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

May 13, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-May-13 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 13 May 2002 Lundi 13 mai 2002

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER FOR

DUFFERIN-PEEL-WELLINGTON-GREY

REPORTS, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

ROYAL ASSENT

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

WEARING OF DAISIES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

SALVATION ARMY

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

HYDRO ONE

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

AND ENERGY

HYDRO ONE

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

NURSES

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT

(HYDRO TRANSMISSION

CORRIDOR LANDS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

(BIENS-FONDS RÉSERVÉS

AUX COULOIRS DE TRANSPORT

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

FAIRNESS IS A TWO-WAY STREET ACT

(MINERS AND FORESTRY

WORKERS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 PORTANT QUE LA JUSTICE

N'EST PAS À SENS UNIQUE

(MINEURS ET TRAVAILLEURS FORESTIERS)

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

KENNETH BRYDEN

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

LABOUR DISPUTE

FORMER PREMIER OF ONTARIO

HYDRO ONE

CHILD CARE

HYDRO ONE

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

HYDRO ONE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MUNICIPAL ELECTION FINANCES

MOBILITÉ DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

DANS LA CONSTRUCTION /

CONSTRUCTION LABOUR MOBILITY

PETITIONS

HYDRO ONE

CHILD CARE

HOME CARE

HYDRO ONE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Monday 13 May 2002 Lundi 13 mai 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER FOR

DUFFERIN-PEEL-WELLINGTON-GREY

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that during the adjournment a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by

reason of the resignation of David Tilson, as member for the electoral district of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, effective the second day of April 2002.

I beg to inform the House that during the adjournment a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of Michael D. Harris, as

member for the electoral district of Nipissing, effective the second day of April 2002.

Accordingly, I issued my warrants to the Chief Election Officer for the issue of writs for by-elections.

I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the Chief Election Officer and laid upon the table a certificate of the by-election in the electoral

district of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): I have a letter addressed to:

"Mr Claude DesRosiers

"Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

"Room 104

"Legislative Building

"Queen's Park

"Toronto, Ontario

"M7A 1A2"

It says:

"Dear Mr DesRosiers:

"A writ of election dated the third day of April, 2002, was issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario, and was addressed to Terry

W. Sutton, returning officer for the electoral district of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey in

the Legislative Assembly of this province in the room of David Tilson who since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey hath tendered his

resignation. This is to certify that, a poll having been granted and held in Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey on the second day of May, 2002, the Honourable Ernie Eves has been returned as duly

elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, dated the tenth day of May, 2002, which is now lodged of record in my office.

"John L. Hollins

"Chief Election Officer

"Toronto, May 13, 2002."

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): Mr Speaker, I have the honour to present to you and the House Ernie Eves,

member-elect for the electoral district of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims the right to take his seat.

The Speaker: Let the honourable member take his seat.

REPORTS, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that on February 8, 2002, the report of the Integrity Commissioner regarding the

Honourable James Flaherty, Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance, with respect to a one-time tax-free payment of $100 per child under age seven was tabled.

I beg to inform the House that on February 27, 2002, a request by the member for Eglinton-Lawrence for an opinion of the Integrity Commissioner, pursuant to

section 30 of the Members' Integrity Act, 1994, regarding the role of Mr Ernie Eves as Minister of Finance with respect to MPPs' pensions and compensations, was tabled.

I beg to inform the House that on May 6, 2002, the report of the Integrity Commissioner regarding the role of Mr Eves as Minister of Finance with respect to the

MPPs' pensions was tabled.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that on December 14, 2001, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, Her Honour the

Lieutenant Governor was pleased to assent to certain bills of the previous session.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour did assent:

Bill 155,

An Act to provide civil remedies for organized crime and other unlawful activities / Projet de loi 155, Loi prévoyant des recours civils pour

crime organisé et autres activités illégales;

Bill 98,

An Act to proclaim May as South Asian Heritage Month and May 5 as South Asian Arrival Day / Projet de loi 98, Loi proclamant le mois de mai Mois de

l'héritage sud-asiatique et le 5 mai Jour de l'arrivée des Sud-Asiatiques;

Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act to require the taking of blood samples to protect victims of crime, emergency service workers,

good Samaritans and other persons / Projet de loi 105, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé pour exiger le prélèvement d'échantillons de sang

afin de protéger les victimes d'actes criminels, les travailleurs des services d'urgence, les bons samaritains et d'autres personnes;

Bill 122,

An Act to conserve the Oak Ridges Moraine by providing for the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan / Projet de loi 122, Loi visant à conserver la

moraine d'Oak Ridges en prévoyant l'établissement du Plan de conservation de la moraine d'Oak Ridges;

Bill 125,

An Act to improve the identification, removal and prevention of barriers faced by persons with disabilities and to make related amendments to other

Acts / Projet de loi 125, Loi visant à améliorer le repérage, l'élimination et la prévention des obstacles auxquels font face les personnes handicapées et apportant

des modifications connexes à d'autres lois;

Bill 130,

An Act respecting community care access corporations / Projet de loi 130, Loi concernant les sociétés d'accès aux soins

communautaires;

Bill Pr3,

An Act to revive 1268519 Ontario Inc;

Bill Pr10,

An Act to revive 237661 Builders Ltd;

Bill Pr15,

An Act to establish the Sioux Lookout Meno-Ya-Win Health Centre;

Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa;

Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa;

Bill Pr25,

An Act respecting Nipissing University.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today I've laid upon the table a copy of an Order in Council appointing the

Honourable John Baird, the Honourable Bradley Clark and the Honourable Norm Sterling as commissioners of the Board of Internal Economy, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among

the members of the executive council, in the place of the Honourable Janet Ecker, the Honourable Rob Sampson and the Honourable Chris Stockwell.

WEARING OF DAISIES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month, and Nova Vita, a women's shelter in the riding

of Brant, has initiated a campaign called the Daisy of Hope Campaign. I seek unanimous consent for all members to wear the daisy for the month of May.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Unanimous consent? Agreed.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Residents in the East Lambton community of Alvinston would like to know what it would take before the

environment ministry of this province learns its lessons, post-Walkerton.

Less than a month ago, more than 20,000 litres of chemical fertilizer was spilled in Brown Creek near the Sydenham River, where Brooke-Alvinston draws its water

supply. There was no timely response from the Ministry of the Environment, even though they were notified immediately of the spill. The Ministry of the Environment waited three days before alerting

the municipality of that chemical fertilizer potentially affecting their drinking water. The mayor of the town had the foresight to shut the town's water supply immediately after he found fish

floating belly up. The ministry did not notify the townships for three days after this serious incident.

As we know, the fertilizer contains large amounts of ammonium nitrate, a dangerous flammable solid which can cause eye and skin irritation. This can cause severe

respiratory and digestive irritation. Now, post-Walkerton, two years later, this government's approach to environmental response pertaining to drinking water has not changed.

SALVATION ARMY

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to congratulate the Salvation Army on the occasion of the 120th anniversary of the launching of their

work in London.

The celebration held recently in London kicked off with a dinner attended by General John Gowans and his wife, Commissioner Gisele Gowans, the international

leaders of the Salvation Army. Saturday included a barbecue for all the public and a sod-turning for the new Centre of Hope, an $11-million project which will offer an array of programs and

services under one roof. The weekend concluded with a morning worship service of praise and proclamation followed by coffee with the general.

The Salvation Army has for many years served Canadians and the world. Services offered by the Salvation Army include acting as an emergency agency around the

world, willing and able to meet crisis situations wherever they occur; community and family services that operate year-round; Cross Zone youth shelters which offer a safe haven to youths aged six

to 21 years; addictions and rehabilitation centres that offer shelter, food and counselling to men, young and old, who have no place to turn; and correctional and justice services which offer a

wide variety of programs for those who are in the criminal justice system and support systems for the families of those incarcerated.

Services in London include the Bethesda Centre and the London Village, with whom my father worked for many years.

The Salvation Army and its supporters are people who make our country and world a better place. I know all members of the House will join with me in

congratulating them on their 120th anniversary in London.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): This morning the Minister of Health announced that this government will now fund treatment for

wet-type macular degeneration. Good for him. It's the right thing to do and it's about time.

The federal government and the other provinces have funded this and approved it for two years. The minister indicated that this was clearly the first priority

for the new Premier. It says volumes about the last Premier and this cabinet that it was put off this long.

But just a minute: this Premier was in the cabinet two years ago and in fact was Treasurer. There was absolutely nothing done at that time, a time when there was

a budget surplus. This Treasurer authorized lots of health advertisements, but there was no money for health care while seniors went blind. Over the last two years, seniors have had to make the

choice between going blind or going broke. They've had to borrow money, they've had to use up their life's savings or they've had to take mortgages on their house to pay to keep their eyesight.

The government is backdating this only to April 1. I implore the Minister of Health to revisit this issue and pay people who over the last two years have put

their financial health at risk to preserve their own eyesight.

Great for doing it this morning, but finish the job and do the right thing for the seniors of our province who paid taxes all of their lives and went blind

because of the indecision and procrastination over the last two years.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): Mr Speaker, first of all, I want to welcome you and all my colleagues from both sides of the House back to

the Legislature. I also want to congratulate Premier Eves on his leadership and by-election victories.

Since we were here last, the hottest topic of letters and calls to my constituency office, as well as among political commentators, has been the restructuring of

our electricity system.

During February, March and April I held three town hall meetings on this issue in my riding, at which Shane Pospisil, director of communications for the Ministry

of Energy, spoke about what he was doing and why.

These events, held in Listowel, Mitchell and Ilderton, were attended by more than 200 of my constituents. It seems that most people didn't understand what was

happening, why we were doing it or how it would impact them. However, once they heard the presentation and had their questions answered, I found most people seemed satisfied. That's not to say they

all agreed with our plan, but they seemed to accept that we were doing what we believed was best.

That satisfaction was in part because of the presenter. I want to take this opportunity to recognize Mr Pospisil for his ability to explain this complicated

issue and for his patience in answering questions. I understand he has since left the ministry, and I want to wish him well in his future endeavours.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

AND ENERGY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Who has seen Ontario's new Minister of the Environment? Word has it that the irrepressible perpetrator of

glib commentary and the master of the quick quip has not even visited the Ministry of the Environment since he was saddled with this unwanted and onerous portfolio several weeks ago.

Yes, we have seen him barnstorming the Ontario landscape, conducting make-believe hearings on the sale of the crown jewel of Ontario electricity, Hydro One.

