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

October 24, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Oct-24 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 24 October 2002 Jeudi 24 octobre 2002

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CLEAN AIR PLAN

HYDRO DEREGULATION

CLEAN AIR PLAN

HYDRO DEREGULATION

CLEAN AIR PLAN

HYDRO DEREGULATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

IMMIGRATION POLICY

HIGHWAY 406

CELEBRATION OF THE ARTS

IN YORK REGION

DOFASCO INC

AND HAMILTON POLICE SERVICE

BROCK UNIVERSITY

MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA WEST

OLIVER GAFFNEY

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

ROAD SAFETY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

AND FIREFIGHTER RECOGNITION

DAY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE PRÉVENTION DES INCENDIES

ET LE JOUR DE RECONNAISSANCE

DES POMPIERS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

GLOBAL WARMING

NURSING HOMES

CLEAN AIR PLAN

VISITOR

FOSTER FAMILIES

PICKERING NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

SMALL BUSINESS

ENTERPRISE CENTRES

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

TRANSIT SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

KYOTO PROTOCOL

ONTARIO MEDAL FOR

GOOD CITIZENSHIP

SENIOR CITIZENS

VISITOR

PETITIONS

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

HYDRO RATES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

SERVICES DE SANTÉ POUR ENFANTS

LONG-TERM CARE

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

SAVINGS OFFICE

LONG-TERM CARE

VISITOR

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES EMPLOYÉS AGRICOLES

CORRECTION OF RECORD

AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES EMPLOYÉS AGRICOLES

(CONTINUED / SUITE)

Thursday 24 October 2002 Jeudi 24 octobre 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CLEAN AIR PLAN

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I move that, in the opinion of the House, the government of Ontario should immediately

implement the Ontario Liberal clean air plan that would: ensure all gasoline sold in Ontario contains at least 5% clean-burning ethanol by 2007 and 10% by 2010; and develop and implement an Ontario

biodiesel strategy that includes a mandatory clean renewable biodiesel content in diesel fuel.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Cleary has moved ballot item number 63. According to the standing orders, I would ask the member from

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh for a 10-minute presentation.

Mr Cleary: I'm pleased to present my private member's resolution today. I know that citizens and households across the province are beginning to

plan for the upcoming winter season. Many of them are now working outside, something they couldn't do during the summer months when temperatures were so warm. They welcome this season to get away

from the smog-filled hot days of one of the hottest summers in many years in this province.

Many of the seniors in my community and other communities were virtually imprisoned during those hot days with respiratory problems and had to stay indoors. Smog

is not only an inconvenience, it is dangerous to the health of all Ontarians. Ground-level ozone, or smog, is a dangerous respiratory irritant that affects the health of thousands of people.

According to Dr Halparin, president of the Ontario Medical Association, dirty air is responsible for "1,900 premature deaths, 13,000 emergency room visits and

$1.1 billion in health care costs and lost workdays each year." These statistics are not acceptable and the people of Ontario are increasingly concerned about the quality of the air they breathe.

And not only are they concerned about the air they breathe, they're concerned about the water they drink.

Today I want to discuss sweeping plans to clean up the air Ontarians breathe and to make this province a healthier and more comfortable place in which to reside.

On September 9 our leader, Dalton McGuinty, unveiled a clean air plan. This plan is ambitious, the most ambitious plan of its kind in Canada. It is progressive and it is feasible.

The Ontario clean air plan is a five-point plan that encourages cleaner power generation, cleaner fuels, more public transit, more energy conservation, and

demonstrates a real commitment to renewable fuels. Of particular interest to me is the plan's pledge to mandate the use of clean renewable transportation fuels in the province of Ontario.

The select committee on alternative fuel sources released its final report, published in June of this year. As the culmination of work by a tripartite committee

of the Legislature, the report represents an important step in developing an ongoing strategy to achieve environmentally friendly and sustainable sources of transportation fuels.

According to the report, the transportation sector in Ontario is a major source of air emissions along highways and in major urban centres. As I travel from

Toronto to eastern Ontario every week, I can see that very clearly. Producing these emissions, gasoline and diesel fuel account for 97% of the transportation fuel consumed.

The committee also outlines growing interest on the part of the public and industry to incorporate renewable fuels, stating, "There is considerable public

interest in reducing air emissions and growing interest on the part of motor vehicle manufacturers to utilize alternative fuels to respond to these concerns." Finally, the committee's report draws

strong parallels with the clean air plan, maintaining there is significant potential to improve air quality by accelerating the introduction of cleaner gasoline and diesel fuels.

Part of the clean air plan is the implementation of clean renewable fuels like ethanol. In fact, under the McGuinty plan, all gasoline sold in Ontario will be

required to contain at least 5% clean-burning ethanol by 2007, rising to 10% by 2010. Ethanol is a liquid alcohol produced from agricultural products such as corn. As a renewable, clean-burning

transportation fuel, ethanol represents an exciting environmental and financial opportunity for the farmers of this province. I know that in our part of Ontario we have been trying to get a plant

built since the mid-1990s, yet we have not got it off the ground.

The environmental benefits of ethanol are extensive, and attempts to reduce smog and greenhouse gas emissions will be greatly enhanced by the extensive

introduction of ethanol-blended gasolines. According to the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, "The emissions produced by burning ethanol are less reactive with sunlight than those produced by

burning gasoline and are thus less likely to produce damaging ozone gases." Furthermore, the use of ethanol-blended fuels will reduce the net emissions of equally dangerous greenhouse gases by up

to 3.9%.

In addition to ethanol's proven environmental track record, the application of alternative fuels will create jobs and

market opportunities for Ontario's rural communities and farmers. I know that in our part of Ontario the community, the farmers, have raised $16,249,000 toward a Seaway Valley ethanol co-operative.

They're an environment-friendly group back our way. The plant is $48 million. At the annual meeting, that amount of money had been raised, and more has come in since. I know they're looking for all

forms of government to get involved with some type of loan guarantee to get this plant off the ground.

In addition to ethanol's proven track record, the application of alternative fuels will create jobs and market opportunities. Needless to say, this is a new and

exciting market opportunity for Ontario producers. When you think about what's happening in the United States, new plants are coming on stream, several of them a year.

The reception of the news from the Ontario Corn Producers' Association has been overwhelming. Commenting on the implications of the proposed plan, Mr Dennis

Jack, president of the Ontario Corn Producers' Association, believes the objective is good news for the industry, consumers and the environment, which will receive direct benefits from a stronger

reliance on corn-based ethanol, and this gentleman should know. In an off season, when you have a bad year, it's my understanding that corn which doesn't mature can still be used for ethanol.

As an existing additive, ethanol has immediate promise. In fact, low-concentration ethanol mixtures added to gasoline can be used in most internal combustion

engines. Presently, all automotive manufacturers in Ontario approve the use of a 10% ethanol blend and some even recommend it for environmental reasons.

Because it is a progressive and necessary alternative fuel, the government of Ontario needs to take immediate steps to implement an ethanol strategy. This will

clean up the air we breathe and will create jobs and opportunities for rural Ontario.

Working with farmers and industry, a McGuinty-led government will also develop --

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): You were going to say "Cochrane South," Speaker; I saw you coming. But it's Timmins-James Bay now.

As the NDP transportation critic and northern development critic, I'd like to rise in support of this resolution. The member, I thought, gave a brilliantly

put-together speech on the importance and positive aspects of using ethanol and other biodiesels.

I just want to say there has been some move already by the provincial government to exempt these fuels from provincial sales tax; I think that was a good step

forward.

The alternative fuels committee is looking at the various aspects of various kinds of renewable energy, and I know that this is one of the issues they looked at.

I'm glad to see that the member has gone a little bit further than the recommendation of the alternative fuels committee in moving toward the ethanol and biodiesel initiatives. I want to say that I

support that.

I also want to say that this whole issue of trying to find green sources of energy is something I really believe we need to spend a lot more time on. We all know

we're going through this whole process of what's happening with the Kyoto accord. We all need, as member nations who signed on to the Kyoto accord, to find ways to reduce greenhouse gases. Ethanol

fuels and other biodiesels are less harmful to the environment when it comes to emissions. Certainly, the more of these we use, the less gas and diesel we'll use and the less we will have emissions

into the atmosphere and the easier it will be to meet the Kyoto Protocol.

I think it's a big, big disappointment and quite hypocritical of the American government to take the position they have. We all know that member nations have

signed on to Kyoto, and the great American power, the United States, says, "You know, we believe in free trade. We believe in internationalism. We believe in doing our

part in the world," but they

are nowhere to be seen on the Kyoto accord. They're doing everything they can to sewer the deal, and it's putting Canada and other countries around the world into a very odd position. Here we are

trying to do the right thing as member signatories to the Kyoto Protocol -- our federal government wants to forge ahead and our provincial governments are now opposed to it, as we saw with Ernie

Eves getting together with Ralph Klein yesterday. But I think we all agree that we have to do something to reduce greenhouse gases, and we all agree that Kyoto is a good step forward and a good way

to start.

The unfortunate

part is that the Americans are nowhere to be seen in trying to meet the targets set out under Kyoto, so that tells me the Americans are nothing

but a bunch of hypocrites. They're perfectly prepared to show their might when it comes to using their arms around the world to bomb anybody who doesn't agree with them on whatever issue, as we're

seeing with what's happening in Baghdad. But when it comes to really making an impact on the world that would be positive, the Americans are nowhere to be seen. Where are they on Kyoto? They're

nowhere. They're on the opposite side.

I find it quite frustrating, as a Canadian and as a member of this little planet we call Earth, that the Americans take the position they have on Kyoto and say,

"Down with Kyoto. We don't believe we should do it, because we're the mightiest nation in the world and we can do what we damn well please and to hell with you all." I think it's really a bad thing

for the Americans to do and it shows just how hypocritical they are when it comes to really being a member state of this little planet we call Earth.

