment budget restored to what it was when this government came into office, the staffing levels and assistance to municipalities restored, and most assuredly, the immediate

addressing of the problem of the sources of drinking water in this province.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I think the question for us today is: is this glass of water half full or half empty? It's certainly

not full. I want to try to take the approach that today's piece of legislation that is before us -- of course, we haven't had time to study the whole thing yet, although I thank the minister for

the technical briefing this morning. The glass is clearly not full. There is still a lot of work to be done.

As a backdrop, I want to mention that I brought forward a safe drinking water bill about two years ago and we're just seeing that partial bill come to the

light of day now, today. Indeed the bill before us, I think to be fair, goes a long way to fulfilling the narrow definition recommendations from Justice O'Connor, specifically around the pipes and

pumps in the delivery, the treatment of water. The recommendations are followed fairly closely within that definition. Of course, the devil will be in the details. We'll have to look very closely

at the powers of the minister and at what is left up to regulations.

I want to point out for the record that, after the Premier announced he would be bringing forward my bill and then a decision was made to go ahead with a

government bill, I was not involved in the process, although the Premier stated that this morning. I was at that point frozen out of the loop. I wish I had been involved in the process because some

of the pieces that are missing from this bill were in my bill. Some of those pieces are the safe drinking water fund to make sure municipalities have enough money to be able to bring in the kinds

of requirements that come under this bill; the public's right to know; the registry I talked about; the public's ability to sue. That, by the way, can be remedied. I know Justice O'Connor didn't

recommend going down that road. But if you bring the Safe Drinking Water Act under the Environmental Bill of Rights, which would then allow for investigations to be called and allow people to sue

under certain circumstances, that might be the trade-off there.

What is really missing today, a big piece, what I would refer to as the hole in the bucket, is that here we are, two and a half years or so since people died

in Walkerton and over 2,000 people became ill -- some of those children will never recover -- with a safe drinking water bill that deals with the pipes and pumps, but we have seen nothing on

groundwater source protection.

I seem to recall that when Minister Clement was in the Ministry of the Environment back in 1999, he said they were working on groundwater source protection,

and we saw nothing. Over the past two and a half years, all that the government, the Minister of the Environment, can bring forward on source protection -- the guiding principle in Justice

O'Connor's reports and recommendations is that there would be source-to-tap protection. The first 15 or 16 recommendations in his part two report talk specifically about source protection.

I have to point out to the minister today that I will be making amendments to this bill. I am going to want to see much more quickly, as are the people of this

province and the people in Walkerton, the next piece of legislation, and that is source protection. Amend the EPA, as Justice O'Connor recommended. Do not wait for yet another committee.

It's astounding to find out that this advisory committee hasn't even been set up yet. It's like we're starting from ground zero here. After all this time we do

not have a comprehensive piece of legislation before us today, and after what happened in Walkerton, that is unacceptable.

I want to say to the government that I'm happy to see, finally, that a safe drinking water bill was brought forward today. I will be reading it carefully. In

particular, I am calling on the minister to make sure we have comprehensive public committee hearings clear across the province so the public can have a say in how this bill comes out at the

end.

VISITORS

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I knew that you would want to

know that Professor Gerald Gall is in the Speaker's gallery today. Last week, Professor Gall was made an Officer of the Order of Canada, and that was done by reason of the fact that he has been a

tireless worker for individuals in this country and across the world. He is an individual who is well known as an expert on civil liberties and civil rights, and he has dedicated much of his life

to that cause. He's accompanied here today by Karen Gall and their son, Andrew, they being my sister and nephew respectively.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just thought people might be interested to know that Nancy Steele and

Bill MacPherson, the grandparents of Alexander Steele, the page from Sault Ste Marie, are in the gallery today.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I may, I'm happy to introduce very prominent members of Windsor's

Jewish community who are here at Queen's Park in the members' gallery. Mr Gary Katz, Ms Sharon Kaplan and Dr Plant, welcome to the House.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. Today I watched with great interest as the Premier, with the

appropriate backdrop, made his announcement, along with the Minister of the Environment, about a Safe Drinking Water Act.

I noted one exception: I know that his pangs of conscience were certainly present in the statements he made, but there was one particular part of the package

that was recommended by Justice O'Connor, recommended by, shall we say, the Provincial Auditor and by two Environmental Commissioners, and that dealt with the sources of drinking water. The main

criticism today that has been levelled too, and I think justifiably, is that after two and a half years all you have decided to do about the sources of drinking water, that is groundwater

protection, is in fact to appoint yet another committee.

Could the Premier tell us why that was not included in the bill or in a bill previously presented to this House?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, the honourable member will know that Mr Justice O'Connor

recommended different treatment for source groundwater and for the sources of water in the province, and we are following his recommendation in that regard.

I've had several discussions about this issue with the secretary of cabinet and others. We are undertaking the largest accounting and documentation of

watershed and sources of water ever undertaken in the province of Ontario. The honourable member will surely understand, being a former Minister of the Environment himself, that this takes a

considerable period of time. But we are treating the issue seriously and we are, as he has pointed out, asking independent advisory groups to give us their advice in the committee on this

issue.

Mr Bradley: If the Premier were treating this matter seriously, as he says, he would have noted in the latest report of the Environmental

Commissioner the following statement: "In much of southern Ontario and especially in southwestern Ontario, we know there is a problem with water quality in streams and rivers.... Remarkably,"

Ontario's "water quality monitoring system has been largely abandoned without the causes of poor water quality ever being addressed. I suspect that the problem may be worse than ever. But I can't

say that for sure because the data is simply not available."

Under your watch as the Minister of Finance and now as Premier -- particularly as Minister of Finance -- the number of monitoring stations on waterways in this

province was reduced from 730 to 240. Almost 500 monitoring stations on our rivers, lakes and streams have been reduced. Could the Premier explain why that would be, if they're so concerned as a

government about the protection of our water supply?

Hon Mr Eves: I think the Minister of the Environment has a response to this particular question.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): In fact, it's been increased by another 90, I think, and the

member opposite knows it has. We are in the process of implementing the recommendation from the Environmental Commissioner with respect to the monitoring stations. We've increased it, I think, by

90; it's up to 350. We've done a lot of work, in my opinion, to ensure that the water monitoring stations are in fact there. I can only say to you that we are going to continue to do that. Even the

commissioner himself said he didn't know how many water monitoring stations are needed. He wasn't certain either.

By working with these associations and groups, we're just trying to determine exactly how many are needed. Maybe it's 400, maybe it's 500, maybe it's 750. But

the fact of the matter is, we have to work to get this strategy together to determine how many you need.

Mr Bradley: Could the minister explain to all members of this House -- or the Premier, one of the two; whoever wishes to answer this -- I

guess I'll address it to the Premier. He was the chief spokesperson today. Can you explain, if groundwater protection is so important, if you want to find out what's going into that groundwater or

even surface water that you have out there, why on earth would you as a government reduce the number of water monitoring stations? I know you say you've added 90 since then, but why would you have

reduced them from 730 to 240? Why on earth would you do that when the Provincial Auditor, two Environmental Commissioners and of course latterly Justice O'Connor have all said that you have to get

a handle on this, and one of the ways to do it is to determine what's going into the waterways, and address that? Why did that reduction take place?

Hon Mr Stockwell: The question could be put to the ex-Minister of the Environment for five years in Ontario: why didn't you do a

watershed-based management protection study at all? Why didn't you deliver a water-based strategy, period? You didn't do anything. You didn't deliver a water-based strategy study. The NDP didn't

produce a water-based strategy either.