Yes, we have seen him storm out of sham hearings when confronted with vehement opposition. Yes, we have even seen him try to wiggle out of the previously firm Eves position of peddling Hydro One

for no good reason.

But have we even seen an apparition of the newly minted environment czar at 135 St Clair Avenue West? If he has entered the premises, he must be using burglar

tools to get into a building that, by the way, appears to be for sale. Yes, incredibly, if we believe the signs, the Ministry of the Environment is for sale.

No glib assurances or witty quips to satisfy those who fawn at the humorous style of the bombastic Stockwell will satisfy the millions of Ontario residents

concerned about the appalling state of our environment. Ernie Eves has made a big mistake in piling the environment portfolio on a minister who is, predictably, beleaguered by the onerous

responsibilities of the energy and House leadership duties. This is a clear indication of the low priority the Premier places on the environment in Ontario.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Mr Speaker, as you know, this is the first day that we're actually back in the Legislature, sitting in

order to debate the issues before us here in the province of Ontario. There could be none more important than the issue of Hydro privatization.

You will know that our leader, Howard Hampton, and the rest of the caucus have been working hard on this issue, trying to get the government finally to

understand the little bit of common sense that trying to sell off an asset that's worth $10 billion for $5 billion ain't a good deal for the people of Ontario and, at the end of the day, is not

going to do anything in order to get to what their stated goal is, which is lower hydro prices.

It's interesting to note that last week, at a time when there was the lowest demand for hydro, the hydro rate on the spot market, through the new deregulated

mechanism, was 14.5 cents a kilowatt. That's up from 4.5 cents, just before May, before they opened the market.

Now that's a scary thought, because that means that at a time when Ontarians are not using power to the degree that they would in the summer or winter, the

daily price for hydro went to 14.5 cents. That is not even as high as we had predicated it was going to go.

We're saying to the government here and now that you don't have the right to privatize Hydro. You never campaigned on it. You never got the legislative

authority. The only way for you to do it is to call an election. We're saying here today in the Legislature that if you want to go out and privatize Hydro, have the guts to go to the people of

Ontario and call a general election over it, and then we'll see what will happen.

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): For the first time in our history, people of South Asian origin throughout Ontario are

celebrating May as South Asian Heritage Month and May 5 as South Asian Arrival Day.

While most South Asians came to Canada from India, many others came from such places as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa,

Mauritius, Singapore, Malaysia, Fiji, the United Kingdom, Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana.

Today, South Asians make up approximately 7% of Ontario's population and are proud to draw upon their heritage and traditions while contributing to many

aspects of culture, commerce and public service across our province.

South Asian Heritage Month is an opportunity to showcase the accomplishments and successes of the South Asian community. On May 2 this year I had the pleasure

of joining Ontario's Deputy Premier and Minister of Education, the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, Minister Brenda Elliott, Minister Tony Clement and 800 members of the Ontario South Asian community

at the very successful inaugural South Asian Heritage Month gala dinner organized by the members of the South Asian Heritage Foundation.

It is my pleasure to join with all members of this Legislature in recognizing May as South Asian Heritage Month. It is my hope that we use this opportunity to

enhance our understanding and appreciation of our rich culture, heritage and traditions as we work toward making Ontario and Canada the best places in the world to live, work and raise our

families.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): The members of the Liberal caucus have decided that from time to time I should have the

opportunity to talk a little bit about my experiences in observing the Tory leadership race, and today I want to report on one of my favourite moments. It was March 7 --

Interjection.

Mr Smitherman: Frank, you know I couldn't fit in the chicken costume.

However, on March 7 a few Tory caucus members -- John Baird, Tim Hudak and Jim Flaherty -- got together for a little homemade breakfast. They did this at a

little joint called Ernie's House of Waffles. Hudak, Baird and Flaherty donned aprons with their now-boss Ernie Eves's face on them and they served up pink waffles.

Here's what Jim Flaherty had to say: "Ernie Eves is attempting to be all things to all people. I had once thought Ernie had no policy, but now I see he does

have some policy. Problem is, they're different policies on the same issues.

"On the education tax credit, for example, Eves is saying one thing publicly and another behind closed doors and thinks no one is looking. When you say one

thing to one group of people and another thing to a different group, that's wrong. Voters in Ontario won't buy it no matter how slick the presentation may be." That was Jim Flaherty.

I couldn't agree more. Ernie Eves's position depends on whom he is talking to. He says one thing to his buddies on Bay Street and another to Ontario's

families. There is one thing that Jim Flaherty and I agree on: Ernie Eves will say anything to hold on to power. Ernie Eves has more positions than the Kama Sutra.

NURSES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to provide a brief report about my recent visit to Bowmanville hospital. Fortunately, this

was not in the role of a patient but as a participant in Take Your MPP to Work Day. This event was part of Nursing Week, which was May 5 to May 11. I would like to thank Kim Cearns of the

Durham-Northumberland

chapter of the RNAO for her invitation to visit Lakeridge Health Bowmanville last Friday. I'd also like to thank Chris Kooy, the chief operating officer of Lakeridge Health

Bowmanville, for giving me a tour of the hospital and the patients. I was pleased with the opportunity to meet staff such as Pat Obstfeld, a registered nurse in the pre-op clinic who took the time

to explain her many duties to me.

Nurses want MPPs to see first-hand their day-to-day responsibilities and working conditions. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with the front-line

professionals in their workplace. Take Your MPP to Work Day gave me a better understanding of the commitment and dedication RNs bring to their vocation, as well as the demands they face.

Health care is the number one priority for most Canadians. There are areas in the health care system that do require our continuing attention. Recently our

Premier's throne speech spoke to those needs with initiatives such as an expanded role for nurse practitioners.

Take Your MPP to Work Day has reminded me that we are very fortunate to have such skilled and caring front-line staff. We must ensure that we continue to

support them and thank them for their outstanding contribution.

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received a favourable report from the Commissioners of Estate Bills

with respect to Bill Pr1,

An Act respecting the Tilbury Area Public School and the William J. Miller Trust.

Accordingly, pursuant to standing order 86(e), the bill and the report stand referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I also beg to inform the House that during the recess and during the interval between the second and third

sessions, the Clerk received the 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th and 26th reports of the standing committee on government agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 105(e), the reports are deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Pursuant to the order of the House of December 13, 2001, I beg leave to present a report on Polaris from the

standing committee on public accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Crozier: It's my honour to present the report of the standing committee on public accounts on the Ministry of Consumer and Business

Services Polaris project.

Following an extensive review of the Polaris project, the standing committee on public accounts would strongly recommend that the Ministry of Consumer and

Business Services (1) reassess Teranet's estimation procedures for project costs and timetables, (2) implement improved accountability processes to ensure that relevant operational and financial

matters are brought to the attention of key ministry officials by Teranet on a timely basis, and finally, (3) review its management of the Polaris project and the 2001 committee hearings, focusing

on the problems encountered in providing the committee and the Provincial Auditor with access to relevant information in order to prevent a reoccurrence of these circumstances. Indeed, the ministry

should provide information as required under the Legislative Assembly Act and Audit Act on a timely basis.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Mr Crozier moves adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Pursuant to the order of the House of December 13, 2001, I beg leave to present a report on

pre-budget consultation, 2002, from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Beaubien: I would just like to acknowledge and recognize the members and staff and thank them for their co-operation and understanding

during our travels throughout the province.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT

(HYDRO TRANSMISSION

CORRIDOR LANDS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

(BIENS-FONDS RÉSERVÉS

AUX COULOIRS DE TRANSPORT

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

Mr Sergio moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 13,

An Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 to ensure that the transmission corridors remain provincial assets to be used for public transit,

recreational and similar purposes / Projet de loi 13, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l'électricité afin de garantir que les couloirs de transport demeurent des éléments

d'actif provinciaux devant servir aux fins des transports en commun, des loisirs et d'activités semblables.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): The bill amends the Electricity Act, 1998, to remove from the assets of Ontario Hydro or its successor the hydro

transmission corridor lands, which are to be held by the province for recreational, public transit and similar uses.

FAIRNESS IS A TWO-WAY STREET ACT

(MINERS AND FORESTRY

WORKERS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 PORTANT QUE LA JUSTICE

N'EST PAS À SENS UNIQUE

(MINEURS ET TRAVAILLEURS FORESTIERS)

Mr Ramsay moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 14,

An Act to prohibit Quebec residents from working in certain mining and forestry occupations in Ontario / Projet de loi 14, Loi interdisant aux

résidents du Québec d'exercer certaines professions minières et forestières en Ontario.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): The bill creates the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act (Miners and Forestry Workers), 2002. The new act

prohibits residents of Quebec from working in certain occupations in the mining and forestry industries in Ontario.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council may suspend the operation of the new act as it applies to a specified occupation if it is satisfied that the province of

Quebec no longer restricts the right of Ontario residents to work in Quebec in that occupation.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House

shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, May 13, Tuesday, May 14, and Wednesday, May 15, 2002, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1402 to 1407.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

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

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): Mr Speaker, our government

has zero tolerance for violence against women and children. It's a serious problem and one that concerns all of us. Every woman has the right to live and work in safety.

We are encouraged by our progress. The message is getting out: violence against women is a crime. We will continue to build on our relationship with shelters,

educators, legal advocacy programs and child care centres to support our front-line workers.

Every year thousands of children see or hear violence in their homes. These children are at risk and often continue the legacy of family violence.

Through our prevention programs, we are continuing to help children and young people to learn how to recognize the signs of an unhealthy relationship. We have

made substantial improvements to our system of supports for women experiencing violence; however, there is room for improvement, and we are doing just that.

In 2001-02, we spent over $145 million on programs and services to address violence against women and their children. This is an increase of 40% since

We are also working with the many community organizations and experts dedicated to preventing violence, supporting victims and educating Ontarians to end

violence against women.

This government has taken action to ensure that the justice system treats victims with the respect and the support they need. We are allocating $4.5 million in

funding over five years to create a crisis line for assaulted women, so abused women across the province will have access to 24-hour, seven-day-a-week crisis services.

We have also taken important strides to address domestic violence, including increasing the number of domestic violence courts. There will be 54 courts by

2004, providing enhanced prosecution of abusers by crown attorneys specially trained in domestic violence issues, providing support for victims and specialized processing of these cases.

We have also increased our shelter funding by $26 million over four years -- this was a new announcement last year -- to add 300 new shelter beds and to

refurbish 136 others, and we are providing new funding for counselling, which will grow to $9 million annually, for telephone crisis service and other shelter supports.