If you take a look at the Americans when it comes to the United Nations, they all believe in the United Nations and they want to support the building of

democracies around the world, something we can all agree on. But when it comes to paying their dollars to allow the United Nations to do its work, the only time they give us the money is when

they're looking for support so they can go and bomb somewhere in the Middle East.

I say to the member who brought forward this resolution, this would go a way in allowing us to meet the Kyoto Protocol on the emission of greenhouse gases, but

one of the things we need to do is figure out as a nation how to embarrass, how to force, how to coerce the Americans into doing their part. What's going to be very difficult is that in taking the

position they have, the Americans are setting the playing field quite low when it comes to meeting greenhouse gases because they are one of the biggest polluters in the world when it comes to

emissions. If they're not on board, it means other signatory countries like Canada will have to go a lot further in order to reduce greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, they'll be doing nothing.

I just wanted to put that on the record because of what has happened recently with the meeting between Mr Eves and Mr Klein. I think they're twins now. They get

along quite well. They came out of there singing the same kind of thing. It really puts us in a bad position, the Americans doing what they're doing. I just say again that it's extremely

hypocritical.

To the Premier and to Mr Klein, who met yesterday, shame on you. We should be taking a leadership position on the Kyoto Protocol. We agree that it's not easy. We

agree that you have to define what these emissions are as far as the targets. We understand there are some difficulties. Nobody is saying that's not the case. But what is more dangerous is us not

doing anything.

When Klein says he's looking for a made-in-Canada solution, Klein is looking for nothing of the sort. He wants to get away from the Kyoto agreement altogether.

That's how I'm reading what he's up to.

I'm disappointed that Eves has taken the position he has because I have a lot of respect for Ernie Eves. I did not like Mike Harris; I could not work with Mike

Harris. I found him to be boorish and a thug. But when it comes to Eves, I had a little bit more respect. I'm somewhat taken aback by the position he has taken on Kyoto. It's clear now that he's

got a twin: his twin is Ralph Klein and they're marching down the same road.

I'm saying that Ontario, being the largest industrial partner in our federation, should be taking a lead in order to try to do what we can to meet our

commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. The government's taking the position it did yesterday, through the meeting with Mr Klein, I think was just an abysmal thing. We could have been seen as

leaders. We could be doing everything we can to develop green industries and to assist industries to meet the protocol over a period of time. We're now not meeting the Kyoto Protocol. We could have

been world leaders. We could have been there at the forefront.

When it comes to other nations being able to do things to reduce greenhouse gases, one only has to take a look at Europe and the Scandinavian countries. I've

been doing a fair amount of research in regard to what they've been doing around both solar and wind technologies. They've really done a lot to develop those industries and technologies so that

they become much more affordable when it comes to the production of electricity. As a result, Norway, Denmark and other countries are now starting to corner the market somewhat on these

technologies.

So here we are. We know there's going to be a market. Hydro prices are going through the roof because of deregulation and this government's attempt at

privatizing of hydro, and around North America we're privatizing the entire hydro grid. So we know hydro prices are going to go up. They've gone up 40% in the last number of months and they'll

probably go up far more than that in time. It's going to come to a point where people will be looking at green energy because it's going to become more affordable with higher hydro rates.

I say to Canada, and specifically to Ontario, that we should be jumping on the bandwagon and supporting the development of these technologies, because in

supporting industries that are developing wind, solar and other green energies, we can become a world leader. We could export that technology; we could export the products we build here in Ontario

when it comes to generating electricity in a more green way, thus reducing greenhouse gases.

I say to the government, you're really missing an opportunity by crawling into bed with Ralph Klein. All Ralph Klein is interested in is supporting his buddies

in the energy industry, who are the bigger polluters and are not interested in doing anything whatsoever when it comes to supporting a green industry. Frankly, and I understand this, the energy

sector in Alberta is the most important sector of their economy, so they're doing all they can to protect their energy sector. I'm saying that here in Ontario we should be taking the view of trying

to develop alternative energy sources when it comes to green energy, and we should be doing all we can to support them.

I just want to give you a couple of examples. In the riding I represent, there are a number of communities that don't have electricity through the hydro grid. A

good many of the communities up on the James Bay coast and the Hudson Bay coast and also in my leader Mr Hampton's riding of Kenora have to generate electricity by way of diesel generators. I look

at communities like Peawanuk, Port Severn, Ogoki and many other communities across the north. The only way they can produce electricity in those communities is by burning diesel fuel to run

generators to produce power for their citizens. I say there's an opportunity here.

Do you know how much it costs to ship diesel up into Peawanuk? I'm just going to give you the story of Peawanuk, one of the communities in my riding, and the

difficulties those First Nations communities are having. The federal government decided about three, four or five years ago that they would no longer pay the hydro costs of that community. It used

to be that INAC, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, used to give the bands money to pay for the generation of their electricity, and it didn't come out of their band funds. The federal Liberal

government changed that policy and said, "Now you've got to go out and charge local citizens for the purchase of power," and the federal government eliminated the cost they paid toward producing

electricity.

There's no money in those communities. The unemployment rate is 90-some-odd per cent, and people don't have the money to pay hydro bills. They're basically

living on the meagre amount of money they get on what we now call Ontario Works and don't have money to pay their hydro bills. As a result of that, the band has defaulted on their energy bill.

The oil that was shipped by barge from Moosonee up to Peawanuk used to be shipped into the harbour, old Winisk. They have been unable to pay for that fuel. As a

result, the shipper does not want to send fuel up there any more until the previous bill is paid -- Catch-22. The community doesn't have the money. It's not because they don't want to pay. Boy,

they'd love to pay, but they haven't got the money, and the reason is that the federal government eliminated the money they used to give the band to pay for diesel. They're now saying, "Go collect

it from the citizens," and the citizens don't have the money. So the band is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

As a result, they're now having to fly fuel in to Peawanuk. Can you imagine how expensive it is if you have to put diesel fuel on an airplane and fly it up to

Peawanuk to produce electricity? I'm just going to give you a bit of an idea of the distance. If I fly from Timmins to Peawanuk, because that's where they're shipping the fuel from, it's almost as

far as going from Timmins down to Philadelphia. Imagine how expensive it would be if the people of Philadelphia had to get their electricity generated by diesel from Timmins and we shipped it by

airplane. That's the reality for Peawanuk. They're having to pay exorbitant amounts of money for diesel to generate their electricity.

I've been talking to the Minister of Energy, and I'm glad Mr Baird has agreed to take a look at the issue of supporting some kind of initiative that would look

at communities like Peawanuk moving over to green energy, use them as pilot projects to develop either wind or solar technology as, first of all, maybe a supplement to the amount of electricity

they generate and, hopefully, eventually replace the need to bring diesel into those communities that are not connected to the hydro grid.

I've already talked to Peter Tabuns at Greenpeace, who is going to provide me with a great amount of information about

which companies have which type of technology, the stats on how much it costs for those technologies and how much electricity they produce. I know Mr Baird's office is doing the same; I've

contacted Mr Baird and asked him to provide me with the same information. I've talked to some people in the sector who I know are working in that particular area, and I hope to put together a

package and meet with the community of Peawanuk and Ogoki over the next little while to say, let's take a look at coming down to Toronto and talking to the Minister of Energy to see if he's

interested in developing some sort of a project that allows them to develop green energy as a way of being able to produce electricity.

I'm looking forward to that process, and I want to thank Mr Baird for being willing to work with me on that, because I think it could be a win-win. I think it

could be a win for the government in the sense that it says, "Hey, look at what we've done on green energy; we have some pilot projects in the First Nations communities," and it would certainly be

a win for the communities of Ogoki and Peawanuk and Port Severn, because those communities can use the help when it comes to reducing the cost to produce electricity. It would be better if they

were able to do it themselves, and do it in a way that's in keeping with their beliefs as First Nations people -- the Mushkegowuk Cree and the Ojibwa -- of being in tune with nature and not having

to pollute. So I think this is really a win-win situation for both the communities and the government, and I'm glad to be able to play a

part in bringing those people together to look at what can

be done.

So I say again to the member who brings forward this motion that it's a good motion and we'll be voting in favour of it. I have to say again, however, that I am

extremely disappointed in the position Ernie Eves has taken on Kyoto. I always thought he was a little bit more reasonable on this than Ralph Klein. I've changed my view. He has basically cuddled

up to Ralph Klein, just in there like bosom buddies, holding arms, walking down the road, saying, "We want to develop a made-in-Canada solution," but there's no such plan. The plan of Ralph Klein

is simple: he doesn't want Kyoto because it's going to hurt the energy sector.

Ontario should take a leadership role, Ontario should look at ways of being able to meet the Kyoto Protocol and how to support the development of green

industries and help to support the technologies to make our industries greener, because that technology and the work and the wealth it would create would put Ontario in the driver's seat and make

us a leader, and what's wrong with Ontario being a leader? Certainly the government doesn't want to go that way, and I think it's a damned shame they're going the way of following Ralph Klein,

because he's certainly going in the wrong direction.

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): I'm pleased to make some comments about the resolution brought forward by the member from

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. The two points this member brings forward are quite laudable and quite supportive, but he really messes it up when he says that in the opinion of this House the

government of Ontario should immediately implement the Ontario Liberal clean air plan.

If he just said "should implement" and then went to his two points, I think he would get a lot of support in this House. But talking about bringing in the

Ontario Liberal clean air plan, a plan that's significantly flawed, a plan that really hasn't been thought through -- when you're in opposition, of course, you can promise the moon, you can promise

anything when you don't expect to come to office, and so what? They just disappear and it didn't really matter very much at all.