I say to the member opposite, the government is actually doing the work, working with AMO, working with the Ministry of Agriculture, working with the

conservation authorities. All I've suggested to you is, you have to determine how many stations to have. So I look to the member opposite and say, for five long years, while you were Minister of

the Environment, why didn't you even think about having a water-based protection strategy? It's beyond me that you couldn't have come up with the one approach that would have helped the situation:

a water-based strategy. You never even thought of this and the NDP never even thought of this.

PICKERING NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Premier and it concerns my growing worry about the increasingly serious,

if not critical, situation at Pickering A. Only four and a half months ago, on June 6, 2002, our Provincial Auditor, the watchdog of public finances in the province of Ontario, said this to the

members of this Legislature:

"I would urge the Ontario government as a shareholder to take a very active interest in the cost overruns and delays being experienced in restarting Pickering

A. These delays could drive up electricity prices and the cost overruns could negatively affect Ontario Power Generation's cash flows and its contributions to reduce the stranded debt of the old

Ontario Hydro."

Premier, as leader of the government of Ontario, why are you and your colleagues in the government so unwilling to allow immediate public hearings on precisely

what is going on at Pickering A? What are the real reasons for the delays? What are the true costs and what are the short- and intermediate-term implications of the very serious situation

developing about 30 kilometres east of this very place?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, if this was an easy issue, there would be hundreds of people

who could answer the question in 10 seconds or less. Obviously this is not an easy issue. This is an issue of the nuclear generation of power, which is extremely complicated.

Obviously OPG has grossly underestimated -- by their own admission, by the admission of the CEO yesterday in a speech -- the cost of doing the required work at

Pickering and has underestimated the date by which it would come on line. But let there be no mistake, this is not an easy issue to resolve and it does take expertise to resolve the issue. I don't

see any of that expertise in the Legislature on either side.

Mr Conway: Let me agree with my colleague the Premier. I know better than most of you that this is not an easy problem. Let me remind you that

five years ago, under the able leadership of Derwyn Shea, we had a select committee looking at the problem that brought the old Ontario Hydro to its knees, and we are reliving that nightmare now

again. It is exactly the same situation, only with this difference: the hydro debt is going up, not down. Consumer pain is everywhere and it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Three weeks ago the independent electricity referee, the Independent Electricity Market Operator, said, on October 7, 2002, "There is a serious shortage of

generating capacity to meet Ontario's growing electricity demand, and if steps are not taken soon, the next few months and next summer will be worse than what we've just come through." The auditor

has begged us, as the responsible owners of Pickering A, to take a more active interest in understanding the problem.

Premier, what on earth have we got to hide? The public knows it has an obligation to pay. The public has a right to know what is going on and how big the bill

will be. Will you now agree --

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

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the Minister of Energy is indeed trying to find out exactly what is going on at OPG with respect to Pickering.

I would say, with respect to the independent market operator, that the honourable member neglected to talk about the report, the 18-month outlook that was

released late last month, on September 24, talking about energy production in this province. It said that the capability "is generally expected to be well above energy demand levels in each month

of the outlook period," that being the next 18 months. "No additional energy is expected to be needed to meet the Ontario forecast energy demand." That paints quite a different picture than you

just painted in your question of a moment ago.

Mr Conway: I say to my friend the Premier that the October 7, 2002. report from the independent market operator paints a very worrisome

situation, and that's before it was generally understood how serious are the delays and cost overruns at Pickering A.

Yesterday, in OPG's third-quarter report, we find out now that our company, OPG, the successor company to the old Ontario Hydro, the company that controls 70%

of the electricity marketplace today, the company that has more to do with keeping prices high than anybody else -- do you know what they're now doing, according to this report? We are selling

valuable hydroelectric assets like the Mississagi asset, and we are taking the income reported in the third-quarter statement yesterday, $100 million worth of asset sale revenue, and we're not

doing what you said you would do, that you'd take that money and write down the billions of dollars of debt. No, you're not doing that. You're taking that money and giving it to the company, OPG,

for operating expenses at Pickering.

All I'm asking for is simply this: we can't let Ontario Power Generation, with its record in the nuclear business, be both player and referee in this game that

is so critically important to Ontario consumers of electricity and to Ontario businesses. Premier, please tell the electricity ratepayers that you're going to give them --

The Speaker: Order. The member's time is up.

Hon Mr Eves: Indeed, there is a plan in place to pay down and pay off the residual stranded debt of the old Ontario Hydro by the year 2015, I

believe it is. That plan is in place.

With respect to the comments he makes about the generation capacity in the province of Ontario, the very independent market operator he is quoting now has said

that over the next 18 months, barring some grossly unforeseen circumstance, there will be an excess of capacity in the province of Ontario, for the next year and a half.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, your hydro deregulation and privatization scheme is causing

incredible pain for small business owners across the province. Yesterday we talked with Cheryl Frenette, who owns Hilltop General Store, near Sault Ste Marie. Her hydro bill for the store this

summer went from $1,400 to $3,300. She says that if she gets another two or three hydro bills like that, she will have to close down her store. Premier, where do you expect Cheryl Frenette to find

an extra $1,900 for her monthly hydro bill?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, the honourable member is aware of the circumstances that have

gone on with respect to the weather, the usage of power, in the province during the months of July, August and September. He's also aware that prices were below what they were before the market

opened for the months of May and June. He is aware, of course, that they were above in July, August and September.

He is also aware that on half the days during the month of October, the price has been below what the price of power was before then. There is a commitment on

behalf of OPG, on behalf of the government, to offer a rebate program to consumers for the cost of producing power by OPG in excess of 3.8 cents a kilowatt hour despite the fact that the average

price before the market opened was 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour.

Mr Hampton: Well, Premier, Cheryl Frenette has heard your excuses. She said to me, "Does the Premier honestly believe that Ontario has never

had a hot summer before?" This is a person who is faced with losing her business, and there are dozens of others across this province. Take Dave's Fish Market in Burlington or the Asian Food Store

in Rexdale, or Ramundo's Deli in Welland, or Dalseg's Trading Post in my own riding -- all of them small businesses, and all of them can't afford to pay their hydro bills, Premier. It's got nothing

to do with a hot summer. It's got everything to do with your scheme of hydro privatization and deregulation. In Algoma district 4,000 people have signed petitions, just in the last 30 days,

opposing hydro privatization and deregulation.

What these small businesses want to know is, why are you reaching in and taking the money right out of the till? When are you going to recognize that the

problem is hydro privatization and deregulation and stop it now? That's what they want to know.

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the third party is well aware that this summer was the hottest summer on record since 1955. This stuff isn't made

up. If he spent any time in Ontario in the months of July, August and September, he would know that was the case.

There are two things that result in the cost of your hydro bill: the cost per kilowatt hour and the amount of hydro you use. Obviously, if you use twice as

much hydro, the cost is going to be twice as much. Having said that, we have a rebate program that is going to rebate consumers the price they have paid over the suggested price, but I do want to

remind the honourable member about what his government did when it was in power.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Well, he was the Attorney General. He sat at the cabinet table. He obviously agreed with all these decisions of the Rae

government. You let the debt of Hydro go up by in excess of $3.5 billion, like you did all the other debts that the province had. You let that go from $39 billion to over $100 billion and you leave

it for your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren to pay: "Don't bother me with the facts. We'll just keep on running up deficits of $10 billion to $14 billion a year and Hydro $3.5

billion -- "

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

Mr Hampton: Premier, if you won't listen to those small businesses, maybe you'll listen to this other person who is very concerned about hydro

prices. His name is Gary Carr. He is the MPP for Oakville, who admits that he is circulating a petition calling for a hydro rate freeze and a review of the government's hydro deregulation

policy.