May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month on Ontario, a time when we shed light on a crime most people don't want to talk about, the crime of sexual assault.

Sexual assault is all too prevalent in our society. According to Stats Canada, one in three women surveyed nationally, or 39%, has been sexually assaulted. The

majority -- over 51% -- of sexual assaults are committed against women between 16 and 21 years of age. This means that by the time they reach adulthood, far too many women will have experienced

this form of violence. This is unacceptable.

The physical, emotional and psychological toll of these assaults on women is immeasurable. The impact on their families and on society as a whole is enormous.

Violence tears families apart, targets the vulnerable and destroys our communities.

That's why we proclaim May Sexual Assault Prevention Month, as a way to place much-needed focus on the issue and to reaffirm our government's commitment to

make Ontario safer for all Ontarians. We have developed a province-wide toll-free bilingual victim support line that offers referrals to victim services, information about the criminal justice

system and information about the status and scheduled release dates of offenders.

In addressing violence as a learned behaviour, we have developed a new feature on the Ontario Women's Directorate Web site called Let's Talk About It. Created

for young women and men, Let's Talk About It helps teens to learn how to recognize the signs of unhealthy relationships, identify potentially dangerous situations and learn what constitutes sexual

assault.

Working in partnership with our communities, we will continue our work to end violence against women. That is why today we stand in unanimous support of the

Daisy of Hope Campaign. A public awareness and education program dedicated to ending domestic violence, the Daisy of Hope Campaign originated, as was mentioned earlier in the House, at Brantford's

Nova Vita Women's Services several years ago, and I was there to launch this special announcement. It has since provided fundraising and public education opportunities for many women's shelters in

Ontario. We encourage our members to show their support by wearing the daisy pin and to break the silence by acknowledging the impact of violence on the lives of women and girls in communities

everywhere. Together we can make a difference by ending violence against women.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Violence and abuse against women is a serious issue. It can affect women regardless of age and

social or economic background. This government claims to be committed to ensuring that victims of violence get the help they need and deserve. Yet independent sexual assault crisis centres

throughout the province have been neglected by this Conservative government. Our assault crisis centres are delivering services at 1990 funding levels.

The emphasis on a law-and-order agenda by this government ignores the alarming 80% of women who do not, for many reasons, report on their assaults, and only 8%

of the victims' access fund has been spent to date. The first point of contact for most women in need of help is through their community-based sexual assault centres. Minister, I am telling you

today that these centres are struggling to provide outreach, counselling and education services.

We know that abuse in permanent relationships often starts in the dating years. Abuse against women is a serious problem among dating couples. One university

survey found that 11% of male students were physically abusive toward the women they were dating and 6% used severe forms of violence against their partner. More alarming is that date rape has the

lowest reporting rate of all forms of sexual assault, less than 1%. Ten days ago in Sarnia, 21-year-old Jessica was brutally killed. Her alleged murderer was her 24-year-old boyfriend. There was a

restraining order, but both the crown and the police did not want him released in December 2001.

When will this government take a tough stand and crack down on the very serious threat of date rape drugs? Today in Ontario, a woman who suspects she may be

the victim of a drug-induced rape can only be tested if she decides to get the police involved. We already know that less than 20% of victims go to the police. The government wants to drug-test

welfare recipients but will not permit tests for date rape drugs.

The most shameful record of this government was brought to light by the Provincial Auditor, who discovered that in one Toronto shelter alone 1,000 women

fearing domestic violence were turned away. In 1998, Hamilton taxpayers paid $5,000 to find emergency shelter in hotel rooms for abused mothers and their children. In 1999, that figure increased to

$37,000 and, in 2000, skyrocketed to $172,000. We are just beginning to see the disastrous and cumulative effects of cutting social assistance, social housing and social programs.

If we are to put an end to fear and violence, we need to educate young women and men. The character education initiative announced by my leader, Dalton

McGuinty, would go a long way in teaching both our sons and daughters about respect, responsibility, empathy, choices, courage and self-esteem.

In recent weeks, potential predators have come into our schools, ventured into the washrooms and waited for their prey: our children. This is nothing new, of

course, but with fewer caretakers and fewer secretaries in our schools, the incidents have increased. Let us keep in mind that victims of abuse often grow up to be abusers.

Kids are dating earlier today. As a parent, that concerns me, but it also allows parents and teachers more opportunities for teachable moments. We can teach at

home, and it should be supplemented in the school, that perverse power over another human being will not be tolerated. York region's character education program can be a model for the province on

teaching all our students to respect one another, whether they are boys or girls.

Sexual assault is a form of bullying. Abusers don't become this way overnight. Unfortunately, not all children learn the lessons of respect at home -- and yes,

that is where they should learn it -- but do we wash our hands of this responsibility when it doesn't occur at home? It truly does take a village to raise a child, and on this side of the House, we

take that very seriously.

We need to begin to tackle the root causes of violence in our society. We are all responsible for ensuring that violence in all its forms, against women,

children and men, is not tolerated. I join in wearing the daisy, a symbol of hope that we can put an end to fear and violence in this province.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Violence against women expresses itself in many ways, including sexual assault. Contrary to popular

belief, women and girls are more likely to be assaulted by someone they know than by a stranger lurking in the bushes. Some 69% of women who have been sexually assaulted are assaulted by men they

know; 38% of women are assaulted by their intimate partners, by their husbands, their common-law partners or their boyfriends. Contrary to popular belief, most sexual assaults occur in private

places.

We must recognize the women who work on the front lines of this issue, those who face the challenges head-on every day, those who continue to ask governments

to make the links between sexual assault, domestic violence and violence against women and who continue to ask governments to take action to prevent sexual assault and violence against women. We

recognize the work these women are doing, but if all the minister and this government do is recognize May as Sexual Assault Prevention Month, then not enough is being done.

Every year we hear representatives from this government say that violence against women will not be tolerated and then talk about the punishment that will be

meted out after the fact. The hard reality is this: preventing violence against women in all its forms requires more than words from this government and more than punishment; it requires preventive

action, and the action steps that must be taken have all been set out.

Two years ago we observed the death of Gillian Hadley, a mother of three who was sexually assaulted and murdered by her estranged husband. Her death was

followed with a coroner's inquest. The jury in that inquest made a series of recommendations for this provincial government to implement to help prevent such future tragedies. To date, there has

been no action on the recommendations coming out of the Gillian Hadley inquest, just as many of the recommendations from the May-Iles inquest of 1998 remain virtually unimplemented.

What do those inquests recommend? They recommend greater availability of shelter beds. They recognize that second-stage housing has to be made available. They

recognize that in too many cases across this province, because of this government's attack against the poorest, because of this government's cuts to social assistance, women who fear domestic

violence, women who fear sexual assault don't have the economic security to escape their situation. They have nowhere to go. They can't find an affordable place to rent. They don't have the money

to put food on the table or to look after their children. Those recommendations have been made over and over again, but those recommendations are sitting on a shelf gathering dust. Meanwhile,

women's safety, women's very lives are at stake.

In light of the recent rash of women who have been murdered by their partners or estranged partners, a rash of murders that echo the haunting events of June

2000 when Gillian Hadley was murdered, we demand more than words to end violence against women today. We demand action. Violence against women, sexual assault of women can be prevented. The

recommendations are there. It's time for this government to do something on the prevention side instead of always talking about punishment after these tragedies have happened.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent for each party to speak for

approximately five minutes regarding the passing of Kenneth Bryden.

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

KENNETH BRYDEN

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise today to pay tribute to Kenneth Brdyen, a member of this Legislature from 1959 to 1967 representing

the Woodbine area, who died on December 17, 2001.

Born in Ontario, the son of a Presbyterian church minister, he graduated from the University of Toronto in 1937. Two years later he attended -- on scholarship,

I may add -- Oxford University, where he obtained a degree in economics, returning to Toronto, where he obtained his master's degree.

During the Second World War, Mr Bryden worked as an economist with the federal government in Ottawa. It was then that he moved to Saskatchewan to join Tommy

Douglas's CCF government. As Deputy Minister of Labour, he drafted much of that province's present labour legislation.

At Queen's Park, Ken Bryden had a reputation as a ferocious critic, and it has been said that many were afraid to face him in this Legislature. Both his

friends and his enemies held him in high regard for his role in bringing about several important changes to both Canadian and Ontario politics, such as the creation of the New Democratic Party.

When the CCF joined forces with the labour movement to form the NDP in 1961, Mr Bryden drafted its constitution and also played an important

part in all major

party decisions.

During his years at Queen's Park, Mr Brdyen advocated for a provincial health insurance plan, fought for the province to pay for the construction of Toronto's

Bloor-Danforth subway line, opposed the planned provincial sales tax and introduced a bill to limit campaign spending.

Mr Bryden retired from politics at the young age of 49 years, but some say he really never, ever left politics. He continued to be very concerned with urban

affairs and was a naturalist and an avid bird watcher.

After leaving politics, Mr Bryden earned a PhD from the University of Toronto and later joined its staff, teaching political economics until he retired in

Mr Bryden leaves his wife, Marion, of 47 years.

On behalf of the government of Ontario and the PC caucus, let me express my sincere condolences to Marion and family, and let me express my appreciation for

his contribution to our province and our country.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): On behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal caucus, I want to join the previous

speaker in offering our condolences, particularly to the Bryden family and most especially to Marion.

My friend Mr Sterling, Mr Bradley and some others will remember that the late Ken Bryden's wife, Marion, served here as the member for Toronto Beaches from

1975 until her retirement in 1990. It was when Marion was here that I had an opportunity to meet Ken on a few occasions. I was not here when Ken Bryden served in the 1959-67 period, but he

certainly did have the kind of reputation that Mr Stewart's very fitting words highlighted. My colleagues who served with him remembered Ken Bryden as an extremely vigorous, lively debater in just

the ways that have been indicated.

He could, I must say, not only be a fairly direct critic of the government, but at least on one occasion made a very telling observation about his colleague

Stephen Lewis. Ken Bryden was one of those New Democrats in 1977 who was not very happy that the 40-year-old Stephen Lewis took his leave at what appeared to be the cusp of real opportunity for the

Ontario New Democratic Party. As I recall, Mr Bryden said at the time, "Stephen arrived in the leadership too soon, and he has left too early."