Our government has been very, very responsible and has brought in a many, many clean air programs. Just to name a few, Drive Clean, as you know, started in the

difficult areas such as Toronto, where there were more pollutant problems, but it has expanded and extended across southern Ontario. I would hazard the guess that probably there's no other state or

province where a program such as Drive Clean is so broad, so extensive -- a tremendous program.

A regulation that changed not too many years ago under our government, just to give you an indication of some of the things our government is doing: we reduced

the level of the evaporative of gasoline -- there's a special name; I believe it's the Reid Vapour Pressure. We moved it from 72 kilopascals down to 62 -- that's during the summertime. If your're

pumping gas, you don't notice the odour of gasoline in the summertime. Of course in the wintertime it doesn't evaporate nearly as much, so the regulation on Reid pressure is not as important. But

it's all about those volatile organics that go out and are converted to ozone. Add that to dust particles and you have smog. So this is another step.

Many of our generating plants have been converted, such as the Lennox generating station. It used to be an oil-fired plant. Therefore, peak periods have been

converted to natural gas.

There are many, many programs that our government has implemented to ensure that we would have clean air here in the province. Have we got there at this point?

No, there's a lot yet that needs to be done but we are certainly working toward it. When you see McGuinty's plan, his plan says that we're going to get rid of all coal-fired power plants, have them

shut down by 2007. That's just barely four years from now. It takes almost that long to build some of these plants, especially if it's nuclear, but Mr McGuinty, in the Liberal plan, has no

solution. There is no solution; all he has is criticism, how he's going to shut things down.

When I chaired the select committee on alternate fuel sources, we had a signoff of all members, and that included the

Liberals as well as the NDP. They signed off, and in that report, one that I am very, very proud of, they agreed that the coal plants would be phased out by 2015; and we had many other suggestions

on where we would get our electricity from once they were being phased out -- something that Mr McGuinty's Liberal plan has no solution to, no idea where the power is going to come from.

He's even going to seal it off from any power coming in from the US. That just points out how absurd his thinking is in the Liberal plan. It's just something

that no one in their right mind could possibly support. The member bringing forth this resolution has two very good points in his resolution, except he messed it up by talking about the Liberal

plan. If we bring that in, we are going to expect brownouts galore. I don't know. It will go beyond brownouts; it will simply be blackouts. There'll be no light on upstairs, as is typical in the

Liberal Party.

On cleaner fuels: moving to looking at 5% by 2007 and 10% by 2010 are very laudable ideas, supporting farmers for corn production to convert to ethanol. Some of

the things we've been doing, certainly in the budget back in June, which came in just a few days after my select committee on alternative fuel sources was tabled; we reduced the sales tax, the

rebate on hybrid-electric automobiles, that would also cover sports-utility and light-duty trucks. We also reduced the tax on biodiesel, which would make it more acceptable, more usable by the

industry.

I think a lot of things are happening, and our government is very, very serious about the select committee on alternative fuel sources. We've also invested some

$5 million into the ethanol plant in Chatham.

McGuinty's clean air plan also suggests various initiatives with respect to renewable energy. If we hadn't gone to competition in the electricity market, there

would be no green power; that was not possible under the old system. They had a chance with their government, the NDP had a chance with their government, but did they do anything to bring in green

power? No. We were up to a couple of windmills and that was just about it, a couple of solar panel units around the country, but now there are tremendous plans to bring in large wind farms in many

locations across this province.

We're getting power plants on run of the river, rather than damming up water, which is not exactly environmentally friendly, but rather taking advantage of water

that's simply running downhill and putting it through turbines and creating power.

Just in winding up so that the member from Simcoe North has about half of the time allocated to our party, I want to highlight the concern that our government

has for clean air in the province of Ontario. I've spoken about several of our initiatives in that area, which will illustrate our dedication to taking action.

There is no way that we can support the Liberal clean air plan. I will reiterate, though, that I really support the thinking that the member has on his two

points, but certainly not on the Liberal clean air plan.

In the interests of Ontarians, we must move forward with clean air initiatives while ensuring that we have the appropriate research and planning to stand behind

our policies. Dalton McGuinty's plan does not provide us with this framework. Our government will continue to act in this area and build upon our successes.

Again, I laud the member on his two points. I think he had some really good thinking there, although the idea is probably copied from the ideas of the select

committee on alternate fuels. On the other hand, he's bringing in, in his resolution, that we would immediately implement the Liberal plan for clean air. In

summary, that plan is a farce.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I am most pleased this morning to have the opportunity to talk on this resolution concerning

the clean air plan presented by my friend and colleague the member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, John Cleary.

My leader, Dalton McGuinty, has already presented the Liberal plan for clean air, and he has committed that Liberals would require all gasoline in Ontario to

contain 10% ethanol fuel by 2010.

I am proud to say that McEwen Fuels, a small, well-known family business of eastern Ontario -- to be more precise, from Maxville, which is in my riding -- has

already been offering ethanol at all its outlet fuel stations in eastern Ontario. We know that eastern Ontario -- Glengarry, Prescott, Russell, Stormont, Dundas and Charlottenburgh -- is one of the

largest agricultural sectors in Ontario. So we are already very aware of the benefit of clean fuel. My constituents are looking forward to the implementation of the Liberal plan for clean air, the

Dalton McGuinty plan.

We are aware that not all vehicles are presently equipped to handle ethanol, but we must work closely with the automotive industry to increase the number of

cars that can use ethanol and keep our air clean.

For several years now, a group from eastern Ontario has been trying to get an ethanol plant, in Cornwall, to be exact, that could be up and running.

Unfortunately, this plant is not a priority for the Harris-Eves government.

Canada previously committed $4 million to this plant in Cornwall. The federal Minister of Natural Resources has committed another $1.5 million. Farm Credit

Corp also committed to guaranteeing $10 million for the company under the name of Bud Atkins, which is planning to build an ethanol plant. I understand that if this Harris-Eves government were to

jump on board, which it appears they are not willing to do -- or they might just do prior to the next election to win votes -- Farm Credit Corp might even double their commitment.

I am told that $38 million is required to get this plant going, but not only that. We have at the present time 3,200 individuals who are farmers and also in

the private sector who have already invested over $16 million of their own money in this project. They could lose it all if this government won't commit.

After reading Mr Eves's comments in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen concerning the Kyoto accord, and knowing that this government voted against Mr Bradley's

resolution to support the accord to improve Ontario's air quality, I can see that this government is not serious about improving health in Ontario.

I have here a copy of an answer dated October 16, 2002. John Cleary, my colleague from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, asked a question to the Minister of

Energy. The Minister of Energy, the Honourable Mr Baird, said, "As I said to the member opposite, I appreciate that he cares about this issue. So do I. I, along with my colleague the Minister of

Public Security, Bob Runciman, and my colleague the Minister of the Environment, Chris Stockwell, took the opportunity to sit down with the group this past Friday in Kemptville to learn more about

the specific nature of their requests and their concerns."

I wonder how serious we are about this issue. We know it is a very important issue. We know that the farmers and the private sector of eastern Ontario have

invested over $16 million. We know that Canada has already promised it would increase its participation. We know that other sectors like natural resources federally are ready to work with this

group in Cornwall, but we need the support of this government to get it going. We have a lot of corn producers in eastern Ontario. If we want to increase air quality, this government has to commit

itself and come up with the money required to get this going.

I was calling in Cornwall yesterday to see how much land we have in reserve. When I say "reserve," this group has already bought some 25 acres of land right in

the core industrial sector of the city of Cornwall. They were not able to pay their municipal taxes because, again, we are not getting any government support on this important project.

When I look at the document I have here in which the Honourable John Baird answers my colleague John Cleary, there's a

section I really enjoy reading: "There

is some financial support that the previous Minister of Agriculture, Noble Villeneuve, made when he fought for this area." Noble was a well-known agriculture man in the area. He understood how

important that plant was for the eastern Ontario people and the rest of the province and the rest of this beautiful country.

But we need financial support. How can we go about it at the present time to say to this government that we need it? We need the government to say, "Yes, we

will support this plan as soon as possible," because we have to make a decision within the next three months. If we don't come up with any definite answer from this government within the next three

months, the whole thing might fold. The farmers and the private sector that have invested over $16 million might lose it all.

That is what I have to say. I hope this government will support this resolution because it's one of the most important pieces of legislation we could pass to

guarantee the health of the whole population of Ontario.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It's a pleasure to be here this morning, taking

part in the debate on the resolution put forward by the

honourable member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, asking us to support the Dalton McGuinty environmental plan. Of course, like any of our friend Dalton McGuinty's plans, there's no price tag

attached to it whatsoever. It's simply a figment of our imagination, something that we can dream about, pie-in-the-sky, and absolutely no dollars.

For anybody in any political party to support a plan, there has to be a certain analysis done of the cost of that plan. Before Mr McGuinty provides more plans

to this Legislature and to the citizens of Ontario as we lead up to a provincial election, I certainly hope he would attach some dollars to those, because what we've seen so far of most of Mr

McGuinty's so-called plans is that they're probably going to cost Ontario taxpayers somewhere around $12 billion to $15 billion a year. Of course, Mr McGuinty has no idea where he's going to get

that money to implement these plans, particularly in the light that he votes against every tax cut we've possibly had in Ontario, and those of course are what stimulate our economy.

The second thing I'd like to mention is the Kyoto accord and the plan that Mr Chrétien is trying to shove down the throats of all Canadians prior to a

first ministers' or Premiers' conference on the Kyoto accord, which I understood was promised to the Premiers of our country. I think what's really important about the Kyoto accord that we as

Ontarians and as Canadians should take a serious look at is that we live beside the largest economic engine in the world, the United States of America, with about 350 million people. My

understanding is that the United States of America will not sign the Kyoto accord and will not be part of it.

I also understand that China and India, which I believe represent close to four billion people on our planet, are classified as developing nations and that

they do not have to sign on the dotted line or are not part of it because they're developing nations.