He says your arguments are all wrong: "It's true we had a very hot summer, but that alone doesn't explain the tremendous hikes people see in their current

hydro bills." He also says, "If deregulation results in the highest hydro rates we've seen before now, I don't see much benefit to that, and neither do the people of Oakville."

Premier, your own MPPs are saying it's obvious something is drastically wrong with hydro deregulation. If your MPPs can figure it out, why are you so slow? Why

can't you figure it out?

Hon Mr Eves: We know what your solution was, and that was to run up all kinds of debts by well over $100 billion. If anybody thinks that isn't

costing the people you're talking about a lot of money -- the interest on the debt alone is $9.3 billion a year, thanks to you and your government, in large part. You managed to virtually triple

the amount of the debt of the province of Ontario and run up Hydro debt and run up workers' compensation unfunded liability, all in a matter of five years. You undid what had been done since

Confederation in five short years. That's how you didn't solve those problems.

Unfortunately, I can't refer a question to the Speaker of the House.

Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, I think the Premier took a shot at you.

PICKERING NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, I want to talk about your other debt boondoggle: Pickering. The CEO of Ontario Power

Generation now admits they are $2.5 billion over budget on Pickering, and we also know that this is increasing Hydro's debt.

Conservative governments had the original love affair with nuclear power. Remember Darlington? You said it was only going to cost $5 billion, and when you and

the Liberals finished, it cost $15 billion, a $10-billion cost overrun. You'll also remember that during the 1980s it was discovered that Pickering was costing hundreds of millions of dollars each

year in maintenance costs that were not supposed to happen with nuclear power. That's all history. That was all learned.

Your strategy, besides hydro privatization and deregulation, seems to be to dump it all back into nuclear. My question to you is, can you tell us why you

didn't learn from the mistakes in the first place? Why do you want to repeat this mistake of billion-dollar debts on nuclear power?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I don't think there's a single party in this Legislature that is blameless in

terms of Pickering and the cost of nuclear power. I seem to recall two Premiers named Peterson and Rae who did a pretty good job of racking up increased debt for Ontario Hydro through spending more

money completing nuclear facilities when they were Premiers. I can see lots of members on all sides of the House who were members of cabinet in those eras who helped us get where we are today.

We are actually doing something about paying off the debt of the old Ontario Hydro and being transparent and open about how we got to where we are. We got to

where we are by supplying consumers in Ontario with power not at cost, which was what Hydro was supposed to do, but with power at cost minus $38 billion.

Mr Hampton: Premier, I know you would not want to misinform the House, and I know you would want to read the 1995 annual report of Ontario

Hydro. The chairman of the board was someone named Bill Farlinger, whom you put in place. This is what Mr Farlinger said in the 1995 Ontario Hydro report. He said that during the NDP years, they

were actually able to pay down Hydro's debt by $730 million and that the debt repayments were actually increasing. This is your Bill Farlinger, the person you appointed in the summer of 1995 as the

chair of Hydro, so let's be accurate about that, Premier.

But the question is this: you had an opportunity to change the direction, an opportunity to put some money into wind turbine energy, to promote an electricity

conservation strategy; you had an opportunity --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry to interrupt. The Minister of the Environment, come to order, please. You've got a Premier. The people want

to hear the Premier answer. If he wants to defer to you, he will. The Premier is who the people want to hear. Yesterday it was very quiet when you weren't here, and I'd appreciate your

co-operation.

Sorry for the interruption.

Mr Hampton: Speaker, he couldn't answer these questions when he was the Minister of Energy; I don't know why he has so much to say now.

Here's the story, Premier. Besides the hydro deregulation and privatization fiasco you've gotten the province into, instead of pursuing energy conservation,

instead of investing in hydroelectrics and wind turbine energy, you're putting it all back into nuclear. How many times do you have to go back into nuclear before you figure out that it's very

expensive and it leads to a lot of big debt? How long is it going to take?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I hope he knows that the numbers that he's referring to, the $715 million that he says the debt was paid down by,

was in one year, 1995. Surely he of all people will recognize a significant event that took place in June 1995. He will also remember that the government that really paid down the debt was this

government, not his government. Your legacy was adding three and a half billion dollars to Hydro's debt. That was your legacy; that's what you did about it. Surely the honourable member understands

that the mix of power in the province of Ontario has to be a mix that doesn't rely upon any one specific aspect -- nuclear, hydraulic, fossil fuel or gas-powered. It requires a mixture of all of

the above. I would agree with him: we should be investing in more green sources of generating energy.

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Premier. If you add up the salaries of the chair and the CEO at BC Hydro, it is $313,000

a year. If you add up the salaries of the chair and CEO of Ontario Power Generation, it is in excess of $2 million a year. I asked the energy minister in estimates about whether he thought the

salaries were reasonable at OPG and he said, "I looked at the compensation packages and the verdict from an outside person said that they were reasonable." I said, "Do you accept that verdict?" and

he said yes. My question for you is, do you accept that verdict? Do you think that these salaries are reasonable at Ontario Power Generation?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm sure the Minister of Energy has an appropriate response.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The member opposite, as I reported to him in the

estimates committee, shortly after I became Minister of Energy, our Premier asked me to look at the executive compensation at Ontario Power Generation. Rather than conducting it myself, we brought

in outside experts, people who have a lot of skill and experience with respect to executive compensation in the province of Ontario. Those outside experts, after reviewing the compensation packages

of the individuals in question, confirmed that they were reasonable in the marketplace.

I disagree with the escalating salaries we've seen in a whole host of sectors across our globe. Whether it's a sports star, in business, or in medical and

physician services, the reality is, we want to ensure that we can attract people who have the right competence to ensure that this company can be run well.

Mr Bryant: I don't know why you're standing beside your Hydro man Farlinger, your Hydro man Osborne. You've got nothing good to say about the

performance of Ontario Power Generation. Yesterday you said the performance on Pickering A was not Ontario Power Generation's finest hour. You said as minister that you're not happy with what

you've seen -- but you're happy with their salaries. I don't get it. Ontario consumers see their bills go up, yet they also see the salaries of the people running this show skyrocketing, quadruple

that of their counterparts in BC and Quebec. When faced with this in Hydro One, you heeded the call of Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals, and Captain Clitheroe and her crew went down with

her ship. Why not at OPG? Why are you standing beside your Hydro man? Is it because of the close relationship between Chairman Farlinger and this government? It's a serious charge, but it deserves

an answer. Why are you standing beside your Hydro man when you've got nothing good to say about his performance?

Hon Mr Baird: I'll read from the report: "We reviewed the CEO's employment agreement and find it to be in line with responsible market

practice."

The member opposite speaks of the chairman of Ontario Hydro. He doesn't mention his salary, which is nowhere near the amount he has spoken of. The member

opposite cites Quebec and British Columbia, two places where a competitive marketplace is not in existence. This is a competitive market in the province of Ontario. It has expensive mixed

generation, not just hydroelectric, not just fossil fuels, not just new emerging green powers; it also has substantial nuclear resources.

When this government, this Premier and the former minister stood in this place to take action on the Hydro One issue, this member stood in his place, fought it

and voted against it. He should be ashamed of himself.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is to the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I'd like to say that I've been

working with my colleagues Associate Minister Newman and Minister Clement for the past few months to extend interim beds at the Orillia Care Centre in my riding of Simcoe North. This will help

ensure a smooth transition for residents to permanent long-term-care beds in the Simcoe area, once they are up and finally constructed. I'm very pleased to say that the beds have been extended for

up to 12 months, past March 31, 2003. For the benefit of my constituents in Simcoe North, I ask the associate minister what the status is of interim long-term-care beds in the Orillia and Simcoe

serviced area.