He was a man of real intelligence and commitment, not just to the NDP provincially but, as has been indicated, Ken Bryden from the late 1930s through till

almost the end of his life played an extremely important role in the democratic socialist movements not just of this province but of the country. He was, as was indicated, a deputy minister in the

first CCF government of Mr Douglas in Saskatchewan. He played a very important role in the CCF-NDP here in the late 1940s through the 1950s. He was elected in 1959 and left for the Elysium of

academe in 1967.

He was part of a group -- Jim Renwick, Stephen Lewis, Don MacDonald -- who certainly gave the NDP, and the CCF as it was for some of that time, very real clout

and influence in this place.

I was just thinking that in the history of the Legislature we've had a number of parent-child members. We've had Harry and Bob Nixon, we had Allan and Larry

Grossman, we had Elie and Shelley Martel. I can think of only two husband-and-wife combinations who were here, not at the same time: Ken Bryden, succeeded later by his wife Marion, and in the 1960s

one of Ken's very distinguished colleagues, Jim Renwick, served for a time with his wife Margaret, who was a member for Scarborough Centre while Jim was a downtown member here in Toronto.

So the Brydens have certainly had an important impact on the public life of this province, and I want to say, as a former colleague of Marion, that we, as the

Liberal caucus, want to convey our sympathy to her and the family.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Thank you. I missed Howard and Shelley. I'm sorry. How did I do that? I apologize. The Martel dynasty has tentacles in more

directions than even I can recall.

But I want to say seriously to Marion and to her family that we remember Ken's contribution with fondness and we extend to her our sympathy and our

condolences.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I too want to say a few words to recognize the contribution of Ken Bryden. I got to know Ken Bryden at

a fairly young age. When I was still a high school student, a university student, I would attend NDP conventions, and I was always struck by this one fellow who during the course of an afternoon of

debate would be at the microphone at least half a dozen times shouting, "Point of order, Mr Chair, point of order." I couldn't believe that somebody was that much into debate and discussion that

they were almost constantly challenging the Chair. That was my first introduction to Ken Bryden: someone who knew all the rules backwards and forwards and believed you should use the rules whenever

you can to get your point of view across. I think we could all learn something from him in this place.

The second time I met Ken Bryden was before I was ever elected. I was a teacher, and I was living in what was then the riding of Beaches-Woodbine, and the

former Premier, William Davis, called a surprise election in the spring of 1977. Apparently someone had presented him with an opinion poll that said, "If you call an election now, you'll win a

majority and escape the minority government situation that you're currently in." So Davis called a surprise election.

I had come home from school this day and was actually packing my luggage, and there was a knock at the door. First it was Marion Byrden -- if you knew Marion,

Marion wouldn't let you get a word in edgewise -- handing you a leaflet and insisting that you had to vote for the candidate for Beaches-Woodbine, which of course was her. Then Marion left and Ken

came to the door. Of course, Ken was the organizer, and he wanted to know if you'd put up a sign and if you'd work on the campaign.

So I spent two minutes trying to say to Marion that I was taking a leave of absence from my job. I was going to where I grew up to be a candidate there, but

Marion didn't hear a word of it. Finally, after about two minutes of asking me if I'd take a sign, if I'd contribute, if I'd work on the campaign, Ken suddenly recognized what I was saying to him,

that I was leaving to be an NDP candidate myself. He said, "What are you doing here? Get out of here." He was the ultimate organizer. You could not move in the riding of Beaches-Woodbine without

seeing the organizational efforts of Ken Bryden.

But he was also in his lifespan an incredible public servant. Anyone who reflects upon the achievements of the CCF-NDP government under Tommy Douglas in

Saskatchewan, the incredible legislative measures that were introduced, the introduction of medicare, as we now know it -- Ken Bryden was one of those people who contributed specifically and

generally to all of that.

Finally, he was an academic, and a very respected academic, at the University of Toronto. If you studied public finance or if you studied at all the

intersection of economics and public life, Ken Bryden was there, teaching, writing, researching.

He was also an incredibly generous individual. I have to tell you, during the period of the NDP government from 1990 to 1995, every cabinet minister, indeed

every backbencher, would receive missives from Ken Bryden indicating what should be done on labour law, what should be done in health care, what should be done on a whole number of fronts, all

areas he had researched extensively. But he would often make sure as well that he contributed generously to campaigns, and he would search out candidates to make financial contributions to. In

fact, following the 1999 provincial election -- in my riding, we always fundraise before the election and after the election -- I happened to be in my constituency office one morning and the phone

rang. There was a very abrupt voice at the other end: "Hampton?"

"Yes?"

"It's Ken Bryden here. How much money do you need?"

Of course, I said, "Ken, however generous you feel."

About four or five days later, Ken Bryden sent a cheque for $100.

He was an amazing individual who seemed to keep constant touch with virtually everything that was happening across the province. To anyone who reflects on his

life as a member of this Legislature, his life as a public servant, his life as an academic, his life as a community organizer, not just in Beaches-Woodbine but in Toronto as a whole, and his life

committed to his wife, who was also an MPP, he was really quite an amazing individual. I can say, I think, that all of Ontario is richer as a result of the kind of contribution Ken made.

Our condolences to Marion and to all those who knew and were close to Ken Bryden in his life. He was an incredible individual, and I wish there were more like

him.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I will ensure that the kind words are sent out to the family.

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I request unanimous consent for an emergency debate opposing the

sell-off by this government of Ontario's public hydroelectricity system. At long last, there should be a debate before the government makes any further moves.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought it would be appropriate, and I seek unanimous

consent, to offer a few remarks upon the Premier taking his seat today for the first time.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr McGuinty: I am very happy to be able to take this opportunity to welcome the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey back to the

Legislature. Enjoy this one, Ernie.

The rigours of private life were obviously a little taxing. I just want to let him know that he is back among friends. I hope no one takes particular offence

at this, but the fact is that life in opposition isn't all that lucrative. We're not made of money. Our caucus all chipped in when this guy left, and we bought him a toaster. We want the damn thing

back.

Premier, congratulations. Congratulations on winning your recent by-election. Congratulations also on your successful race to replace the last Premier and

become our new Premier. I hope to do the same thing myself shortly. While I'm at it, congratulations to all in your caucus who sought the leadership. Through your tireless efforts, you have served

your party well. Now, through your record of criticisms of your government, you will all serve my party well.

Premier, you have returned to public service. You knew what you were getting into, and still you returned. Politics, as you well know, can be a thankless,

all-consuming, gruelling and exhausting job. But it can also be the most rewarding job in the world. Your job of Premier bestows on you the wonderful privilege of being in a position to make life

better for some 12 million Ontarians. Draw strength from the knowledge that what you do is important and very worthwhile. As you carry out your responsibilities, draw strength as well from your

loved ones. They, more than anyone else, will sustain you.

It has been my pleasure to get to know Isabel when she served in government. She is a fine person. You're lucky to have her on your side. For the life of me, I

can't understand what she sees in you. But you are lucky to have her on your side.

You have spent the past few months travelling this province, as have I, Mr Premier. You know, as do I, that the people of this province are concerned. There

will be time enough for partisan debate in this Legislature. For the time being, let me say this: this great province of ours needs us, needs every single person in this Legislature, to move it

forward; not left, not right, just forward.

There's going to be an election in this province in a year or so. Between now and then, we both have a job to do. We on the opposition side must hold you

accountable for how you govern. You must hold yourself accountable for how you govern.

Premier, you have a majority. In the end, just how accountable your government is to the people of Ontario depends heavily on you. You are the Premier of a

province I care a great deal about. I expect that you will govern it fairly and with respect. As long as you do that, I will give you whatever help and support that I can, because that's my job. If

you fail to do that, I will put as many roadblocks in your way as I possibly can, because that too is my job.

As their Premier, Ontarians need your unwavering commitment to serve the public interest. They need your integrity. You are here to serve this province. I

respect that, and I respect you for it.

I want to wish you the very best of luck in your new job. Congratulations, Premier.

Mr Hampton: We were a bit concerned last week when the now member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey was not able to take a seat. We were a bit

concerned because the truth of the matter is that we have all missed him while he has been away. So we want to welcome him back, but I want him to know specifically why we missed him.

Many times we wanted to ask questions about Highway 407, but since he was not here to answer, we really couldn't ask him; now we can. Many times we wanted to

ask questions about the lease of the Bruce nuclear station, but since he was not here, there was no sense in asking the question; now we can.

We understand that some, even some within his own caucus, wanted to ask questions about the MPPs' pension scheme, but we couldn't ask. I'm sure some will ask

some of those questions now.

So I want to welcome Mr Eves back to the Legislature. What is particularly important from our perspective is that we know you can ask any question you like of

the Premier. At no point can the Premier say, "That is not within my ministerial purview."

Of course, we would also like to know some other things, now that Mr Eves is back. We would like to know what you were doing during your eight- or nine-month

sojourn on Bay Street. Of course, I expect many of those questions will be raised as well.

Interjection.

Mr Hampton: I just heard one of your backbenchers say, "None of those things are any of your business." I expect that the people of Ontario

will, of course, want to know answers to those question.

We want to wish you well. We want you to know that we are prepared to work with you and work with your government in terms of accomplishing some of the very

positive steps that have been outlined that need to be taken. But we also want you to know that, in a role as opposition, we intend to continue to ask those questions, some of which I've already

outlined for you today.

No doubt you're in a hurry to respond to those questions, so I would not want to intrude any further into question period time. We welcome you back to the

Legislature, and we look forward to having the opportunity to review and participate in the agenda you put forward and most of all to improve upon that agenda when we find that it is a little short

of the direction that we think is required.

Congratulations on your re-election to the Ontario Legislature.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): On behalf of all of my colleagues in the House here, I would like to extend a

very warm welcome to our new Premier, Premier Eves. I know I speak for everyone when I say that we're quite delighted and thrilled that he has chosen to return to politics in order that he can best

serve the needs of the people in the province of Ontario.

I've known Mr Eves since I was elected in 1990, and I can certainly attest to the fact that he has always been most respectful of other people and their

opinions, he has always taken the time to listen and to consult and then to take very decisive action. Personally, as I travel this province, I'm hearing very positive comments about the optimism

and hope that I'm seeing. So, congratulations to Mr Eves on his return.

The Speaker: The Premier of the province of Ontario.

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It's great to be back, Mr Speaker. It seems like I never left. I would say to

the leader of the official opposition, I sure hope that toaster works on waffles. We toasted a few during the leadership campaign. I would say, through you, Mr Speaker, of course, to the leader of

official opposition, Isabel's always spoken highly of you, Dalton.