What's incredible here is that with the emissions that come from the four billion people in India and China, as well from as the 350 million people who provide

emissions into our air from the United States -- I can't understand how we can think we're going to have any kind of impact by signing anything, particularly when any requirements we put on our

industry to provide better emissions are just going to cost us jobs. What will happen is that people will simply go south of the border or to one of the developing nations, and our people who are

paying taxes here and working and trying to raise families will have absolutely no chance of saving their jobs.

It's very important that any kind of plan should show exactly how the analysis is going to affect the economy of the particular country where the jobs will be

lost. What will be the cost of implementing the recommendations of the Kyoto accord? I've heard nothing on that. We say it's X number of dollars for so much industry, and that there are these

credits you can trade back and forth with other countries. I've seen no proof of what the savings will be or what the benefits will be to Canada when the United States of America is not signing on

to the accord.

However, aside from the Kyoto accord, I believe, and I think we've proven it in a number of areas, that clean air is a priority for the government. When it

comes to supporting clean fuels and energy sources, Ontario is a leading jurisdiction in North America. We've taken numerous initiatives to tackle smog and improve air quality.

I'm really pleased that we heard some comments this morning from Dr Galt, the chief government whip, who chaired the alternative fuels committee. They examined

options for alternative fuel sources and renewable energy across the world. The goals of the government, following the alternative fuels committee, are very clear: to provide a sustainable,

efficient supply of energy to Ontarians at a reasonable cost, and to promote renewable and green energy initiatives.

I know that right as we speak there are some very interesting projects taking place with wind generation. Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde mentioned ethanol earlier in

some of his comments. I know that's a strong suggestion from the alternative fuels committee.

It seems that when we're dealing with these plans, we don't have any solid, set plan from any one level of government. We've got the Kyoto accord and we've got

Mr McGuinty's flip-flop sort of environmental plan, whatever he wants to call it, but we need to get something that analyzes the true cost of implementing the types of things that Kyoto recommends

right across the planet, and that would include all countries on the planet, not just Canada, not just maybe Ontario, maybe Alberta, parts of Canada, parts of Europe.

I don't see where there's any consistency here, and I think what's important is that we as a country and as a province make sure we have a strong analysis of

the true costs, not only to industry but to our environment, with and without the Kyoto accord recommendations.

In closing, I want to say that I appreciate the fact that we have these opportunities for debate in this House. The member, Mr Cleary, brings forth a

resolution that's worthy of debate, and I think we have to work not only on the opposition's recommendations but on the government's recommendations, the Ministry of the Environment. And as a

strong partner in Confederation and the leader of most of the industrialized parts of Canada, I think we have to listen to our partners in Alberta and Nova Scotia and right across our great

country. I appreciate this opportunity this morning.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to commend the member for Cornwall, Charlottenburgh and other parts of the riding for bringing

this resolution before the house. I think it's exceedingly important that we proceed with due dispatch to implement policies which are going to, first of all, bring about cleaner air; and second,

will contribute to a solution to the problem of global warming.

Yesterday a report was released by Pollution Probe. By the way, I should not first of all that Pollution Probe is considered to be a very moderate, mainline

environment group. It does not have any radical connotations, as it may have had many years ago. Today, Pollution Probe is seen as very centrist in terms of the environmental movement. That report

was quite frightening in terms of what it points out for the Toronto and Niagara regions in terms of some of the potential diseases and problems that could come as a result of global warming. This

resolution goes part of the way to finding one of those solutions.

When I saw the Premier of the province of Ontario walk out of a meeting with Ralph Klein, the Premier of Alberta, and simply embrace the Alberta position, I

was really, deeply disappointed. I can't think of many times that I've been as deeply disappointed as I was on that. The member for Timmins-James Bay made reference to the fact that we all thought

there was at least a different approach that might be forthcoming from Mr Eves -- I would have expected Mr Harris to step out with Mr Klein and take that position -- and I was deeply disappointed

when I saw that happen and when I see that Ontario apparently has not produced anything in the way of an implementation strategy for international agreements. But this resolution offers some hope

in that regard.

I sat on the alternative fuels committee of the Ontario Legislature -- I know the whip will give me a note of the appropriate time to sit down. That was a very

good experience. We had members of all three political parties who checked their partisan hats at the door and tried to come up with some really practical, good, far-reaching and comprehensive

solutions to air quality and global warming by looking at various forms of fuels and alternative ways of producing energy.

The report in itself provides a good framework for any government in Ontario to be able to meet the obligations under the Kyoto accord or any other

international agreement. This is part of it. We have cleaner gasoline, we have said in the official opposition that all gasoline sold in Ontario will be required to contain at least 5%

clean-burning ethanol by 2007, rising to 10% by 2010. That's not unrealistic; that's very reasonable. Ethanol is a cleaner-burning fuel produced from agricultural products such as corn. Cleaner

diesel fuel as well: we want to work with farmers in industry to develop and implement an Ontario biodiesel strategy which will include in the future mandatory clean, renewable biodiesel content

and diesel fuel.

So these are steps that can be taken. I hope that the members of this Assembly will agree with this. I'm pleased to see the resolution before us. I hope we can

develop a consensus in this House and come up with some really practical and good solutions which will bring immense benefits.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): I'm really delighted to have an opportunity, short as it will be, to speak on this resolution,

for two reasons. The first reason is that it's put forward by my colleague from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, Mr Cleary, who has informed us and all of the world that this Parliament will be his

last in Ontario. I just want to take a moment or two to say to him, to the members of this House and to the province what an outstanding job he has done over the many years that he has represented

his riding in the Ontario Legislature. The member is quiet, soft-spoken and has a determination that should be the admiration of any parliamentarian, young or seasoned.

I remember that when we first began to sit together in 1985, I was struck by what tremendous support he had from his constituents then, and that has continued

throughout his political career.

I assume that this will be the last resolution he puts before this Legislature. I want to tell you, sir, and the members of this House, that it would be a true

triumph if we could just set aside the partisan nature of this place for a while and get unanimous consent or a majority consent to pass this resolution.

It's part of an overall strategy that is critically important for Ontario. As the resolution reads, "...the government of Ontario should immediately implement

the Ontario Liberal clean air plan that would: ensure all gasoline sold in Ontario contains at least 5% clean-burning ethanol by 2007 and 10% by 2010." Those are pretty high standards and

objectives. It's one of, I think, the keys in the McGuinty clean air plan. It's very important to do, not just so we can start to reduce the smog, dirt and pollution that all of us are breathing

day after day, and not just in our metropolitan areas. It also is a very important economic strategy for farm communities right around this province and indeed beyond, because it creates a new

industry that allows us to transform what we grow into the gasoline that we use to get around in this province.

I think it's so appropriate that this resolution be put forward by the member from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, because there is no one in this Legislature

who has spoken more passionately for the interests of farmers right across Ontario, not just in his own area of eastern Ontario.

This initiative will be very important for farmers. This initiative will be very important for all of us who believe that we have a responsibility to clean up

our environment. I want to congratulate my colleague for bringing the resolution to this House.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh has two minutes to wrap up.

Mr Cleary: First of all, I'd like to thank the members from Timmins-James Bay, Northumberland, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Simcoe North, St

Catharines and Vaughan-King-Aurora. I know that many of them are very supportive. I think it's time that all parties work together and do what's good for the residents of Ontario.

I would also like to thank Liam McCreery from the Ontario Soybean Growers for his input into this, and Mike Buis from the Ontario Cattlemen's Association. They

know what's good for the residents of Ontario.

I know that this is about more than just clean air and ethanol. It's also about jobs in Ontario.

I don't know how any member of the Legislature could vote against what we're proposing. I know that the select committee on alternative fuels did great work,

and a lot of good things can come out of that.

As I said earlier, we have to work together, because we're talking about people's health. There are three things that people want in this province: fresh

drinking water, clean air and quality-inspected food.

Most members of the Ontario Legislature come here with the goal that they want to make Ontario a better place to live. They may have many different ideas, but

I think we all have to work toward the same goal.

I would hope we would get some support for this resolution, because I've been involved in trying to get an ethanol plant going in our part of Ontario for many,

many years, and many people have invested their money. It's time that all levels of government come together and support the program.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): My resolution reads as follows:

That this House deplores the escalating costs of hydro to residents in Hamilton and across the province. That the Ontario Legislative Assembly condemns the

Eves government's deregulation and privatization of Ontario Hydro; and that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should return to a system of power that is publicly owned and

regulated.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to standing order 96, the member has 10 minutes.

Mr Christopherson: First of all, I want to thank my legislative assistant, Linda Mitchell, who worked overtime and made a lot of extra efforts

to make sure all the material from my constituents was available. Your efforts are much appreciated.

This is about an economic attack on the people of Hamilton and every other community across the province. This is an attack that lies right on the doorstep of

this government. You've got no one else to blame, nowhere else to point. You can't tell us, "Everything's going to be fine; don't worry about it. Go to sleep. Everything will work out fine in the

long run." People are hurting. People are scared. The people who are frightened the most are in many cases the disabled, seniors, individuals on a fixed income, low-income individuals, people

barely struggling as it is to provide the necessities of life for their kids. Along comes your deregulation and ultimately privatization of hydro, and suddenly everybody is wondering how they're

going to get through the winter and how they are possibly going to pay their bills.

I've got a number of cases, and I hope to get the majority of them on the floor.