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I thank the hard-working member for Simcoe North for his question. The

interim bed program is consistent with one of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's key strategies, and that is to anticipate and develop services to meet the needs of our growing and our

aging population. Care provided through long-term-care facilities is an essential component of the continuum of services for our elderly Ontarians.

I'm pleased to say that the beds at the Orillia Care Centre have been extended to help provide even better long-term-care services for the people of central

Ontario. Interim beds were implemented as a bridge until new long-term-care beds are built. I'm proud to say that 119 new beds are presently in operation in Orillia, with another 24 expected to be

completed by November 2002; in Barrie, 423 beds, and 264 redeveloped beds have been awarded, with construction moving ahead.

I commend the member for Simcoe North for his dedication and for his commitment to long-term-care services on behalf of his constituents.

Mr Dunlop: I thank the associate minister for his response and for his assistance in the Orillia long-term-care centre.

There's no question that even better long-term care is even more important to meet the needs of Ontario's growing and aging population. I'm very proud to be

part of a government that has made such unprecedented commitments to long-term-care services in our province. There's no question that these investments will make a real difference for seniors and

others who require long-term care throughout our province. I'd like to ask the associate minister what steps our government has taken to ensure that the progress we've made in long-term care

continues in the years to come.

Hon Mr Newman: Once again I thank the member for Simcoe North for his question. Long-term care has certainly come a long way in Ontario since

our government was first elected by the people of Ontario in 1995. That's because we've taken strong action to improve the sector, unlike the Liberals and NDP, who seemed to hope the challenge of

our growing and our aging population would somehow just go away.

As tens of thousands of long-term-care beds are built and redeveloped across Ontario, our government is providing funding of up to $10.35 per bed per day for

20 years to help with the cost of construction of long-term-care beds. That money goes to new and redeveloped facilities across our great province once the beds are built and once the beds are in

operation, up to a maximum of $75,000 per bed.

There's no doubt this provides a strong incentive for long-term-care operators to put their beds in operation sooner rather than later. This will mean even

greater care for residents and even greater peace of mind for the families of residents.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Energy. I was visited last weekend by a door-to-door electricity

salesman. This individual bore a name tag proclaiming he was from Ontario Hydro; in fact, he assured me repeatedly that he was indeed from Ontario Hydro. If you look at the small print on the

business card, Minister, you will see that this particular Ontario Hydro is in fact a division of Union Energy Inc, a private company. It was interesting that this Union Energy representative also

insisted that his company was working with Thunder Bay Hydro, even though Union Energy of course is in direct competition with our local utility.

Minister, the code of conduct for independent retailers says, "The electricity retailer shall clearly indicate that the offer is not being made by a regulated

distribution company and shall not seek to mislead or otherwise create any confusion in the mind of a consumer." Minister, will you agree that Union Energy is misrepresenting itself as Ontario

Hydro and will you act now to stop this misrepresentation?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The priority of our government is to ensure the people

of Ontario receive a supply of safe, reliable and affordable electricity in Ontario. We do have a competitive marketplace and we have strengthened measures to protect consumers this past June with

Bill 58, brought in by my predecessor.

If the member opposite has allegations that the market rules are not being obeyed, she should bring them forward to me directly. The Ontario Energy Board does

have the authority to order compliance and can level substantial fines if people are breaking the law. I don't think it would be fair or appropriate if you asked me to adjudicate it based on the

information you've provided me today, like any crime, but if the member opposite wants to present me with the information I'll ensure it reaches the authorities in short order.

Mrs McLeod: I just did bring it to you directly and I think it should actually concern you directly. You and I both know -- and if you had

acknowledged that in your answer -- that Ontario Hydro sold its retail arm to Union Energy. It is now being run by a private company. Most consumers, I submit to you, don't know that. Consumers see

the Ontario Hydro sign, they see the logo and they assume that they are making a contract with a public utility. They assume that your government is probably in some way underwriting that contract.

In fact, Minister, I begin to wonder if in some ways, directly or not, you are in fact underwriting these private contracts. Your own regulator is now saying that it's probably a good idea for

consumers to get into fixed contracts because they know the prices of electricity are about to go up.

So what happens if Union Energy Inc is not able to provide their customers with electricity at the 6.02 cents that they're currently selling it for? Do they go

and look for a retroactive price increase, as Union Gas did? Do they absorb the losses, even to the point of bankruptcy? I think that's highly unlikely. Do they come to you, Minister, and ask for

some kind of bailout so the private company can stay in business, or do they walk away and let the public utilities fix up the mess afterwards?

Hon Mr Baird: If the member opposite has specific examples and wants to provide me with all of the details, I'd be very pleased to look at

them.

She may want to look at her caucus colleagues. It's been her party that has steadfastly supported the privatization and steadfastly supported an open market.

Just what did you think would happen when we'd have an open market in Ontario? Look what her leader said: "I am in favour of privatization both in terms of the transmission and the generation."

That's further than anyone on this side of the House ever said. But has she once got up in this House and spoken up against her leader? Not a single time. What did her own energy critic say when

they were out trolling Bay Street for bucks? "Throughout Ontario's electricity restructuring process, Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals have been consistent supporters of the move to an open

electricity market in Ontario. Please send me $350." The member opposite should take these concerns to her caucus meeting on Thursday morning and bring me the facts on Thursday afternoon.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, as a parent I'm sure you agree that the safety

of our students should be our utmost priority. All children in the province should have the right to learn in a safe and respectful environment. They should be able to attend class without the fear

of violence, discrimination or sexual abuse. In order to ensure the safety of our children and all the children in this province, can you share with us some of the initiatives this government has

enacted to protect our most valuable resource, our children?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I would be pleased to respond to that question. Indeed, our government was the

very first government in the province to address the issue of ensuring that our schools provide a safe environment for both students and teachers. We introduced the Safe Schools Act in 2000 and we

have subsequently introduced the Ontario schools code of conduct. Each board in the province is responsible for developing strategies to deal with harassment, threatening, bullying and issues of

sexual abuse.

I'm pleased to say that this morning I spoke at the Canadian Safe School Leadership 2002 conference and I had the opportunity there to meet with a very

dedicated group of directors, trustees, teachers and others. I can tell you that people are working aggressively with the government to ensure that our schools are indeed safe.

Mr Miller: I agree that students can't learn when they are in an unsafe environment or when they fear for their safety. Growing up is hard

enough, and no student should be placed in a harmful environment or be subject to an irresponsible adult, especially if they abuse their authority.

Can you share with us the specific initiatives this government has enacted to protect our children from sexual misconduct by a trusted adult?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The issue of the need to protect our students from sexual abuse is a very, very important obligation that we have. So based on

Justice Robins's review, our government is the very first ever to introduce legislation that better protects students from sexual abuse.

I'd just like to state what the act stipulates. The act says that employers must remove from the classroom a teacher charged with or convicted of an offence

with minors, and also that if an employer removes a member or restricts duties for professional misconduct, he or she must report this action to the college registrar within 30 months.