It's really great to be back here. I had missed the leader of the third party and his interjections and his somewhat un-subjective, very subjective, points of

view on different opinions, but at least he has a point of view on some subjects. I look forward to entering into those debates, not only about the subjects he mentioned here today but others as

well, although I must say that I do prefer your singing, Howard, to some of the remarks made here today.

I think you've both pointed out a very important fact of public life. I've sat on both sides of the Legislature for approximately 10 years each. I would say to

both of you that it is much better over here on this side of the House. However, I think the leader of the official opposition is quite right: everybody in this place, all 103 of us, have a role to

play in taking the province of Ontario forward. I would hope that I have the opportunity to demonstrate over the next year and more -- and more, I would add again to the sentence I just said --

responsible and responsive leadership and government to the people of Ontario. The people, regardless of which party they vote for, which candidate they vote for, have placed their trust in their

elected representatives, and it's up to each and every one of us every day to earn that trust and keep on re-earning it for the people of Ontario, and we aim to do exactly that.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is to the new Premier. On the subject matter of Hydro One, you cannot

pretend not to be hearing the overwhelming and widespread concerns being expressed about your plans and the plans of your government to introduce some kind of privatization in one shape or form or

another with respect to Hydro One. You've had the opportunity to receive the e-mails, to read the e-mails, to read the letters, to listen to your own backbenchers and to, I'm sure, receive

telephone calls from very concerned Ontarians. In short, families, and even many, many businesses, don't want you to sell Hydro One, they don't want you to lease Hydro One; they consider it to be

their Hydro One and they want it kept in public hands. Knowing all this, and claiming as you do now that you are a good listener, will you now listen to the people of Ontario and give up any plans

to privatize Hydro One in any shape, way or form?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Leader of the Opposition complained vociferously on several occasions

that he wanted the government to listen to the people of Ontario. Now that the government is listening to the people of Ontario, he's complaining about that.

There are some very important objectives to be obtained here, and it's the objectives that are the important thing at the end of the day. There has to be a

reasonable-cost supply of energy for the people of Ontario for many generations to come. Surely, that is the first and foremost goal that should be on the minds of all Ontarians, regardless of

their political stripe.

Obviously, the $38-billion debt that the old Ontario Hydro built up over many generations has to be dealt with and there has to be an orderly plan to retire

that debt. There has to be significant investment in infrastructure for hydro generation and for hydro distribution and wires for many decades to come, and there has to be protection for the

consumer. And bearing in mind those four objectives, the government will listen --

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

Mr McGuinty: I want to come back to this matter of your commitment to listening. You tell us that you have a genuine and sincere interest in

listening. Well, how can you, at the same time as you propose to listen, be launching an appeal in court so that you can overturn the judge's decision that said you can't go ahead with the sale of

Hydro One? How is it you intend to introduce a bill here, notwithstanding, so that you can sell off Hydro One, all along claiming that you are listening?

Either you are listening or you are not. If you are listening, then you do the right thing: put this whole business of Hydro One on ice until the next

election, and then you'll listen to the people in a real and genuine way when they get a chance to vote and to speak on this in a real way. Will you do that, Premier, put it all on ice until the

next election?

Hon Mr Eves: Speaking of listening, the leader of the official opposition obviously hasn't heard a word I just said. Just because you have a

very certain opinion from day to day on this subject, I say to the leader of the official opposition, you might want to wait to see what comes out of the public consultation process, what direction

the government is going in and what the legislation says before you criticize it. You may be clairvoyant, but you might want to give us the courtesy of at least seeing what those things have to

say.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, listening is not hard to do. It is hard to do from the 61st floor of Bay Street, but it's not hard to do when you're on

the ground and you're talking to families and small businesses. I've been doing a lot of listening on this issue. Families and businesses are saying the same thing virtually unanimously. They don't

want you to sell off their Hydro One. They understand perfectly that to convert a natural public monopoly into a private monopoly is not in their interests. They understand that there's only one

electricity highway which delivers electricity into their homes and into their businesses.

It may suit you and your pals on Bay Street to sell off Hydro One, but it's not in the interests of Ontario families and Ontario small businesses. So why don't

you listen to those people? They've been saying this for quite some time now. Why not do the right thing? Do the easy thing, Premier: put it all on ice until the next election and let Ontarians

have a real say.

Hon Mr Eves: How can the leader of the official opposition criticize a plan when he doesn't even know what the plan is? We are consulting with

the people of Ontario exactly as you asked us to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Eves: The party of the honourable members opposite has consistently asked that the government listen to the people of Ontario. That is

exactly what we're doing. They can't take yes for an answer. We're consulting with the people of Ontario, we're going to continue to consult with the people of Ontario, and after we have consulted

with the people of Ontario and listened to what they're going to have to say, then it may or may not be fair for you to criticize the direction the government is going in. As usual, don't confuse

you with the facts; your mind is made up before you even know what the facts are.

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I have a question on the same subject matter to the Premier. You know, Premier, if you would just lay out specifically what you

want to do with Hydro One, it would be a lot less confusing for everybody in Ontario. At some point in time, Premier, you're going to have to come to a landing when it comes to Hydro One. You're

going to have to make a decision. You're in the big chair, you're getting the big bucks; now it's time to make a decision.

I'm giving you the best advice I can. Do the right thing: take Hydro One; put it on ice. It's bad public policy. It's bad politics. Do what families and small

business want. Put it on ice until the time of the next election. That's the best advice I have for you, Premier. Stand up now. Take a position on Hydro One. Tell us what you're going to do with

Hydro One.

Hon Mr Eves: I may be mistaken, Mr Speaker, but I didn't hear a question in there; I heard a great speech.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I can understand your reluctance to offer any commentary whatsoever on the matter of Hydro One, because your

believability and the believability of your government is at issue here.

Some time ago, in fact in June 1998 during the debate on the Energy Competition Act, your then-Minister of Energy, Jim Wilson, said, "We do not want a fire

sale, so we're not talking about privatization. One of the reasons we're not talking about privatization is my dream for Ontario Hydro is that once again it will begin to return a healthy profit

back to the shareholder, and that shareholder is the people of Ontario."

Why is it, Mr Premier, back then you would have us believe that you had no intentions whatsoever to privatize Hydro One, to sell off Hydro One, but today you

are doing something completely different with your plans, the details of which you are unable to make forthcoming here today, to do something by way of privatization to Hydro One? Why is it that we

should believe you today when you're telling us that we couldn't believe the then-Minister of Energy, Jim Wilson, some three years ago?

Hon Mr Eves: It would appear that Mr Wilson isn't the only one who may have had a different opinion in 1998 and other times. You've said that

you're in favour of partnerships many times, in favour of generation and the transmission of power, and now you're against it.

How can --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Eves: "And transmission," I said, to the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the Premier take his seat. Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: If the leader of the official opposition would just let the government continue with its consultation process, to hear what the

people have to say --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: They don't want us to consult with the people of Ontario. They yip and yap and complain and criticize we're not consulting with

the people of Ontario, and then when you consult with the people of Ontario, of course they don't want that because Mr McGuinty is smarter than everybody else and he's got the right solution.

Mr McGuinty: Let me tell you how bad it is when it comes to the believability issue in this government. The government filed on Friday last an

appeal of the decision rendered by Mr Justice Gans, and I want to quote to you from a particular passage of it. It's just a very brief sentence. It says, "The minister's statements" -- those are

the very statements I read a moment ago wherein the minister said that privatization was not on the table. This appeal says, and this was filed by the government, "The minister's statements are not

indicative of legislative intent and should be given no weight."

The government is telling us that a statement made by a minister of the crown during a very important debate over the restructuring of Ontario Hydro is to be

given no weight. That's zero, that's nada, that's nothing.

Can you tell me, Premier, if you yourself, through your lawyers, have filed a document in court telling us that your minister's statements made in this

Legislature are to have no weight, why is it that we should attach any credibility, any believability whatsoever, to your statements and anybody else's in the government when it comes to the future

of Hydro One?

Hon Mr Eves: The document that was filed by the Attorney General of the province of Ontario --

Interjections.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): It's off the table till after the election.

Hon Mr Eves: I say to the member for Vaughan-King-Aurora, I know he's frustrated at not being the leader of his party, but your day will

come.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Premier. I can understand the Premier's surprise that Liberals have suddenly

discovered that Hydro privatization is an issue. But, Premier, I'm not surprised. I've been to over 90 communities across this province, and they're unanimous in their opinion: "Don't sell off our

Hydro." In fact, over 20 municipalities representing over five million people --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat, please. I hate to interrupt, but I can't hear, particularly when the members shouting at

him are so close.

We'll just wait till everybody is quiet so he can ask the question.

The leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I didn't know Liberals were so opposed to questions being asked about Hydro privatization. You know yourselves that public opinion

polls show that 70% of the people in this province are opposed to Hydro privatization. Over 20 municipalities representing five million people have passed resolutions opposing Hydro

privatization.

You also know you have no mandate. All you've ever mentioned was some obscure term called "competition." You've never gone straightforward and said to the

people, "Do we have a mandate to privatize Ontario's hydro system?"

So it seems to me, Premier, that you have two choices: you can either listen to the people and cancel your dirty deal to sell off our Hydro, or you can call an

election and let the people have a say. Which is it going to be, Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: If the leader of the third party had been paying attention during the earlier part of question period, the government of Ontario

is listening to what people have to say. The minister has held hearings in 10 cities already. He's listened to well over 50 groups which have presented their proposals suggestions and thoughts to

him. We will continue to consult with the people of Ontario through a legislative committee, and we will listen to what the people of Ontario have to say. I would suggest to him that he wait until

he finds out the direction in which the government is going, with the public's advice, before he takes a position on the matter.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you mentioned your minister's public hearings. I attended more of those so-called hearings than the minister did. In

fact, your minister was really running private audiences. Some selected people, mostly investors who hope to make money out of Hydro privatization, were invited to speak. Other people who wanted to

ask the question, "What happens to my hydro rates?" were told they were not welcome.

Premier, it comes down to this: we know that Bay Street wants Hydro privatized, we know that Bay Street has calculated they can make a lot of money buying up

generating stations, buying up Hydro One and then selling more of the electricity into the United States at higher prices, but we also know that as soon as they can establish those export markets,

the next piece will be that they will want Ontario consumers to pay that much higher a price.