First of all, Angela Fiorentino, a senior on a fixed income. Her bill is $330. She made a partial payment, but then she got a notice saying that if she didn't

pay the balance, they were going to cut her off. Further to that, they told her that if she was cut off, she's got to find $400 over and above the amount already owed before they'll reconnect. How

is she supposed to do that? When members of the government get up today, I don't want to hear you stand up and give us government rhetoric. I want you to tell my constituents how they're supposed

to get through the winter. They are already behind because their bills are doubled. In many cases, people on disability haven't received an increase from you. Anybody on minimum wage hasn't

received an increase in almost eight years. You kept telling us that's not important. I want every one of the government members who stands up today to look into the cameras and tell my

constituents just what they're supposed to do this winter. Angela Fiorentino receives $850 a month. I want you to stand in your place and tell Angela how she's supposed to live, with $330 for

hydro. And don't tell her the rebate's coming sometime next year, because her hydro is on the brink of being cut off now.

Lest you think it's just NDP types and our followers, let me read an editorial from the Hamilton Spectator written by Howard Elliott on Friday, October 11 of

this year.

"We could write an editorial a day for the next month, each one a full blown rant, and still just scratch the surface of the outrage Hamiltonians are feeling

around hydro.

"They're writing letters to the editor, calling and e-mailing by the dozen. They're outraged, howling for blood. Some are fearful, some can't pay their hydro

bills for the first time in their lives. They describe enormous increases, some saying they're sacrificing other basic necessities to pay for this basic essential. They are, literally and

figuratively, shaking their fists and telling anyone who'll listen they're mad as hell.

"It is absolutely no exaggeration to suggest this debacle could be the thing that sinks the Conservative government. And make no mistake, it's the Tories who

should bear the lion's share of the blame."

Mr Elliott goes on to say, "In the long run, maybe this whole idea needs rethinking. Given that electricity is a necessity of life, and that the people who

need it have few viable alternatives, why should the electricity market be governed solely by free-market, supply-and-demand rules and philosophy?

"We don't treat health care that way, and adequate, affordable electricity is as basic and vital."

Jon Lehti has written my office. John said, "We're being gouged to death in this unregulated environment. Anything essential to the taxpayers' health and

welfare should be regulated. You have, by your inaction, thrown us to the wolves, the profitmongers. I for one will be voting very differently next election."

This is from Sandra Meloche.

"Dear Mr Eves:

"I cannot believe that in a democratic society here in Canada that government would allow this to happen to its constituents. I am on a fixed income of $825 a

month (CPP). Could you please explain to me how I can pay rent and buy food and pay my huge hydro bills. Thank you Mr Eves. I am sure that due to you and your fellows, there will be a lot of old,

sick and handicapped people sitting in the cold and the dark this year."

Just as an aside, I want to say how disturbed I am by the number of my constituents who are afraid to let their names be used because they are afraid of their

own government. That has never happened before, and it's not a coincidence.

Antoniette DiMarino: her total bill is $802. The hydro is around $650. She said the total bill is more than her mortgage.

You said this was going to be good for my constituents in Hamilton. You said this was going to be good for the people of Ontario. Where? Where's the evidence?

Because all the evidence I've got is the opposite. You're hurting people. They are scared. As if we aren't scared enough in this society; the way things are going right now, you have to add this

burden. People don't even feel safe and secure in their own home, because they don't know how they are going to pay their bills; they don't know how they are going to buy their food. They are

worried their hydro is going to be cut off, and if it's cut off, they don't have the money to get it reconnected.

That's fine if you don't want to look at me now, but you're going to have to stand up in your turn in this House, and I want you to answer to those

constituents. It's your government, your policies. You supported them, every one of you. You have all got to answer to the Hamiltonians who are hurting, and to every other person in Ontario.

It's not just individuals, as if that weren't bad enough. Dofasco is a good example of a major industry in Hamilton that provides jobs and economic investment

in our community. They are very successful, and they are successful because they watch every dime. They study around the world and they see where they can do new techniques and new procedures to

ensure the future of the company. Do you know how much their costs are going to go up? Fifty million dollars.

In the past, the government members have said, "Well, you know, individuals and businesses are just going to have to learn to plan their production better so

they can take advantage of off-peak hours." Listen to what Dofasco says about that idea. This is Gord Forstner, a spokesperson for Dofasco: "It couldn't be done. We didn't know where the market

was, and therefore it was impossible for us to tailor our operations to save money. But our ability to turn operations on and off with changes in electricity rates, even if we wanted to do it, was

non-existent."

You're hurting people, you're hurting business and you're hurting our economy. I want you to stand in your place today, look in that camera right there and

tell my constituents what they're supposed to do. And don't you dare blame anybody other than yourselves. There are people who think they're going to go hungry this winter to pay your hydro bills,

and they deserve a lot better than that from their government. So stand up and defend what is probably the indefensible.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join the debate on ballot item 64. Certainly no one in this House -- we all

pay our electricity bills and everything -- wants to be faced with dealing with the costs of a situation that is difficult for some people to meet. Nobody wants to put a person in a situation like

that. We all share that.

All in this House know well about the mismanagement at Ontario Hydro that led to debt and associated liabilities that reached $38 billion by 1999. The same

mismanagement led to customers being hit with some of the largest increases in electricity prices in our history. For example, between 1983 and 1993, wholesale electricity prices increased by 94%,

an annual average rate of 6.9%. The price impacts of an "at any cost passed through the monopoly" system were largely to blame, and the monopoly structure and centralized decision-making of Ontario

Hydro made such increases inevitable.

Our electricity system, which for so long had been a competitive advantage, was at risk of becoming a competitive disadvantage that would drive jobs and

investment away from Ontario. We could not accept that. We could not allow Ontario to go on forever suffering from the Hydro hangover. So we set about to cure it.

The cure is a competitive market in the generation and sale of electricity within a strong regulatory framework, which this government introduced on May 1 of

this year. In a competitive market, prices vary according to supply and demand. It's quite normal, in a competitive wholesale electricity market, to see variations in hourly prices due to supply

and demand. For example, demand is lower at night than in the day, so prices are lower at night. Demand is also lower in the spring and fall, when temperatures are moderate, so prices are lower.

Wholesale prices in May averaged three cents per kilowatt hour, and in June they averaged 3.3 cents per kilowatt hour.

I know that concerns have been expressed recently over electricity prices in the summer. I know that some have cited high prices as proof that the competitive

electricity net market just doesn't work. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This past summer was the hottest in nearly 50 years, with above-average temperatures continuing well into September. That means air conditioners were running a

lot more, and that put a lot of demand on the system. The increased demand led to higher prices. That's how the market, any market, works.

Under the old Ontario Hydro monopoly, the true cost of electricity would have been hidden from the consumer, only to reappear later as increased debt on

Ontario Hydro's balance sheet. That is how Ontario Hydro operated, and that is why they left a $38-billion legacy of debt.

Given the heat waves of the past summer, the electricity market performed well, as expected. Our supply held. We had access to imported power, proving the

advantage of interconnection with the United States, and we certainly did not have the rolling blackouts that some predicted.

In fact, we have been importing and exporting power in this province for many years. It's certainly not something new, and it works to our advantage. It gives

us a safety net during sharp spikes in demand. As we predicted, the onset of cooler autumn weather is leading to a decrease in demand and a corresponding drop in prices, the weighted average price

so far for October being four cents per kilowatt hour.

There are a couple of things to remember about electricity prices. First, last summer was unusually hot, and demand was unusually high. In circumstances like

this, consumers can take a number of measures to use power more efficiently, which will decrease their bills and also relieve pressure on the system. Second, the market power mitigation agreement

will protect consumers from the full market price impact. The agreement will rebate at least 50% of the price increase above an average of 3.8 cents per kilowatt hour for the year on the generation

part of the bill. So there is a rebate program in place.

On the other hand, customers who have signed with retailers already have a fixed price. Though prices will continue to be influenced by supply and demand, as

the nuclear units at Pickering A and Bruce A stations come back into service, along with the other new developments, I am confident we will see less volatility in electricity prices.

In the long term, competition and adequate supply are consumers' best protection against unwarranted increases in the price of electricity. Thanks to

competition, not only will consumers benefit from lower prices over time, they will also be able to chose to receive their electricity from cleaner, renewable energy sources.

We are already seeing a number of new clean energy projects come on-line. For example, the Ontario Waterpower Association has indicated that more than $180.9

million is committed and planned for water projects that have been announced over the past two years. In fact, nine water power projects are currently being built or are on the drawing board here

in Ontario.

TransAlta has begun construction of a 490-megawatt natural-gas-fired plant in Sarnia, which is expected to come on stream in early 2003. Huron Wind, a

partnership of OPG and British Energy, is installing five 1.8-megawatt wind generators in Kincardine, which are expected to be operational by the end of this year.

Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative and Toronto Hydro Energy Services Inc are erecting a 750-kilowatt wind turbine at the CNE in Toronto, which is expected

to be operational by early next year, and Sky Generation is installing a 1.8-megawatt wind turbine at Ferndale in the Bruce Peninsula, which should be operational in November of this year.

These projects will create enough power to supply 340,000 homes, and over time the opening of the market will attract more private investment in Ontario and

will lead to the construction of even more new forms of clean electricity generation.

New investment, more consumer choice and protection, a safe and reliable supply of electricity and environmentally friendly energy sources: these are what the

competitive electricity market was meant to accomplish. By restructuring the electricity market, the government has guaranteed that future generations of Ontarians have access to the efficient,

reliable supply of electricity and that Ontario remains competitive in an increasingly competitive world.

In closing, I want to point out that the capacity for the electricity market in this province is secure. Experts predict that it is in a stable situation for

the next 18 months. The debt is being paid down. People know through their bills exactly what is being paid, and, to the detriment of the federal government, who said yesterday that they are not

going to remove the GST from that bill --

Interjection: Unconscionable.

Mr Tascona: -- which I agree is unconscionable; that's going to remain on the bill. I can't believe how they could say that's a service or a

debt that's being dealt with.