So we now have very comprehensive

definitions of sexual abuse, including sexual assault and harassment. I can tell you that it makes it very difficult for

disciplined teachers to move from one board to the other.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is for the Premier. The last few days have been very devastating for the Black community of

Toronto and even more devastating, I'm sure, to the parents whose children have been killed on our streets. Unfortunately, another was shot this morning. Chief Fantino says that policing alone

won't bring peace, and this was reiterated by the chiefs of police, with whom many of us met today. Chief Fantino says we need to fix the root causes, be they education or housing or

opportunity.

Last year, before my election to this House, the New Democratic Party released a document called the Building Hope Action Plan. This was following extensive

consultations with the Black community. Last week, Howard Hampton sent you a copy. There are 30 action steps contained within that plan. Given what has happened in these last few days, which ones

will you implement first to get the guns off the street and return safe neighbourhoods to our citizens?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the Minister of Public Safety and Security can answer this

question.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): Certainly we're all concerned, and I think I speak on behalf of all members

of the Legislative Assembly, with the spate of homicides and crime that we've seen over the last number of days in the city of Toronto. Certainly the chief raised a significant number of issues

that have to be identified in terms of dealing with the root causes of crime.

I have not seen the report that you have provided to the Premier, but we, along with all members of this assembly, want to assist the Toronto police and the

police services across this province in addressing these challenges.

Mr Prue: Mr Premier, I'm going to ask you again, but perhaps the minister will answer. A couple of very easy things can be done, and I've just

sent a copy of that report back across the floor. One is to institute community safety programs involving the police, youth and the community -- the general neighbourhoods. Another very easy thing

that can be done today is to give sufficient funds to the city or to other groups for recreation programs that will operate in the evenings and after hours so that our youth will have something to

do other than to hang out on street corners.

Last week we gave you this road map; today I give it to you again. This road map is intended to transform the lives of so many of our most vulnerable citizens,

so many of our young people who are at risk of death on our streets. Do you have the courage to sit in the driver's seat and take that road map where it needs to go?

Hon Mr Runciman: I certainly appreciate the party's input and their genuine concern about this issue. I have to say, looking at one of the

references here to community policing, that I know there have been very significant efforts on the part of the Toronto Police Service, under the leadership of Chief Fantino, to reach out to the

various minority communities in Toronto. I think there has been a real priority given to expansion of community policing as well in the city of Toronto.

Clearly, there is a willingness on the part of the Toronto Police Service. Meeting with the chiefs of police who are in the building today, as we speak, they

are all concerned about this issue and I think they all want to work together, along with this government, with members of this assembly, to address these challenges. We welcome your input.

HOME CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): My question is for the Premier. Premier, as you know, October is Ontario Community Support

Month. Today we have in our gallery individuals representing different community support sectors and the people who provide the care and support services in our communities.

You made a commitment to the people of Ontario in 1998 to provide an additional $551 million. You still owe more than half of that money, over $140 million

that you have committed to the community care sector that has not as yet been paid out to them for services to our communities. In a letter dated September 18, signed by 13 different organizations,

you were specifically asked to do something about it. You well know that many services that used to be provided by community care are no longer available to those elderly and frail who want to live

in their own home.

Since we all agree it's to the benefit of our seniors and most vulnerable to live in their own home environment as long as possible, why don't you live up to

your solemn promise and commitment and make that funding available immediately so that people can stay in their own home environment as long as possible?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Health has a response.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the honourable member knows, in fact we are continuing to meet our commitment

when it comes to both the community and long-term-care sector and the at-home community care sector. This is a multi-year commitment. This commitment was made by the government of Ontario a number

of years ago, and each year we have met a certain portion of that commitment on schedule, on plan. That will continue as our support for this community grows.

Mr Gerretsen: Minister, currently you are $140 million short. You are the minister who wrote, by way of a letter to your colleague David

Turnbull on September 30 of this year, that the ministry "will undertake a communications campaign directed at ... increasing the awareness about" long-term care "redevelopment activities

currently underway throughout the province; highlighting the new home-like environment and improved comfort and amenities being offered by the new and redeveloped facilities."

We all know what a home-like environment is. We all know what comfort is. We all know that people would prefer to stay in their own homes as long as possible.

Will you tell the people in the gallery today that if you can find the money for this advertising campaign, surely you can find within your budget the money you solemnly promised to commit to this

sector in 1998, so people can stay in their own homes with the community support they need? Will you tell them today that the funding will be there so they will be able to stay right where they

want to be, in their very own home, where it is a real home, and not some home-like --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister.

Hon Mr Clement: I'm quite surprised by the honourable member's characterization of this. He should know, as Ontarians know, that when you look

per capita, we have the most generous home care services in the entire Dominion of Canada, at $128 per capita. That is a commitment that has grown since 1995 by 72%. In fact, it's grown by 440%

since they were the government of Ontario on the other side of the House. That is 100% provincial dollars, not a dime from the federal Liberal government, I might add.

We are proud of our commitment to community care. We are proud of our commitment to long-term care. This government is meeting the demands and the needs of the

people of Ontario, and we will continue to do so.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. But first, for the members of the House, I'd like

to extend my congratulations on your recent marriage; I commend you for that. As we all know, marriage is no small business decision.

However, on a more serious note, October is Small Business Month. We all know that small business creates more than half the jobs, almost one million new jobs,

in the province of Ontario.

Sadly, back in 1995, I recall sitting down and listening to those small business people talk about their genuine frustration with the government of the past 10

years -- red tape and bureaucratic handling and filings.

But today, fortunately, in my riding of Durham, there is hope. A branch of the Scugog Chamber of Commerce recently formed the Scugog Business Advocacy and

Advisory Committee, which helps local enterprise, of course. I'd like to commend committee members Betty Penny, Julie Brock and Ed Olsen, just to name a few.

My question to the minister is very clear: Minister, what has this government done to make it easier for small --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member's time is up. Minister?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I appreciate the member's interest and enthusiasm in small business as well as my

personal life.

As the member knows and said quite well, small business is the backbone of the Ontario economy. It's true: it used to be that small business people would have

to wait in line for up to half a day to file their forms, renew their names or to sign up a new business name. It took them longer to file routine paperwork than it did to do their taxes, even

using an abacus.

Once we were elected, we worked hard and we continue to work hard to make sure that we cut red tape and make businesses spend less time filling out forms and

more time doing what they do best: creating jobs and investment in the economy. Now they can hop on the Net or stop by one of our electronic kiosks and be finished in the time it takes to make your

morning coffee; a substantial improvement, and just one step that we're doing for small business.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister, for that. I'm certain you didn't have to line up to get your marriage licence.

However, I would also say we're moving ahead with entrepreneurship and e-commerce in our government; I know that. The Internet, of course, and kiosks are a

very good way to eliminate the inconvenience for small business. Paperwork for small business is lost money, lost income and lost jobs.

I think there's much to be done. I know the Red Tape Commission is working tirelessly to eliminate barriers to opportunities and growth. But what additional

initiatives, like the small business advisory committee that Mr Spina is working on -- what is your ministry doing specifically to help small business during Small Business Month?

Hon Mr Hudak: The member puts it quite well. The last thing we want to do is to make businesses jump through more hoops in filling out routine

paperwork. There are enough levels of government for them to deal with. In fact, the Ernie Eves government has been recognized by winning a gold award from the Commonwealth Association for Public

Administration and Management in the United Kingdom for its work in streamlining processes, especially through electronic service delivery.