The question is this: are you going to listen to the people of Ontario, who are telling you, "Don't sell off our hydro system," or are you going to listen to

your friends on Bay Street?

Hon Mr Eves: The 10 centres the minister went to in his consultations, heard views from unions, professors, private citizens, utility

businesses, associations, politicians, labour councils, seniors, school board associations and business associations -- it was not exactly, as he would lead one to believe, a series of invited

guests. There were many diverse opinions from across the broad cross-section of the people of Ontario, and that is exactly how the public consultations will continue in the future.

Mr Hampton: But the important question is, are you going to listen to the 70% of Ontarians who are saying, "Don't sell off our hydroelectric

system, don't sell off an essential public service, don't sell off our most important public asset, don't sell off our fundamental economic advantage in this province"? That's the question.

People aren't really interested in whether you talk to your Bay Street friends once, twice or seven times. What they want to know is, are you going to listen

to them, the 70% of Ontarians who are saying this is a bad deal? Are you going to listen to them and cancel this deal, or are you going to call an election and let the people have their say

directly? You need to answer that question, Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: I know that the leader of the third party has his mind made up on this issue. He knows exactly where he wants to go on this

issue. We want to find out from the people of Ontario what they have to say about various alternatives about the future of Hydro. Surely the important things are, do we have a future supply of

electricity in this province for many generations to come at a reasonable cost, are we going to be able to deal with the serious debt of $38 billion that the old Ontario Hydro allowed to accumulate

over many decades, are we going to provide for the necessary capital infrastructure for electric power in this province as we go forward, are we going to protect the consumer? We aim to do every

one of those four things as we go forward.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: Premier, I'm going to send this submission over to you. This submission is from Professor Myron Gordon, who is a world-recognized

expert in terms of hydroelectric utilities. He's a world-recognized expert in terms of the valuation of them and in terms of setting hydroelectricity rates. He wanted to make this submission to the

Minister of Energy, but the Minister of Energy just argued with him.

His point is this: if you look at Hydro One, he says it is worth $9.2 billion. Now, we understand that your government would be prepared to sell Hydro One for

$4 billion or $5 billion -- in other words, half price. Professor Myron Gordon says it's worth $9.2 billion. Who is telling you that it's only worth $4 billion or $5 billion and that you should

sell it for $4 billion or $5 billion? Who do you have? Enron?

Hon Mr Eves: I'm sure there are different individuals who have different ideas and opinions about what Hydro One is worth, either through an

IPO or through other methods. I note that he's quoting Professor Myron Gordon. He doesn't talk about his former Bob Rae government's good friend Maurice Strong -- I believe you were the Attorney

General in that government -- and what his opinions are about the future of Hydro One. I thought you might want to mention him, seeing as how you people thought he was the person who should lead

Hydro and you obviously value his opinion on the future of electricity in the province of Ontario. I find it surprising you didn't quote him.

Mr Hampton: I'm more interested in Myron Gordon, who is a world-recognized expert. My point is, Professor Gordon says that Hydro One is worth

at least $9.2 billion, and yet we know your government has been entertaining selling it off for $4 billion, possibly $5 billion. I want to know, where is your expert opinion that would support

selling off one of Ontario's most important public assets for basically half price?

As for Maurice Strong, yes, it was Maurice Strong's opinion seven years ago that Hydro should be privatized. I was part of a government that said, "No, we're

not going to sell off Ontario's most important public asset."

The question for you to answer is, if Hydro One is worth $9.2 billion, why is your government entertaining offers to sell it for half price?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, we're not entertaining offers to sell it. But I think I've heard here, just in the last few minutes, the leader of

the third party saying, "If you're going to sell it, at least get the right amount for it," and you're now debating the price. Are you in favour of selling it or are you not in favour of selling it

or are you in favour of selling it at a different price?

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. You will know that today I sent, on behalf of our caucus, a letter

to you requesting formally a public inquiry into the shooting death at Ipperwash. Part of that letter included a powerful new memo showing the serious conflict between the Premier -- and it's

actually a dramatic illustration. Premier: "Removal NOW"; OPP: "Removal Later." The memo goes on to say that the issue is the "political direction of [the] OPP." It gets to the root of one of our

major concerns about Ipperwash, and that is inappropriate political involvement in the policing affairs at Ipperwash.

Premier, will you today finally allow us to bring some closure to this issue and allow for there to be a public inquiry around the events surrounding the

shooting death at Ipperwash?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I have said on numerous occasions that at the end of the civil lawsuit

proceedings into Ipperwash, it may well be appropriate to call for a public inquiry into the Ipperwash tragedy. But until those civil proceedings are completed, I don't believe it's appropriate for

the government to call for a public inquiry, and that point of view has been supported by the Ontario Provincial Police Association.

Mr Phillips: Today a law professor at the University of Toronto, Patrick Macklem, in quite a detailed brief that he made public, indicated why

a public inquiry is the appropriate route and why a civil case is the inappropriate route.

I want to raise another issue, raised in today's memo that I sent you, which raises serious concerns about political involvement. The OPP in this memo says,

"reluctant, since it appears to be a land dispute," that there is a "colour of right" defence.

My question is this. There's more hard evidence here that could have avoided this situation. As a matter of fact, you're probably aware that the crown was

forced to drop 43 charges against the First Nations because they had this colour of right defence. The OPP, before the shooting, suggested they had. A year later, the crown dropped all charges. It

is clear that the civil case won't answer the questions. The legal community agrees that it won't answer the questions. Will you do the right thing and call a public inquiry today?

Hon Mr Eves: I quite appreciate that there are different members of the legal community who have different opinions on the subject matter, but

it doesn't mean that any one opinion is the right one. I understand and I respect the opinion that the member is enunciating here today, but it has been the practice of this House, including the

practice of Ian Scott, the former Attorney General in a previous David Peterson government, that while there are significant issues before the courts, a public inquiry should be dealt with

afterwards. Mr Scott tried to proceed with one in the Patti Starr affair, as I recall, and the Supreme Court of Ontario then ruled in that case that he should wait until those proceedings were

finished before they could proceed with a public inquiry.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Just a couple of weeks ago, this government ended

the eight-week strike by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. The withdrawal of services created a number of challenges for ministries. I believe that during the negotiations, the government

was always trying to balance the competing interests of giving employees a fair deal with our duty to safeguard taxpayers' dollars, dollars that pay those employees' salaries.

As you know, I was in communication with strikers and picketers on almost a daily basis and reported concerns to you to help our government and our employees

reach a fair settlement, a settlement that would be fair for both sides. Minister, could you tell me, did we achieve that goal?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): First, I'd like to welcome Premier Eves back. We're

certainly happy to see you here. Secondly, I would like to thank the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for the question.

During our negotiations with not just OPSEU but, frankly, with any union that represents government employees, our goal is to find a negotiated settlement

that's fair to the employees but also reasonable to the taxpayers of Ontario. I believe we've done that, not only in negotiated contracts with AMAPCEO and with PEGO, but certainly in this case with

OPSEU as well.

During the recent by-election in Nipissing, though, I must tell you the Liberals' failed candidate there wrote to me and said there was nothing as important as

resolving the strike as soon as possible at whatever cost. However, I believe it's also important to balance this with the interests of the taxpayers. The government certainly has a role to ensure

that other government priorities are looked at, like health and education, rather than simply giving in to a $1.3-billion demand, which represented around a 43% increase.

I believe we reached a fair settlement, both to our employees and also to the taxpayers of Ontario and to the member over there from St Catharines, who is

essentially --

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

Mr Barrett: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate the answer from the Chair of Management Board. We all know he worked hard throughout the strike

to make sure that the government could successfully reward its employees and continue the government's sound fiscal management, in contrast to what Liberals may have done.

Minister, we know that a strike is not business as usual, and while we know that there were a number of people who were inconvenienced by the impact of the

union's decision to strike, we also know that a number of facilities operated on the 24-7 basis because their services were simply too critical to go without.

Minister, could you tell the House how the Ontario public service was able to manage during the strike?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant hit the nail right on the head here when he said that during any strike it's not

business as usual. Quite frankly, there were certain struggles during the strike but, to the credit of the public service, the dedicated people who work for us who were able to carry on with

essential services.

I would like to point out that we had many folks who work for us who, through their hard work and dedication, were able to deliver these essential services. In

fact there are nearly 1,000 managers across the public service who volunteered to work where help was most needed to ensure these services were delivered to the people of Ontario where they're

needed.

We owe these managers in particular, whose tremendous dedication was able to make this work during the strike -- they made us very proud -- a debt of

gratitude.

FORMER PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Premier. Premier, although you've taken your seat in the House, your predecessor, Mike

Harris, is still feeding off the public trough. While he collects his severance pay, his huge buyout, and while he looks for a job, the taxpayers of Ontario are footing the bill for an office for

private citizen Mike Harris here at Queen's Park.

You know, with two Premiers occupying offices at the same time, it makes the people of Ontario wonder who really is in charge. No former Premier has ever been

granted such a luxury, but for some reason this government feels that Mr Harris is entitled to such decadence.

My question to you is, under whose authorization did the move to give Mr Harris a retirement office at Queen's Park take place?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, the former Premier of the province, Mr Harris, is not receiving

any payment for his work as the chair of Ontario's Promise. He is doing so on a voluntary basis. It is only appropriate that he have a space from which he can operate, with respect to Ontario's

Promise only.

Mr Bartolucci: With all due respect, Mr Premier, the money Mr Harris is receiving to satisfy his whims would be better spent on children

directly in this province.

Premier, this Harris cycle of dependency must be broken. We don't mind giving Mike Harris a hand up on his retirement through OPP security -- God knows he

needs it -- but the people of Ontario are outraged at having to give Mike Harris a handout.

My question, Premier, is, for how long must this Harris cycle of dependency continue? For how long are you going to force Ontarians to give the former Premier

this shameful handout?

Hon Mr Eves: Ontario's Promise is an organization that represents over 277 non-profit agencies in partnership with some 70 corporations, and

to date they have raised over $38.5 million, mostly for the benefit of young people across the province of Ontario. The former Premier is chairing that on a voluntary basis, and it's a huge

undertaking of co-operation between the private sector and 277 non-profit organizations.

I'm sure the honourable member would be supportive of some of these organizations: 4-H Ontario, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, the

Easter Seal Society of Ontario, the Sudbury Manitoulin Children's Foundation, the Volunteer Centre of Ontario, Volunteer Thunder Bay, Women in Motion, York Region District School Board and the

Certified General Accountants of Ontario. I'm sure that you would be supportive of those organizations and many --

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

HYDRO ONE

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Before I ask my question, I would like to

congratulate the minister on his appointment to this most important portfolio.