With respect to the rate rebate, that's in place by law. Consumers can expect that where the average annualized rate is greater than 3.8 cents per kilowatt

hour, they will get a 50% rebate on the difference on the generation part of the bill.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I'm pleased to respond to the member opposite, but first I'd like to congratulate my colleague

from Hamilton West for so passionately representing his constituents on this issue.

I, of course, have received similar calls, and I will go through that in a minute. But first I want to challenge my honourable colleague opposite with some of

the things he said about competition. Dofasco came to you before you came on to this endeavour, and Dofasco, a huge company, is not against competition, not against privatization, but told you

privately in meetings with your former Premier, "You're not ready. Unless you have the supply, don't venture into the open market. The prices will soar." They warned you. You say that you represent

business. Well, here was business telling you that you weren't ready.

I would also like to give one example from my constituency, the Dairy Queen on Fennell Avenue. The hydro bill in 2001 was $1,200. This is a business. The hydro

bill last month was $3,900. Jane Scala is asking me to ask you how she's supposed to keep her business, how she's supposed to keep her employees, how she's supposed to even think of the future in

her business.

I'm trying to talk the language you say you understand, the business language, the jobs language. You failed there. It's bad enough that once again the

vulnerable are paying the biggest price. I mean, you don't even listen to that any more; it's almost like you've tuned that out. But this is something that is also hurting the people you think you

represent.

My constituent Cynthia Hansen's hydro in October 2001 was $294. It is now $414. Cynthia was told by Hamilton Hydro that less total energy was used in 2002 over

2001. That is what my constituents are saying: "We are conserving more now, we are more conscious now, but our bills are still higher. We're using less energy now and our bills are still

higher."

There's another issue that is just now starting to be talked about. People are actually turning off their external house lights. Now that it's getting darker

in the winter, they maybe have them on for an hour at the most; some don't have them on at all at night. You have a lot of dark neighbourhoods now. There's a safety issue. That's a huge issue that

is just now starting to come because it's just now starting to get dark earlier. People are trying their best to conserve, yet their bills are still out of this world.

I support my colleague's motion because you weren't ready to go on this endeavour. You'd like to blame other governments for the mismanagement of Hydro, but

what have you done in the last eight years and what has your solution done? Your solution is not effective.

We on this side of the House are not against competition, particularly in green energy. We need green energy. Privatization is one way to get it, but it has to

be with tough regulations. We know that in some areas of the province you wouldn't have the energy if it wasn't for privatization. The NDP, 10 years ago, allowed three private non-utility

generators to open in the north: one in Cochrane, one in Iroquois Falls and one in Kirkland Lake. The cogeneration of woodchips and natural gas was needed. They knew that and they allowed that.

Their own leader, Howard Hampton, said that TransAlta will be allowed to function in Sarnia, the Alberta company that again is a private company and is a cogenerator with natural gas and steam, a

good, clean source of energy.

We're not against privatization, but it has to be with tough regulations and with generous supply so that competition is fair. You know what happened. You

didn't have the supply because of your mismanagement; therefore, all's fair in the open market and prices went up.

We're not unreasonable on this side of the House. We know the challenges. But you were driven more by wanting to please your former Premier's rich friends on

Bay Street than the needs of the citizens of this province. That's what angers us. You weren't going into this in the spirit of business, which will then give jobs and energy. You were going into

this for your former Premier, to please his friends on Bay Street.

What is your response? To sell half of Hydro One now. And I bet after the next election, if we're unfortunate enough to see you again on that side of the

House, you'll sell the other half, which is just the same as selling all our highways. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I am pleased to stand and support my colleague from Hamilton West, Mr Christopherson, and congratulate

him for bringing this forward today in private members' hour.

What was really shocking was to listen to Mr Tascona, who stood up after Mr Christopherson spoke so passionately and intelligently, with facts, information and

letters from real people in his own community, and we're all getting hundreds of those faxes and letters. Our NDP leader is out again today on the Keep our Power Public bus. We are getting

hundreds, if not thousands, of responses, the very same responses that Mr Christopherson gave a few examples of today. It is happening all over Ontario.

I heard from a woman in my riding in East York who got a bill recently for $600. She's in a bungalow in East York. We think there must be a mistake, but we're

getting more of those. There are others in Toronto who stayed with Toronto Hydro, who didn't sign up with the others, who right now are getting artificially low bills because for the time being

they are sheltered by Toronto Hydro, which is waiting to see if perhaps by some miracle prices will go down and then they'll never see those increases. That's not what's going to happen here.

They're going to get a huge shock very soon when their bills come.

What did Mr Tascona do but get up and not mention people once. He didn't talk about the seniors, yes indeed, in his riding and in all of our ridings, or people

in social housing who are responsible for paying their own hydro bills and who can't afford to pay them any more, with the city of Toronto saying it can't afford to retrofit the buildings or to pay

those bills for them. What are they going to do? What are you going to do with people on minimum wage, who, by the way, have not seen an increase in minimum wage since this government came to power

in 1995? What are they going to do, Mr Tascona? Somebody over there address the real issue that Mr Christopherson brought up today: the fact that we are literally going to have people freezing in

the dark if you don't do something about this.

Our leader, Mr Hampton, stood up the other day and questioned the Minister of Energy about a real person, a real woman, who's in a situation where she is going

to have her hydro cut off. She can't pay it incrementally; she's got to pay it all at once. She's going to have it cut off. He has introduced or will be introducing a private member's bill that

makes it very clear that this government will not allow -- that we, the legislators, including you guys over there who did this, who privatized the system, will at least commit to passing a bill

that will disallow OPG, for heaven's sake, from cutting off people's power in the middle of winter.

It only gets worse. People's bills are out of control. They can't afford to pay them. Industry is being hurt. And what do you do but stand there with the same

old, tired lines about how previous governments screwed it up and how you came in on your white horses, knights in shining armour to save us from the mistakes of previous governments. You're the

guys who brought in Darlington, by the way. The costs went way over budget and I think ended up costing $19 billion.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): We did Darlington?

Ms Churley: Yes, you did it. Right now, with the rates we're paying -- people should know this -- only about half of our bills go toward the

actual power generation. The other costs go to transmission, distribution and debt service.

Mr Sampson: And GST.

Ms Churley: Yes, but we'll leave that alone for a moment. You're the guys who are responsible, but you're still trying to make excuses over

there. You did this. It's not somebody else's fault. You're right about the GST. They shouldn't be charged for it. We'll go after the federal Liberal government on that. But we're here today

talking about a very flawed system. We're here today saying, "Bring public power back."

This is not working. In the US we are seeing more and more states deciding to pull back, to reverse their decision to privatize or not go ahead, because

they're seeing what's happening there. The examples are there. This is not just scaremongering. This is really happening to people. We need answers.

They also talk about the fact that we had to privatize the system to bring in green power. We acknowledged that there was problem under the previous system. In

fact, we have a plan to fix the previous public system so we can fix that and make sure conservation, real conservation, and energy efficiency programs are brought in, which we had under our

government, which you guys got rid of. You don't need to do what you are doing to bring in green power. You brag about it. What have you brought in so far? I understand that only about 0.7% of the

market is green power. With all your rhetoric around the fact that deregulation and privatization is going to bring in more power, you haven't brought in the right kinds of incentives and

regulations to bring in the green power. It's just a sop to those who are trying to bring green power on the grid.

The NDP's plan for accountable public power includes supports for renewable portfolio standards and special funding for conservation through an assistance

benefit charge, as the green power generators proposed. They just held a press conference this morning, with all kinds of ideas. Green power and conservation must come first and can be and will be,

if our plan is adopted and brought into the system. I want to bring it back again.

I'm going to listen very, very carefully to the next Tory who gets up. What I want to hear you talk about is real people, the real people Mr Christopherson was

talking about this morning, the real people who are not going to be able to pay their bills. What are they going to do, and what are you going to do about it?

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I am pleased to rise and speak to ballot item number 64, the resolution presented by the member from

Hamilton West. It's interesting that the member from Toronto-Danforth said she wants us to speak about real people. I would ask the members opposite to look above them at the school children

looking down at the proceedings today. They're real people.

You're proposing in this resolution a short-term solution to a long-term problem. We have --

Interjection.

Mr Wettlaufer: Now hear me out. You had your opportunity and I didn't interrupt; now hear me out. All right?

We have a debt. The Hydro debt is $38 billion. We have an asset of $20 billion, leaving a net stranded debt, for which there is no asset, of $18 billion.

That's the old math: $18 billion. That was as a result of the collective decisions of a number of governments over the last 15 to 20 years. I admit that the Bill Davis government was part of that,

but you people are unwilling to admit that the David Peterson government was part of it and the Bob Rae government was part of it. You want to leave those children a debt of $18 billion which they

are going to have to pay and for which there will be no asset. You are advocating a short-term solution, I say to the members opposite.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, come to order.

Mr Wettlaufer: Years of mismanagement by Ontario Hydro and years of poor decisions and indecision by previous Ontario governments meant this

government had to take action to change the way our electricity system works. We had to make sure that the system would work long into the future.

Our first priority is to ensure that Ontario's electricity customers are protected. We have endeavoured to put electricity customers first, from designing the

new wholesale and retail markets to safeguarding our future electricity supply, thereby ensuring that safe, reliable power will continue to be supplied to consumers at competitive cost in the long

term.

I say to the members opposite, compare the prices of hydro in Ontario to other jurisdictions around the world. We are competitive. We are among the lowest in

Canada. I'm not without feeling on this. I know there are businesses and people in your ridings and in my riding who are being confronted with rising costs. I have rising costs too, but I do not

advocate a short-term solution, as you do.

It's interesting that the NDP is advocating another short-term solution, as they did for five years when they were in government, but look at what they did to

the debt of the province.

Ms Churley: What are you going to do for these people?