We're also working closely with the federal government in this area to streamline the registration process. We have something called the Joint On-line

Registration Pilot project, which allows a small business that incorporates federally to similarly apply for Ontario Registration at the same time. There are also a number of joint business centres

with the federal government which offer excellent resources for entrepreneurs across Ontario. This type of one-stop shopping frees up time and money and lets businesses concentrate on creating jobs

and investment in small towns and large cities across the province of Ontario.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, you can't pass off this

question to the minister of rural affairs, because the question is for you. This is the question and this is the 14th day in which you've been silent. Journalists, all kinds of people, have been

trying to get you to answer the question. Now I think I realize why you can't answer the question: it's because you really don't know the file. Here I have a deferral at the OMB. As you know,

you're deferring the appeals on the decision by the OMB related to the ward boundaries that the city of Ottawa has already undertaken. You signed this, but strangely enough I see some fingerprints

here of the minister of rural affairs.

My question to you is, is that the way you operate as a minister? You don't really take a look at what it means or assume your ministerial responsibilities;

you just sign it because he said you should. Is that the way you operate?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Despite the direction from the person asking the question that I not refer it,

I will refer it after this.

I understand that the people in Ottawa want to have a theory that Toronto is dictating everything in Ottawa, and it goes against your theory to even believe

that a minister from Ottawa would have responsibility for this file to protect the rural interests in Ottawa. You've got all kinds of conspiracy theories: a plan from Toronto to take over Ottawa,

and now you've even included fingerprints that you can somehow see on a letter, and that's a conspiracy.

Look, we're doing the best we can to make sure the rural residents in the Ottawa area are heard, that there's a proper process, and the Minister of Municipal

Affairs and Housing, rural division, is in charge of this file.

Mr Patten: I told you that you had to answer that, didn't I?

To the minister of rural affairs: when I asked you this question last week, you said there was plenty of time and plenty of opportunity for a review of this.

Is it your intent to resolve this issue before the end of December -- Elections Ontario is saying you must have recommendations in by that point, otherwise it would be too late, and the city of

Ottawa will be encumbered with some wards that will have five times the population of others. Are you prepared to stand up for that kind of injustice and that kind of discrepancy? Is that what you

want to see happen? Because the people of Ottawa will remember.

Hon Brian Coburn (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As the member opposite knows, it was a very real issue during the time

of amalgamation, and it is still an issue today, that there be proper representation from the rural communities in the Ottawa area, so much so that they launched an appeal to the OMB. There's a

deep amount of concern with respect to their representation being undermined at the council table.

We have had a stay in the proceedings in order to have a time out so they can discuss it. The offer has been made for our ministry to work with the appellants

in the case and with council to see if there can't be a solution to this so that the representation of the rural communities is not watered down and undermined in this process.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last month, I joined a large number of my caucus

colleagues at the International Plowing Match in Glencoe. At that event our government provided a major announcement relating to financial assistance for Ontario farmers. I recall that delivering

assistance as quickly as possible was a major priority. Minister, could you inform the Legislature and farmers across Ontario on any progress regarding the distribution of these funds?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'd like to thank the member from Nipissing for his question and his support of

agriculture in the province of Ontario.

I'm pleased to inform the Legislature that last week the first of approximately 50,000 cheques were delivered to Ontario farmers. As we have noted, financial

assistance represents Ontario's 40% of the federal share, and that's the first year of a two-year transition program that we promised to comply with. The short-term aid, of course, will assist

Ontario's agricultural industry as they make the transition to a longer-term approach where the risk management tools will be established by the federal government through the agricultural policy

framework.

Payments to grain and oilseed producers were made through the market revenue insurance information that we received, and that started to flow last week. We are

very proud that these dollars have gone out to the farmers, and we are sure they will be put to good use in the agricultural community.

Mr McDonald: Minister, your ongoing support for Ontario agriculture is well known by Ontario farmers.

I understand your ministry has conducted extensive consultations with Ontario farm organizations to determine the most effective method of distributing this

money. Could you inform the Legislature as to what farm groups requested and how our government is responding?

Hon Mrs Johns: We did do a lot of consultation. We worked very closely with the Ontario farm groups to ensure that we came up with the right

balance and the right method of payment. The agricultural community talked to us and said they needed a cash payment as opposed to something that went into a plan that may not be able to be

triggered. So of course the Ontario portion of the transition money was sent through direct payment. It was also based on a compendium program that we have in Ontario called the market revenue

insurance program, which best meets the needs of the agricultural community that was most in need: the grain and oilseed producers.

We put a little bit of dollars into the net income stabilization program because we wanted to make sure that every farmer in the province of Ontario benefited

from the program. So we think that's the most effective method and we certainly --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the minister. The time is up.

YOUNG OFFENDER FACILITY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Minister of Public Safety: my colleague Tony Martin from Sault Ste Marie tells me that community is

shaking its head in dismay at the prospect of you shutting down the only phase 2 young offender facility. That means that young offenders are going to have to be transported all the way to Sudbury,

How could you possibly contemplate shutting down that facility and using Sudbury as a base?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): I think this issue arose as a result of some media reports a week or so ago

that talked about the decommissioning of the Soo jail, which indeed has been contemplated for some time. The Soo jail per diem costs are in the neighbourhood of $250, when the average across the

system in the province is about $138 or $139 a day. So clearly this is a facility that we cannot contemplate keeping open.

Tied into this is the fact that the young offender facility is attached to the Soo jail, so I think there has been a conclusion reached that automatically the

young offender facility would move to Sudbury. I want to indicate that that is a possibility, but no final decisions have been taken.

USE OF COAT OF ARMS

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to bring to your attention a matter

that happened last night in Scarborough. There was a meeting that was attended by the member for Parkdale-High Park, and there were forms handed out at that meeting for the Ontario Provincial

Education Network encouraging people to join. To the left of that name on the form appears to be the coat of arms of the province of Ontario being used for a highly partisan activity.

I'd ask you, Speaker, to rule and report back to the Legislative Assembly on whether or not members can use the coat of arms of the province of Ontario for

partisan activities.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We'll check and see, if the member would give it to me, and we could talk to the appropriate member if something

hasn't been done.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's part of the 26,000-signature petition we have

with regard to Highway 69.

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

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

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

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

"Whereas many municipalities across northeastern Ontario have supported the four-laning of Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound, such as Sault Ste Marie and

Sudbury; 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;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Harris-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 of course affix my signature to this petition and give it to our page Nazir to bring it to the table.

DÉRÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) : J'ai une pétition ici qui comprend plus de 1 300 noms, ce qui voudrait dire

aussi que nous aurons atteint plus de 5 000 noms par la fin de la semaine.

« À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

« Attendu que le gouvernement Harris-Eves a déréglementé le marché de l'électricité ontarien le 1 er mai 2002

sans que cela ait fait

partie de ses programmes de 1995 ou 1999 et sans mandat de la population de l'Ontario;

« Attendu que le prix de l'électricité a atteint des niveaux outrageux, augmentant parfois de 100 % depuis le 1 er mai 2002

et causant de graves difficultés financières aux Ontariens et Ontariennes;

« Attendu qu'Ontario Power Generation (qui appartient au gouvernement de l'Ontario) a demandé à la Commission de l'énergie de

l'Ontario la permission de réduire de 20 % le rabais promis aux Ontariens et Ontariennes si le prix de l'électricité dépassait les 3,8 cents le kilowattheure...;

« Attendu que le gouvernement Harris-Eves a autorisé le versement de salaires et primes exorbitants de l'ordre de 2,2 $ millions par

année à l'ancienne présidente de Hydro One et au-delà de 1,6 $ millions par année au vice-président d'Ontario Power Generation;

« Nous, soussignés, demandons au gouvernement Harris-Eves de prendre des mesures immédiates pour faire en sorte que les Ontariens et

Ontariennes payent ce service essentiel qu'est l'électricité à un juste prix et demandons également que le gouvernement conservateur et son chef, Ernie Eves, déclenchent

une élection générale sur l'instabilité du marché de l'énergie pour ainsi donner aux Ontariens et Ontariennes la parole à ce sujet. »

J'y ajoute ma signature.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ernie Eves Conservative government has legislated the opening of the Ontario electricity market as of May 1, 2002, and the price per kilowatt hour

for electricity in the province of Ontario has nearly quadrupled since May 1; and

"Whereas Ernie Eves has done a poor job in educating the public as to the ramifications of an open electricity market in the province of Ontario and has done

little to punish the unscrupulous sales practices of door-to-door energy retailers; and

"Whereas the" Eves "government appointed the board of directors for Hydro One who approved exorbitant salaries and compensation packages for Hydro One

executives;

"Be it resolved that the Ontario government move immediately to protect our province's electricity consumers by addressing the serious generation problem in

Ontario, by punishing unscrupulous electricity retailers and by moving forward with a rebate to offset the increasing costs of electricity in Ontario."