Over the last few months I've held three town hall meetings about electricity restructuring in my riding and have had many constituents write and call to ask

what is happening and why. While they seem to understand the opening of the market, there have continued to be questions about why we are planning to sell Hydro One. Can you please explain why

we're planning to do that and what is going on right now?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): The opening of the market took place on May 1 of this year.

I know there was a lot of doom and gloom offered up by some of the opposition members with respect to the doubling of the price and rolling blackouts and possibly brownouts in the province of

Ontario.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I want to say that the member is not in his seat.

I also want to say that the average price the day it opened was 2.8 cents, considering it was 4.3 cents before the market actually opened. In fact, the average

price hasn't exceeded the 4.3 cents that the market was before it opened. It has always been lower than 4.3 cents and in fact, yesterday, Sunday, it was 2.84 cents. So let's be clear. I understand

the doom and gloom offered up by the leader of the third party and the opposition members. Talking about doubling of prices and rolling blackouts was in fact just doom and gloom. We have been

prepared for this for some time. The market opened. It was a seamless opening. It's operating well. The regulatory bodies are in place, and Ontarians could look forward, I'm certain, to good,

competitive electrical prices with fair supply.

Mr Johnson: Thank you, Minister, for that explanation. It seems that the recent reconsideration of our plan, despite the fact that many people

were asking that we reconsider, has created even more confusion among my constituents and I'm sure others, particularly those who are heckling on the other side, like the member for Kingston and so

on.

What can Ontarians expect to see as the next steps in this process?

Hon Mr Stockwell: What we've decided to do is in fact go out and consult with the people of Ontario. There are many options on the table that

we're reviewing. There is the IPO that was discussed earlier, there is the income trust, there's flat-out lease, there's a strategic sale, they're talking about non-profits. These are the

consultation processes that we've been working our way through.

Let's be clear, though. The only thing that isn't on the table is the status quo. The status quo put this province $38 billion in debt with $17 billion of

assets. In previous administrations, including the members' opposite, political expediency took precedence over sound financial decision-making. Freezing rates, piling debt on debt on debt and

asking our children to pay our hydro bills is not an acceptable public policy position to take. So we are looking at a variety of options. We have our criteria, but we will not allow the Hamptons

and the McGuintys of the world to continue to saddle our children with their hydro bills.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Premier. Today Charles Coffey and the Honourable Margaret McCain released their

report on early learning and child care, and your government got a failing grade when it comes to implementing the provisions of the federal-provincial agreement on early childhood development.

Coffey and McCain pointed out that your government has violated both the spirit and the intent of the federal agreement: first by excluding child care from this new federal funding; and second by

reducing provincial funding of child care when the agreement calls for an expansion of children's services.

Premier, in April 2002 your government should have received about 150 million new federal dollars for early childhood development. In light of today's

important announcement, can you tell us how much of that new federal money will now be invested in regulated child care in Ontario?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I refer the question to the Minister of Community, Family and Children's

Services.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I thank my colleague across the way in the NDP opposition for the

question. This government recognizes that child care is very important and we've worked very hard to find ways to provide services to families as they need them to continue in their lives

happily.

The question today referred to the early childhood development dollars that have been transferred to Ontario from the federal government. It was about $114

million. The comments that she refers to indicated that they wished more money to be directed to child care. At this time, we have decided that priorities in Ontario that need to be funded include

things like funding for autism, for the Early Years challenge fund, for investing money in children's mental health. We have continued and, in fact, increased our investments in child care, but

this money has been directed to particular priorities of our government.

Ms Martel: Let me remind the minister what Coffey and McCain had to say today: "The three largest provinces have not only excluded child care

but also reduced spending for regulated child care and other children's services in violation of the agreement's intent to expand service provision."

Coffey and McCain also pointed out that child care was an integral part of the earlier McCain-Mustard Early Years Study. So integral that, in fact, it was the

key recommendation when establishing community-based childhood development and parenting services. Now this government has completely violated the spirit of the agreement, has shelved that key

recommendation from McCain and Mustard because this government has diverted federal money away from regulated child care and has also cut the budget for regulated child care in the province of

Ontario.

The report says: "It is essential for the provincial government to recognize and fund quality child care services as the core of an integrated plan for child

development...."

Minister, when will you endorse the recommendations made by McCain and Coffey and will you commit to providing new money in the budget for regulated child care

in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Elliott: The commitments made by the first ministers clearly state that the provinces have wide latitude in how they use this funding

because different provinces have, indeed, different needs. Our commitment has been to increase a range of supports that help some of our most vulnerable children here in Ontario.

I understand there are requests for increased child care and I appreciate that. Certainly as a new minister, I give you my full undertaking that I will

consider that. But in the interim, our government has decided that the best place for that federal funding to be invested is into programs like autism, like mental health, where we view the

greatest good can be done by those dollars for the children in greatest need.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Premier and it concerns the potential sale of Hydro One. Let me be

clear, I personally and very strongly oppose the sale of the electricity highway to private interests. But looking at the debate which has been going on with a great fury in the business press over

the last number of months, it seems that the principal argument for the initial public offering of Hydro One is that it will, in a very significant way, help the province pay down the $20 billion

plus worth of stranded debt. Can you confirm to this Legislature today that in the event there is an initial public offering of Hydro One, the first $4 billion worth of proceeds will go not to the

stranded debt but rather to the province in recognition of its equity interests in Hydro One?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, that's a hypothetical question. Second of all --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Well, it is a hypothetical question.

When the province decides which route it's going to go, you'll certainly have every opportunity to comment and participate in that debate. The proceeds from

any potential sale of Hydro One, as I understand it, would go to pay the stranded debt. That's where they would go.

Mr Conway: I have a lot of respect for my friend, my old neighbour from Parry Sound, the former Minister of Finance. But I have to tell him

that the Ministry of Finance, among others, is telling us very clearly -- and I want everybody to hear this -- that if you sell, through an initial public offering, Hydro One -- and the estimate

that's being talked about is you might realize something in the range of $5 billion to $6 billion, a lot of money. Finance is making it clear that the first $4 billion of that money goes not to

retire the stranded debt, but rather to Her Majesty in right of the Ontario government in recognition of its equity interests in Hydro One. So not more than about 25 cents of the dollar realized

from a potential privatization goes to retiring the not insignificant stranded debt, on top of which the provincial government forfeits in perpetuity, on an annual basis, something like $330

million.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): The auditor wouldn't let us do that.

Mr Conway: I'm only repeating what finance and others are telling interested members of the opposition.

Can you confirm, Mr Premier, former Minister of Finance, that in the event there is an IPO, the first $4 billion of the monies realized goes not to retiring

stranded debt, but rather goes to the provincial government in recognition of its equity interests in Hydro One?

Hon Mr Eves: I'd be happy to check that out with the Provincial Auditor and get back to the honourable member, and I'd be happy to take his

question under advisement.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It relates to the Oak Ridges moraine. The

commitment that this government made to protect the Oak Ridges moraine, both through legislation as well as the regulations announced by the minister on April 22, was an historic piece of

legislation welcomed by people from across the province. That announcement -- which, as we know, was supported by environmentalists, who for years have been advocating for the protection of the

moraine -- was in fact historic in the sense that some 300,000 acres of land have been protected.

However, accusations have been made by an environmentalist who is suggesting -- and he's capturing some profile through this accusation -- that somehow the

government has failed to deliver on its original commitment as outlined by you in November. Minister, can you assure us today that this individual's accusations are unfounded and that, in fact, the

government's announcement in November is consistent with the Oak Ridges moraine plan as supported by regulation?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): We don't deal with particular individuals; we deal with responsible

environmentalists representing groups that have an accountability framework and a history that we can all be proud of: the Nature Conservancy of Canada; the Federation of Ontario Naturalists; the

Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition. These groups and their representatives worked very, very hard over the summer to come up with advice for the government, which we announced on November 1,

which this House unanimously supported. On April 22, we released the regulations that outlined a plan that is what we announced on November 1.

All members of this House, including the member from Oak Ridges, should be very proud of the accomplishment. I think it's an historic achievement. It's an area

of land that stretches 160 kilometres, that varies in width from north to south, that is unique and should be passed on to future generations. I think we should all be proud of that.

Mr Klees: With regard to some of the concerns around this announcement, relating specifically to some additional development that is in fact

being allowed on the moraine, can you give us some assurance that these additional housing units being allowed on the moraine will not in any way compromise the integrity of the moraine, and tell

us what safeguards are in place to ensure that the environment will not be negatively affected by this additional development.

Hon Mr Hodgson: There's a lot of detail in the question the member from Oak Ridges mentions, because he cares deeply about this area, the Oak

Ridges moraine.

The water policies are cutting-edge. They will provide for protection of the quality of the aquifer as well as the quality of our cold-water streams. We have

natural features protected, 100% of the significant features. The ones that are clumped together form core areas and they're connected with linkage areas from one side of the moraine to the other.

There will be a trail system and there will be a foundation set up to oversee and to raise money from the federal government, from other partners and from environmental groups to bring this plan to

completion.

I think it's an historic accomplishment. There are compliance requirements. Every official plan and every municipality has to come into conformity with the Oak

Ridges moraine plan within 12 months, 18 in the rural, and there are huge fines if they're not followed.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is to the Premier, and I guess it's further to the question from the member for

Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.

The question is about what happens to the proceeds of any sale of Hydro One. He asked you to confirm what would happen with respect to paying down the debt. I

know since he's asked the question the Minister of Energy has come and spoken with you and consulted with you. Perhaps he spoke to the issue; perhaps he didn't.

My question is this: are you telling me that you're the Premier of Ontario and you don't know what's happening in terms of where the proceeds of the Hydro One

IPO are going in terms of paying down the debt? Is it going to paying the equity commitment, $4 billion, and then $1.5 billion to pay down the debt, or is it not? Either Conway's right or Conway's

wrong. Which one is it?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I've already answered the question. I've told the honourable member from

Renfrew that I would contact the Provincial Auditor if my understanding of what happens to the proceeds going to pay down the stranded debt is not correct. I took the question under advisement. I

said that I would get back to the honourable member.