Mr Wettlaufer: You're advocating a short-term solution again. That's all you've ever done. You advocated a short-term solution to everything

in your five years of government, and look at what happened to the debt of this province. The debt doubled. Say that to the people, say that to the children of this province, that you don't give a

darn about them. You think you have a monopoly on feeling for the people. All you have is a monopoly on short-term solutions.

We moved to a competitive market because the old monopoly system wasn't working. We could continue to use taxpayers' dollars to subsidize hydro, but we've

decided not to. We cannot continue to party at the expense of our future, as the members opposite think we can. The only way to protect customers and guarantee future prosperity is to open our

wholesale and retail electricity markets to competition.

As we move into the future, we will see benefits, including greater efficiencies, better service and innovation, like allowing consumers who so choose to focus

their electricity dollars on green power.

For the first time, Ontario's 4.1 million residential electricity customers have a choice as to how they want to buy their power. They can decide to do nothing

and their local utility will continue to supply them with power at a variable or spot-market rate, or they can purchase their electricity at a fixed rate.

It's interesting. In my riding the local supplier is Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro. They had a surplus and they elected to use that surplus by putting it into general

municipal revenues. They now no longer have a surplus -- they could level off the prices they charge. That's their choice. That's a business decision by the municipal government. That's fine; I

have no problem with that. I'm just saying that in our case, in my riding, the price increases would have been ameliorated somewhat by another decision by the municipal government. They elected not

to do that. I suppose there are other municipalities or local utilities that have done likewise. So why don't you take a look at those local utilities or municipalities that made decisions in that

regard 18 months or two years ago?

No matter what choice consumers make, their local utility will continue to deliver electricity and bill customers for transmission and distribution. They'll

still be responsible for the safety and reliability of local distribution. The transmission and distribution of electricity is regulated by the OEB. We put into place very tough regulations for the

OEB to regulate the local supply and local distribution of electricity. My time is running out so I can't get into that, unfortunately. I wish I could. If the opposite members would allow me to, I

would.

Mr Sampson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know you would want to know that watching from the galleries today are students from West Lynde

Public School in Whitby and from St Philip school in the great state of Mississauga.

The Acting Speaker: I'm very pleased to have these students as our guests.

The Speaker recognizes the member for Davenport.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I'm delighted to participate in this debate. I want to point out a number of items. First, I think it's

important to realize that the documents that were released by the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- all of you have a copy -- show that a so-called free market in electricity generation is

intrinsically flawed and susceptible to price fixing, artificial shortages and widespread abuse.

Both opposition parties were warning this government of what would happen when you opened the market in May. I remember the Minister of Energy getting up and

saying, "Oh, look, you know, early summer, the prices" -- it was 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour -- "are going down. We can take credit because we opened the market." But now, when the prices are going

sky high, where are they? Where is the government? Where are the backbenchers standing up and saying, "We want to take credit for it, or do we take the blame?"

What has happened is that all of us know, all of Ontario knows, you've made a mess of a deregulated market. You opened up the process. What happens when there

are brownouts, especially about Toronto? What are you going to do about Yvette Brown who has got a bill that's already doubled? She's on a fixed income.

We have literally hundreds of examples here on both sides -- you get the calls as well -- and I want you to look them in the eye and say, "You know what? The

prices will be coming down soon." Because the prices will not come down soon. I'll make one prediction: everyone today who gets up to try to justify what you've done, to justify it in terms of

saying, "The opposition is simply doing it because it's a short-term solution, but the Conservatives are thinking ahead about our children's future; we're thinking about a long-term solution and we

have to bite the dust in the meantime" -- we have example after example where people are going to freeze this winter, example after example where small businesses are going to have to suffer

through it; their prices have doubled too.

My colleague from Hamilton Mountain was indicating, and so was the member from Hamilton West, that Dofasco's bill is going to be increased by $50 million in

one year. It's simple; that kind of math adds up. The government always says, "Lets add up the numbers and see what the numbers say." The numbers are clear. How could it be mistaken when a senior

citizen on a fixed income is going to have their hydro bill doubled? Is that a mistake? Is that temporary?

Just wait until Toronto Hydro releases its bills. We know that some of these bills are capped and some are floating. When the caps come off there will be

hundreds of thousands calling us and the place will be lighting up, saying, "What are you doing?" My prediction will be the following, and mark it well: this government will backtrack rapidly --

rapido -- and it will say, "I think we made a mistake." Today they proudly say, "We think of long-term solutions." Tomorrow, or not too long from today, they're going to have to bite themselves and

say, "We made a mistake. We're either going to go back to the old system of controlling regulation or we're going to give big discounts in terms of paying money back to the consumers."

Do you know what the prediction is? You're going to go back. You're going to eat your own words today, because you're

proud of what you've done and you shouldn't be because you're hurting people.

It is very clear that years of mismanagement -- are we almost getting to the point?

Interjections.

Mr Ruprecht: We're at the point right now. Mr Speaker, I have two more predictions but I'll quit right now because there are many more

speakers who want to talk on the subject.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I would like, first of all, to commend my colleague from Hamilton West for the excellent job he has done

in bringing this matter down to real people. Very often we talk about policies in this Legislature but we all too seldom talk about real people. I'd like to talk a little bit about what's

happening, or what isn't happening, in the city of Toronto, where I have lived almost my entire life.

People, my neighbours, are wondering what the hydro debate is about because they have not felt that debate. They have not seen the costs in their bills. They

do not even understand what their bills say. They haven't seen the kind of rises we have seen outside of Toronto and in many of the communities around Ontario. They have been shielded. But their

day of reckoning is coming, and all too soon, because Toronto Hydro is banking on the fact that prices will potentially go down in the fall and stay down all winter. I think it's a mug's game and

probably a very foolish prognostication.

Before coming to this Legislature, as many of you know, I was on the city of Toronto council, but before that I was the mayor of East York. Part of my duties

there was to sit on the hydro commission of East York and to meet, quite often, with the hydro commissioners across the municipalities of what were then the six municipalities of Toronto, and the

hydro commissioners from outside of that area. I will tell you without a doubt, the big months for hydro usage inside the now city of Toronto, or Metropolitan Toronto, or the GTA, are not the

summer months, as the members opposite keep telling you about the summertime, the hottest summer on record. The big months of usage are December and January. When December and January come and the

usage goes way back up again, we are going to be paying. Those are the same months that the hydro dams are not able to put out the amounts of water that they can in the spring, fall and summer

months, because many of our lakes and rivers are frozen, the flow is not the same, and we have to rely on other forms or energy, especially coal.

Interjection.

Mr Prue: No, it doesn't freeze up, but many places do in northern Ontario. If the member opposite would ever travel that far north he'd know

it's pretty cold.

We know, and I will make that prediction too, that come this December and this January, the spikes are going to be there, the usage is going to be there. Just

stop to think about it, members opposite and those who are perhaps watching on television: why are those months the heaviest? It's quite clear it's the highest usage then because of the lights, and

we go into daylight savings this coming weekend. The lights are a huge factor, because at 4 o'clock when you're driving home you'll see that the streetlights are on, the house lights are on, and

you don't have that in the summertime. There are Christmas lights, of course, for all those people who celebrate the holiday by lighting up their homes, and there are tens of thousands of people

who will do it in spite of the cost. You have the problem of heating: many places are electrically heated, or use electricity as part of the heating process, or space heaters. You have cooking:

people do a lot more of that in the wintertime. You have entertainment, computers, televisions; you have people at home using that electricity. So what the members opposite are thinking, that the

costs are going to come down this winter, is not going to happen. They are going to come down a little bit, perhaps, for October, and then they're going to start going right back up in the same

sort of progression that we saw this summer. That's when the people of Toronto are going to notice it, because come next year when they get their bill, they're going to be in for one big shock.

Public power has been a godsend to this province. I would remind, especially the member who represents Kitchener, who spoke just a few minutes ago, that the

first public power in this province went into Berlin, Ontario, which is today Kitchener. When Sir Adam Beck threw the switch, the father of public power threw the switch in Berlin, Ontario, in the

place that he now represents, it said, "For the people!" I think the member for Kitchener should remember that it was for the people; not for the corporations, not for the people who were investing

in it, not for the people who were going to make profits but for all of us, especially for those people who could not otherwise afford it.

There has been a problem, and even the people of Toronto are noticing it, those who are fortunate enough to have cottage properties outside of the city. When

they are getting their cottage bills this year, they are horrendous. People are seeing $600 and $700 bills where they're used to see $100 or $200. There's no air conditioning there and there's not

much use of hydroelectricity. The most disgraceful thing that's happening is the minimum charges that are being put on out there. People who try to conserve electricity and aren't using much of it

in their cottages, who used to pay a minimum $25-per-month charge, are now paying $100, $200 or $300 for electricity they used to get for a minimum charge.

We really have to start doing something to protect consumers. This bill is about protecting consumers. I would advise the members opposite to actually open up

their e-mails and open up their letters from their own constituents and they will know that they are very angry. They are looking for a solution today, not 20 years from now.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It is my intention to support what I consider to be a very good resolution put forward by the member for

Hamilton West.

If we were to canvass our constituency office staff and ask them what issue is first and foremost in the minds of individuals in our communities, at least the

plurality of the calls, if not the majority of calls, would be related to the huge hydro bills which are now coming in, the cost of electrical power to the people of this province. Some have not

yet seen it in its full extent, because they've not seen it being reflected in rent increases. I would see some very substantial rent increases that will be forthcoming as a result of these huge

electrical bills.

I have several people who have been confronted with different problems. Here's a person whose hydro bill went from $320 to $704. He has a modest-sized home.

Here's another individual who's on ODSP and cannot afford the increase from $80 to $189. She contacted the local utility and that only upset her, because she was told if she didn't pay the bill,

she would be cut off. Another individual: the bill went from $197 to $430. This individual's wife is disabled and requires extra care. Another one: she has lived at this address for almost 30 years

and has never had a bill over $180. Her bill this month was $366.