Since I agree, I sign this document as well.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government led by the Harris-Eves Tories has severely damaged public education and created turmoil in our schools since they took office

in 1995; and

"Whereas the current Toronto-based education funding formula is broken when it comes to rural schools; and

"Whereas [community schools] are being threatened with closure; and

"Whereas rural schools are the heart and soul of their communities;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand" that the education minister "immediately address the funding formula in relation to rural schools

and place a moratorium on rural school closures."

I have signed this petition and give it to Pierre, a page from the riding of Elgin-Middlesex-London and a resident of Lambeth.

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 rate increases."

I have thousands of signatures in regard to this petition. This one is signed from persons from Tilbury and Pain Court. I hand it over to an excellent page,

Alex.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): These are further long-term-care petitions from Markham, Wiarton, Owen Sound, Mississauga,

Ottawa, Beamsville, Burlington, Sturgeon Falls, Kingston, Grimsby and Port Hope. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

effective August 1, 2002; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Demand that Premier Eves reduce the 15% increase on seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities and increase provincial government

support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I agree with it. I've signed it and I am now handing it to Matthew, our page.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ernie Eves government promised the people of Ontario that the opening of the electricity market would deliver lower hydro rates and improve

service; and

"Whereas hydro rates have risen 21% over the past five months since the opening of the market; and

"Whereas consumers have not been adequately informed about the unbundling of charges and therefore do not understand and cannot reconcile the charges shown on

their hydro invoices;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Ernie Eves government convene a legislative committee to oversee electricity issues in

order to inform and protect the public interest."

I am in full agreement and have signed my name to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

effective August 1, 2002; and

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

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

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

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

"Whereas this province has been built by seniors who should be able to live 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 his 15% increase on seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities and increase provincial government

support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I will very happily sign my name to this petition because I agree with it wholeheartedly. I will hand it to the page who is with me today, Michelle.

EDUCATION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): This petition is addressed to the Parliament of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to take an additional billion dollars out of the education system this year and every year; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has decided to hire uncertified teachers in kindergartens, libraries, for guidance, physical education, the arts, and

technology; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wishes to remove the right to negotiate working conditions; and

"Whereas the Ontario government will remove at least 10,000 teachers from classrooms across the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has become the sole decision-maker on class size, preparation time and the length of the school day; and

"Whereas the Ontario government proposes to take decision-making powers out of the hands of locally elected community-minded trustees;

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the government to repeal the Education Act and create an accessible, public, consultative process for

students, parents, teachers, and school board administrators to study alternate solutions that have universal appeal and will lead to an improved educational system."

Since I agree, I'm delighted to sign this petition as well.

HIGHWAY 69

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

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

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

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

Whereas in the last three years 46 people have been killed on that dangerous stretch of highway; and

Whereas so far this year, 10 people have been killed needlessly on that stretch of highway; 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 Harris-Eves government to begin construction immediately and

four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

Of course I affix my signature to this petition. I give it to Wade, our page, to bring it to the table.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): A petition to the Legislature 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...; and

"Whereas Union Gas will recover accrued costs over the peak heating season, causing undue hardship; and

"Whereas the retroactive charge will affect all customers, including new homeowners;

"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 retroactive increases."

This is signed by over a thousand constituents from all over the province, and I want to thank Mrs Janice Duskocy of Port Rowan for her efforts.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): I move that pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special

order of the House relating to Bill 149,

an Act to extend the red light cameras pilot projects to November 20, 2004 or for an indefinite period, when Bill 149 is next called as a government order,

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

which order may be called on that same day; and

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

amendment; and

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

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

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Galt has moved government motion 49. The minister has the floor if he wishes. No? Then, in the rotation, the

member for Chatham-Kent Essex.

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I'm pleased to rise and speak about the bill, but I'm not pleased to rise and talk about the fact that the

government is once again this afternoon cutting off debate, for the public should know that time allocation means for the opposition that they're taking our time away; they're ending our time for

debate.

I just want to contrast what has happened in recent times with the Harris-Eves government and what has happened in this regard in our past. For example, in the

Peterson majority government they passed 183 bills and time allocation was only used three times. In the Harris-Eves government, from June 1999 to July 2002, they've passed only 71 bills and time

allocation has been used 46 times. And since we have come back this fall they have invoked time allocation, taking debating time away from the opposition, six times.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Six.

Mr Hoy: Six this fall alone.

So the government once again, with its majority and its heavy hand, is saying, "The debate of issues, and in particular the red light camera issue, is over. We

want to end it."

We have this time this afternoon to make some comments, and I certainly want to make some brief comments, as do my colleagues, in terms of this time allocation

motion and the impact it might have.

This time allocation motion is being put in place on Bill 149, the Red Light Cameras Pilot Projects Extension Act, 2002. Some time ago there was a bill passed

that allowed for a red light camera pilot project to be used for red light cameras in proceedings concerning drivers who failed to stop at a red light and proceeded through the intersection before

the green light came on. This was done in 1998 and the legislation allowed for it to continue until November 2002. What this bill would now do is allow for an extension of two more years of the use

of red light cameras wherever they may be availed of and continue until 2004, unless the Lieutenant Governor were to repeal it before that date.

Surely, when it comes to safety on our highways, streets and roads, we want to ensure the very best for our public. And it seems that all too frequently people

have been running red lights in various areas of the province. So it would seem reasonable that this pilot project -- if indeed the government does not have satisfactory data as to the value of

these red light cameras, whether it's saving lives, protecting people from serious injury, we clearly should support the continuation so that we can fully assess whether this red light camera pilot

project should be made permanent.

The Canada Safety Council argues that the purpose of these cameras is to prevent collisions and not generate revenue or to punish persons, and I think that's

what all members in this House are concerned with: the protection of the public. Certainly I agree that the use of red light cameras can be an effective tool in ensuring that our public drives in a

safe and forthwith manner.

On the subject of transportation, I would like the House to also be reminded that I have a concern, and my constituents have a concern, about the abandonment

of railroads and how it will have a negative impact on local communities and economies and can affect the attraction of new businesses and industries to certain areas of this province. Not only

does the abandonment of railroads have an effect on those businesses and industries, it reduces the choice of transportation that persons and manufacturers might want to avail themselves of and

locate in various areas.

In my riding of Chatham-Kent Essex we have a very high incidence of heart, stroke and cancer. Our air quality in Chatham-Kent Essex is very, very poor on

certain occasions. I was actually quite astounded to learn that the small village where I come from, with a population of about 500 persons, has an air monitoring system nearby, and at times, in

this country setting of Chatham-Kent, in the little village of Merlin, we can have smog days that exceed that of metro Toronto.