Mr Bryant: There's been just enormous confusion engendered by this government, and the public is quite rightly confused. In 1998, the Minister

of Energy says no privatization. Then in 2001, the government of Ontario says privatization is on -- flip-flop. Then in the spring, Mr Justice Gans says that the government cannot do this, to which

the Minister of Energy says, "We're going to flip-flop from the first flip-flop, and we're in fact going to come forward with an income trust," to which the Premier of Ontario -- he flips; he

doesn't like that. He says, "We're going to stick with the IPO." Then two days later we get another flip-flop as we're told that now in fact the IPO is off the table for now, ie, flip-flop to come.

Well, then Flaherty flips, because Flaherty finds out there's another flip-flop. And from the province of Ontario's point of view and the people of Ontario's point of view, all they see is this

government flipping and flopping.

So the question is, are we today flipping, are we flopping or are we flip-flopping?

Hon Mr Eves: I think the honourable member just flipped out. We've taken the question under advisement. Obviously the government is guided by

what the Provincial Auditor wants us to do in terms of how the issue is dealt with.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): How can you not know the answer?

Hon Mr Eves: I would say to the honourable member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, if you have been around this place for 20 years, as I have, you

will come to realize pretty soon that the Provincial Auditor quite often has different points of view as to bookkeeping treatment of different sales and assets.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Well, he does, quite frankly, and that's why we have a system called the public accounts, where the auditor reports in about

August of every year, and he tells what his difference of opinion is with the provincial government's dealing of certain monies that came into the --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The Premier's time is up. The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Labour. I'd like to first of all congratulate the Minister of Labour

on his new position.

Minister, at this time of year, many students are preparing to head off for their summer jobs. For many, this will be their first time in the workplace. Can

you tell us what our government has been doing to help prepare these young workers to ensure their health and safety at work is protected?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): I thank the honourable member for his question. Our government is working with partners to ensure a

vision of Ontario where young workers and students are free from work-related injury and illness. As a matter of fact, we happen to believe that strong enforcement of the rules is simply not

enough. We have to develop a comprehensive education program whereby we can actually prevent injuries from happening. That is the goal of the program.

To that end, the new four-year secondary curriculum program in Ontario now includes for the first time health and safety information for grades 9 to 12, and

teachers are provided the Live Safe! Work Smart! curriculum resource guide to assist in teaching this valuable information.

At the Ministry of Labour, we have taken a leadership role with many parties. I want to stress very clearly that the government is working with the Workplace

Safety Insurance Board, 14 different health and safety associations, labour leaders, the Safe Communities Foundation, the IAPA, as well as a number of ministries, to develop programs where we can

protect students in the workplace.

Mr Miller: Minister, you mentioned the Live Safe! Work Smart! program that's being provided for secondary teachers. Could you tell us a bit

more about that program, please?

Hon Mr Clark: The release of the material for Live Safe! Work Smart! has been a phenomenal success. The feedback from teachers, principals,

parents and students has been overwhelmingly positive. We've provided teachers with support materials such as lessons, overheads, tests and exercises. More importantly, Ministry of Labour staff

have travelled across the province providing in-service training to selected teachers, representing all boards of education. These achievements have been possible through collaboration with the

Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and a terrific partnership with the Ford Motor Co of Canada, the Canadian Auto Workers and the Workplace Safety and

Insurance Board. Without these partners, we couldn't develop a program which has this commitment to such a worthy cause as preventing injuries to young people.

MUNICIPAL ELECTION FINANCES

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Premier. A recent poll suggests that the majority of Canadians have started to lose

faith in their politicians. I stand here as a member of the opposition, but I think even the members of the government must recognize that everyone in this House must do everything we can to

restore faith in our democratic institutions. I'm here this afternoon to ask if you will launch a public inquiry into the serious allegations that have been made in the city of Toronto concerning

lawyer, lobbyist and Conservative fundraiser Jeffery Lyons, who may have breached the Municipal Elections Act. A former employee has sworn out statutory declarations outlining how this was done.

The press in Toronto have detailed this in some considerable degree for the last week. I have called upon the Ontario Provincial Police to conduct an investigation, but they have declined to do so

because the alleged infraction took place in Toronto. I have called upon the Toronto police to investigate it. They said they cannot do it, because there is a conflict of interest.

Rather than wasting time shopping for another police force to look into this, why don't you call a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this allegation?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'd like to refer that question to the Attorney General.

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The member posing the question, I understand, has previously

filed a complaint with one police force. That police force has indicated to him that another police force would be a more appropriate forum to consider this matter. I don't know whether he has or

intends to file that complaint with the other police force. What I do know is that members of this Legislature shouldn't be interfering in a police investigation or a potential investigation, and

for that reason, I think it would be inappropriate to comment further.

Mr Prue: With the greatest of respect, now I've had two police forces refusing to do it and we're now shopping for a third one. With respect,

normally having a police investigation would be the route to go, but this is not a normal case. The Toronto police have a conflict because Mr Lyons was the vice-chair of the police board and some

of the current members received donations in question.

In that Mr Lyons was the government appointee to the Toronto police board, there's an even bigger reason why you should clear the air and call a public

inquiry. Why won't you call an inquiry? Don't you know the facts behind the allegations? Don't you want the public to know how widespread the problems really are? And don't you want citizens to

have a mechanism where they don't have to go from police force to police force in order to find out why these things are happening in Toronto?

Hon Mr Young: I find it somewhat curious that the member opposite is suggesting that for the general public it is good enough for one to go to

the police, have them conduct an investigation and, if they deem there to be reasonable probable grounds, a charge be laid and it goes in front of the court. But in this instance, where he seems

somewhat unsatisfied with the fact that the police haven't been so disposed, he wants us to somehow or other intervene and for there to be a shortcut. I think that to be inappropriate. I would

suggest to my friend that if he has allegations, if he has evidence, if he has concerns, he should go forward to law enforcement and put those concerns in front of him.

MOBILITÉ DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

DANS LA CONSTRUCTION /

CONSTRUCTION LABOUR MOBILITY

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Ma question est au ministre du Travail. Monsieur le Ministre, vous êtes maintenant en

poste depuis au moins quatre semaines. Je me demande si vos employés vous ont mis au courant de la situation de la mobilité des travailleurs de la construction, un problème qui

existe depuis maintenant des années, on dit depuis 25 ans. L'ancien ministre du Travail avait mis en place le projet de loi 17 que vous et votre gouvernement aviez mis sur la tablette

après les dernières élections, et surtout après avoir dépensé plus de deux millions de dollars des citoyens ontariens.

Même si nous avons eu la grève qui a duré 52 jours, je crois que vous avez eu amplement de temps, aussitôt la grève terminée, et

que vous auriez les personnes nécessaires pour retourner sur les chantiers de construction afin de voir l'injustice qui se passe ici en Ontario qui est causée par la Fédération

des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec. Est-ce que vous avez été mis au courant de la situation ?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): Our government remains committed to the elimination of interprovincial trade and labour mobility

barriers. I have been apprised of the situation. Enforcement is looking into the situation now that the OPSEU strike is over and we're on top of things.

Mr Lalonde: For the last five years Ontario's taxpayers have paid over $50,418,000 to workers who have injured themselves on construction

sites in Ontario. This is due to the fact that you people don't have an inspector on job sites in Ontario. I took the time to go around with Charlie Greenwell from CJOH with his camera to look at a

construction site which had been completely invaded by Quebec construction people. We saw that the people didn't wear safety shoes and no safety hats, and if you look at the report you will see how

many broken toes we had. But this is due to the cutting or reducing of staff at the inspection level, and they come and work here without any safety precautions. This is costing Ontario taxpayers

millions of dollars. Are you going to reinstate the number of inspectors we should have?

Hon Mr Clark: We're strongly committed to enforcing occupational health and safety legislation. Since 1995, over 800,000 new jobs have been

created, and during that time inspections have increased by 32%, convictions are up by 24% and lost-time injury rates have dropped by 30%. So with all due respect to the honourable member, we have

increased convictions, we have increased inspections and we're doing the job the way we should.

PETITIONS

HYDRO ONE

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

"Whereas the overwhelming majority of the people of Ontario wish to retain Hydro One in the realm of the public sector;

"Whereas Hydro One is considered to be the crown jewel of the electrical power structure in Ontario, and that for reasons of security it should be retained in

the public domain;

"Whereas the sale of Hydro One would allow private interests to control the transmission grid for the entire province, for their own profit-oriented

interests;

"Whereas an Ontario court judge has ruled that the sale of Hydro One is illegal;

"Whereas private interests stand to benefit from the sale of Hydro One at the expense of Ontario families;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario" to accept the advice of opposition leader Dalton McGuinty, who recommends that Premier Eves

should "abandon his intention to sell Hydro One."

I affix my signature to this petition, as I consider it to be in the interests of the people of Ontario and I agree with its sentiments.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that is signed by thousands of Ontario families. It reads as follows:

"Whereas an internal government document indicates the Conservative government is considering cutting the regulated child care budget by at least 40%;

"Whereas the same document indicates the government is also considering eliminating all funding for regulated child care and family resource programs in

Ontario;

"Whereas the Conservative government has already cut funding for regulated child care by 15% between 1995 and 1998 and downloaded 20% of the child care and

family resource budget on to municipalities;

"Whereas further cuts would run counter to the support identified for regulated child care and family resource centres by Fraser Mustard and Margaret

McCain;

"Whereas the Conservative government received $114 million last year for early childhood development and will receive $844 million from the federal government

over the next five years for the same;

"Whereas other provinces are implementing innovative, affordable, and accessible child care programs such as Quebec's $5-a-day child care program; and

"Whereas the need for affordable, accessible, regulated child care and family resources continues to grow in Ontario,

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

"We demand the Conservative government guarantee the current child care and family resource budget is secure and will not be cut under this government's

mandate and we demand that future federal Early Years funding be invested in an expansion of affordable, regulated child care."

Speaker, in light of the report released today by McCain and Coffey, this report is more important than ever. I agree with the petitioners.

HOME CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I have a petition from my riding of Durham.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, support the philosophy of caring for the elderly, the handicapped and the infirm within their homes and communities wherever

possible; and

"Whereas caregiving by paid professionals in the home is not always the preferred choice of family members; and

"Whereas we believe in some circumstances it is more reasonable and compassionate for the government to use the money assigned to professional caregivers to

support those family members who would prefer to remain at home to care for their relatives; and

"Whereas caregivers who work outside the home often carry an extra burden of guilt and anxiety when they leave their loved ones in the care of strangers while

they go out to work;