So we believe, and I support the notion, that rail lines are an integral part of our gateway to southwestern Ontario. And it happens to be that there are many

embarked on a campaign to save a part of the Canadian Southwestern Railroad, 83 miles of track between a point west of Welland to St Thomas. This rail line is an important corridor. It links New

York, Boston, Toronto, Detroit and Chicago with ourselves. So I think we should ensure that we leave the options available to people when it comes to rail travel.

I find it quite interesting that the government has decided that it would embark on red light cameras. It embarks on taking pictures of licence plates to

collect tolls, but it will not support Bill 112 in its fullest and have it go to committee in a speedy fashion.

My Bill 112 would allow for bus drivers to identify the driver of a vehicle by licence plate. The government will allow for ticketing of persons through a

photograph of a licence plate at a red light camera situation and collects tolls. It'll collect money by taking a picture, a photo, of a licence plate. But on five different occasions, as I

introduced a bill to protect children while riding on school buses with the red lights flashing and having the bus driver identify the vehicle, an eyewitness account of the licence plate, it seems

that this government at the very least has been very slow, after second reading, with all-party support of this bill, in getting it to committee, in having a full and extended debate, in bringing

it back to this House and having the bill passed into law so that we can protect the 810,000 children who ride school buses daily on 16,000 buses. Obviously the police cannot follow 16,000 buses,

which may have one, two or three routes per day, so we need a conviction mechanism. We need a conviction mechanism so that we can protect these children. There have been 13 deaths and over 80

injuries by persons who pass school buses with the red lights flashing here in Ontario.

I have wide support for this bill, from all quarters; 30,000 names were presented in this Legislature in regard to the support for this bill. Police

associations support this bill. The Ontario School Bus Association supports it, the Canada Safety Council, the School Bus Operators' Association of Ontario, the Ontario Home and School Association,

the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario, the Ontario Farm Safety Association, Citizens for Responsible Driving, and countless municipality school boards, school bus operators and drivers, and

the public at large, who have signed petitions totalling 30,000 names.

Colleen and Larry Marcuzzi, and Ed and Ginny Loxton, both families lost daughters to someone who passed a school bus while the red lights were flashing. A

tragic, tragic event, that a young life would be taken away.

We need a strong deterrent so that the people of Ontario recognize and will understand that passing a school bus with the red lights flashing will not be

tolerated in Ontario.

Currently, the bus driver must identify the face of the person driving the offending vehicle. It is virtually impossible to see that face. First of all, the

bus drivers are watching their most precious cargo, that being the children, first and foremost.

Secondly, if the offending vehicle passes the bus from the back to the front, the bus driver only sees the back of one's head. Many of the vehicles today have

blacked-out windows, which makes it virtually impossible to see people inside.

The speed of the vehicle is also a factor in not being able to recognize the person who is driving. But school bus operators and school bus drivers have told

me they stand an excellent chance of recognizing the licence plate number. That is what my bill is all about: allowing the bus drivers to give an eyewitness account, not a photograph, of who passed

a school bus illegally, and they would be available for cross-examination. It's hard to cross-examine a red light camera or a camera taking a photo on the 407 to collect monies.

I urge the government to allow this bill, as it has passed second reading, to go to committee to have a full debate. We'll answer any and all questions members

in all parties might have. The support is real; it's been over countless years. I've introduced the bill five times. We persist with this bill because it's right for the children, and it's right

for those bus drivers and bus operators to know there's a strong deterrent here in Ontario that will stop this habit of passing school buses recklessly.

In my summation, I just want to say that those red lights flashing don't mean slow down and they don't mean pass the bus when you think it's safe; they mean

stop. In many cases, people will stop for railroad crossings. There are exceptions to everything, but in the main people will stop for railroad crossings. They will stop for stop signs. Apparently

we have some people -- a law was needed to have people stop at right lights on our streets. But for some reason, people take a dangerous attitude that they can pass a school bus when the red lights

are flashing.

I say to the government, let's give our bus drivers a chance to ensure that their precious cargo returns home safe. Bus drivers have told me they drive

white-knuckled, with not one car passing, not two, but as many as three in succession. A local TV station sent me film of this happening during an OPP blitz. They continued to pass. I've had

mothers hiding behind shrubbery in their yards filming people passing a school bus when the red lights are flashing. We have proof that it happens, the sad proof of deaths and injuries that have

occurred in Ontario.

I continue to work for those families and those school bus drivers who need Bill 112 to be passed into law. I know there are others who want to talk to this

time allocation motion, so I simply say, get this bill to committee, make it law and protect the children of Ontario who ride school buses.

Mr Marchese: I support this one-page bill. I think it's a good bill. I oppose strangulation motions on principle, but one has to accept that

governments have a job to do, and from time to time they'll bring in strangulation motions to strangulate debate. I understand why they do it. We just have to say that on principle we oppose them.

But we do support Bill 149, because it extends the ability of cities to implement red light cameras, which we believe are a matter of safety. It's true. But I can't help wanting to make some

comparisons with red light cameras and photo radar, because the two are almost intrinsically the same.

I want to bring you back, Speaker, because you were here, and bring on these four or five new Tories who are sitting across from me, because they weren't here

in 1993-94. Just for their entertainment, listen to some of the things Mike Harris, their former leader, used to say about photo radar. This is what the former Premier, Mike Harris, then leader of

the third party, asked with respect to the issue of photo radar: "My second question is to the Minister of Transportation. Late yesterday, your government brought in a motion to shut down debate on

your totalitarian" -- I can't believe he said that, but that's Mike Harris -- "Orwellian" -- I'm surprised he knows what the word means -- "photo-radar cash-grab legislation."

Then he said, "Why are you so desperate to ram this legislation through that you are not even willing to listen to any viewpoint other than your own?" -- to

the five Tories who are here listening to what I'm saying about what Harris used to say.

Our minister, Gilles Pouliot, then Minister of Transportation, answered, "You can attest better than anyone" -- speaking to the Speaker -- "that we have spent

a full five days debating this safety initiative...." I'll tell you, a full five days -- we used to spend weeks and weeks debating bills in this place.

The former leader of the third party called what Pouliot, the Minister of Transportation, did, ramming through this legislation, called it "totalitarian" yet,

"Orwellian" yet.

Then I wonder how this government could, in light of what your Premier used to say about photo radar, then introduce a bill that is about red light cameras,

which is similar in nature to photo radar. You understand, there is no difference. The principle is the same. You attach cameras here and catch illegal activity that's going on there -- a matter of

safety. Mike Harris said that our photo radar bill was totalitarian, Orwellian and cash-grab legislation. You go figure that. Premier Mike Harris, now gone, God bless his soul, spoke so vehemently

against photo radar, and then you people grab this red light camera bill. I say, why would you do that?

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): Then you're agreeing with Mike Harris.

Mr Marchese: It's not what I said. It's what Mike Harris said.

I want to know what some of the Tories say, particularly some of the new ones, what AL McDonald from Nipissing has to say about what Mike Harris used to say

about photo radar. I'm interested in your opinion. I told you what Mike Harris said. I want to know what AL from Nipissing has to say about those remarks. He called it totalitarian. Bill 26, which

your government introduced, a bill that would give municipalities, ministers, totalitarian powers to do literally anything they wanted was okayed by Mike Harris.

AL from Nipissing, when 80% of people across Toronto said, "We will not be amalgamated," your Mike Harris, the same