Another individual, a senior citizen, very much involved with senior citizens' affairs: his previous bill, approximately $300; his latest bill, $561. He might

not be able to pay his bill this month. An individual who lives in a semi-detached house, four people in the home, two adults, two children: the hydro bill received, the last one I have a record

of: $559. Another says she cannot afford to pay this month's hydro bill. The bill is for $221. This person, a widow with two children, says she lives in a small apartment. She has a 12-year-old

daughter who is disabled, and she receives money from Ontario Works.

Time after time people are calling. People in businesses are calling to say that hydro rates are jumping. Despite what they were assured by members of the Eves

government, their hydro rates are jumping tremendously.

I sat on the alternative fuels committee. One of our recommendations was that the government of Ontario, through publicly owned Ontario Power Generation,

proceed with Beck 3, yet another addition to power generation in Niagara Falls. That's clean power. The environmental assessment has already been done, and it's the kind of power we need coming on

to the grid. It's important that we retain complete public ownership of the transmission grid. Whether it's ownership by local utilities or by Hydro One, that should be in public hands because that

is like a public highway.

We recognize that today there are what we would call some smaller private projects that are already on the grid. In the Niagara Peninsula we have them. There's

Great Lakes Power. There are a number of them. However, it is my view -- and I think the member for Hamilton has expressed it well -- that indeed predominantly in this province, in a very dominant

role, public power should be prime in Ontario. Without it and without very strong regulation, which we obviously don't have now, these bills will continue to go through the roof.

If anybody thinks the summer was bad, keep in mind that a cold December, January and February will mean that hydro bills will be increasing tremendously. It is

simply unacceptable that this government has allowed this to happen. Despite all of their assurances that their big, massive privatization, their massive deregulation of the market would produce

much lower prices, exactly the opposite has been the case. That is why we need a huge public presence in both the generation and the transmission and distribution of hydroelectric power and other

electric power in this province.

The government must take action immediately. Rebates will be of some use in the shorter term and must be provided to the people of this province. In the longer

term, this government must abandon a policy that has failed and is costing the people of this province amounts of money they never anticipated.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Hamilton West has the rest of his caucus time plus two minutes to wrap up.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you very much, Speaker. I appreciate that.

First of all, thank you to all the members who took the time to respond. I appreciate that. Let me just say to the member for Kitchener Centre that no one is

going to argue that there isn't a problem. That's not the issue. Yes, there's a problem. Yes, all three parties can take their share of the blame. You can argue who should have more responsibility.

That's not the issue. No one is saying there isn't a problem. What we have a problem with is your solution.

I want to point out that neither you nor the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford addressed the issues of my constituents. You stood up and berated us and berated

them and berated everybody else, but neither one of you stood in your place and told my constituents how they're going to get through the cold winter.

I don't know what you're saying to your constituents in the background and I don't know what kind of cabinet promise you must have got to stand up and make

that politically suicidal speech, but if you think that somehow that's an adequate response to the pain and suffering that's going on in the community right now, you're sadly mistaken.

It's equally insulting that the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford droned on about macro situations over the last umpteen

years. You said you were going to fix the problem. We all acknowledge that there's a problem. What we have a further problem with is your solution. Let me just quote you, by the way. You said,

"We've got to stop partying at the expense of our future." I don't think eating, heating and lights are any kind of partying. It's called survival, and it's tough enough to do in this province

given everything you've done to the people.

When you brought in deregulation, it was 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour. In July it was 6.2, in August it was 6.94, in September it was 8.31. As my colleague has

pointed out, the winter months are the worst. We're going to feel the biggest pressure. We've been told there's going to be a supply problem, contrary to what your Minister of Energy said, that

"Oh, don't worry, there'll be lots of energy," as if we were some kind of fools over here for even raising the question.

This is going to get a lot worse. I've got people who are scared. They're already behind in their hydro bill.

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: Don't start heckling me now. You had your chance to answer the people of Ontario and you didn't do it. You insulted them.

They're scared. They're behind in their hydro bill. Their hydro is going to be cut off. They've got to cough up another 400 bucks to get it reconnected. They still owe the money and next month's

bill is coming. You didn't say one word about how constituents, ordinary Ontarians, are going to deal with that.

If you do nothing else, please participate: www.publicpower.ca. Put the pressure on them. We can stop them if we stick together.

The Acting Speaker: The time for private members' business has expired.

CLEAN AIR PLAN

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with Mr Cleary's resolution, ballot item number 63.

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. It will be a five-minute bell, and we will put that off until after the next item of business.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The next order of business is the resolution standing in the name of Mr Christopherson, ballot item

number 64.

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

CLEAN AIR PLAN

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): All those in favour of Mr Cleary's resolution, ballot item number 63, will please rise and remain

standing until named by the Clerk.

Ayes

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McMeekin, Ted

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Prue, Michael

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until named by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 27; the nays are 42.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

The doors will be opened for 30 seconds for those who want to exit or enter.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): All those in favour of Mr Christopherson's resolution, ballot item number 64, will please rise and

remain standing until named by the Clerk.

Ayes

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McMeekin, Ted

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Prue, Michael

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until named by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 27; the nays are 42.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wanted to introduce Ms Pinell and her grade 5 students from Couchiching

Heights Public School in Orillia, along with some mothers.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order, but we are pleased that you are with us today.

It being well after 12, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 o'clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

IMMIGRATION POLICY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have with me a press release from the Minister of Citizenship in which he says that Ontario seeks to spread

immigration to smaller centres. While we agree with the sentiment essentially, let's see what's wrong with this, first in process, then in substance.

The process is that the minister has the right to come here and to make a statement, appropriately, to the opposition. That's the process. In that case we have

a right to respond. What he has done is to simply let us know through a press conference what his new policy is going to be. Is that acceptable to you, Mr Speaker? It cannot be. Thank you very

much. It has to be a two-way kind of communication so that policy is not being done at night or on the fly. It has to be of substance.

In terms of the substance itself, let's have a quick look at it. Ontario is accepting roughly 135,000 immigrants from all over the world right here. More than

80,000 of these new immigrants are skilled immigrants. The question arises, of course, what will he do with those who are already here? If he is inviting new immigrants from all over the globe to

come and issue temporary work permits so they can be bound to centres outside Toronto, what will he do with those who are already here, the 80,000 and above?

That kind of policy is important to us. He should come here and explain himself. We cannot accept this charade of having the minister introduce new legislation

through a press conference.

HIGHWAY 406

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): It was back in 1999, over three years ago, that the then Minister of Transportation, one Mr Clement, came

down to south Niagara, to Welland, and announced that this government was going to embark on the extension of and four-laning of the 406 down into Port Colborne. To date, over three years later, we

haven't seen anything by way of the progress of the plans that we were told were underway. This is of vital interest to Welland and even more so to Port Colborne, which has no access to the 406 as

it exists now. This is an industrial manufacturing area. We've already lost significant industries down there in Niagara region, and we need that extension and four-laning if we are going to make

those industries that exist viable and permit them to survive and indeed if we are going to attract more.

I hope that my colleague the member for Erie-Lincoln has been adamant with his cabinet colleague the now Minister of Transportation, the member for

Erie-Lincoln of course advocating on behalf of his people in Port Colborne and the surrounding area to get this extension and four-laning underway. People down there in south Niagara would

appreciate an announcement promptly from this government and want to see work commence now on the extension and four-laning of 406 through Welland into Port Colborne.

CELEBRATION OF THE ARTS

IN YORK REGION

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): On Sunday evening I was pleased to attend the second annual York Region Newspaper Group Celebration of the Arts.

The event showcased the best of York region's rising young performers and artists. In my riding of York North we are fortunate in having a vibrant and thriving arts community. There were many

artists and performers recognized and awarded bursaries on Sunday evening. Two residents of my riding were honoured.

Ken Percy of Newmarket is a graduate of the Glenn Gould professional school of the Royal Conservatory of Music. He plans to attend the University of Ottawa

where he has been accepted into the guitar master's program. Ken is a versatile performer whose repertoire includes works by Sor, Bach, and extends to the Spanish masters. Ken has received many

awards, including the prestigious Royal Conservatory of Music silver medal three times.

Sara Dorman of Newmarket is approaching her final year in the bachelor of fine arts (musical theatre) program at the University of Windsor. She is pursuing a

career as a singer, actor and dancer. Sara has a rich performance history which includes church solos, choral work and a nine-month run as part of the choir working with Donny Osmond in Joseph and

the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.

It is personally rewarding for me, as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Culture, to recognize and support the upcoming artists.

A special thank you as well to the Huron Heights Secondary School jazz band and choir, whose work brought the show tolife. I'd also like thank the Ontario

Trillium Foundation for its ongoing support of the arts in York region through Artlink.

Once again, congratulations to the York Region Newspaper Group for their leadership in promoting the arts, especially our young visual and performing

artists.

DOFASCO INC

AND HAMILTON POLICE SERVICE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to pay tribute to two great Hamilton employers, Dofasco Inc and the Hamilton Police

Service.

Recently, Maclean's magazine released their annual list of the top 100 employers in Canada, and both Dofasco and Hamilton Police Service made the cut. Dofasco

was given special kudos for its profit-sharing since 1938, an outstanding accomplishment that has survived many turbulent economic times. Dofasco is also the proud home of a recreation and teaching

facility promoting a balanced life for its 7,526 employees. The Hamilton Police Service and its 1,080 employees were recognized in the top 100. What is remarkable is that they are the only police

service in Canada given this recognition as one of the top 100 employers in the country.

This only goes to show what I already know to be true, that Hamiltonians are lucky to have some of the brightest and hardest-working police officers, men and

women and civilians, serving our community. I am happy to know that the officers are also given special opportunities -- it was mentioned in this report -- to lead a well-balanced life, with many

incentives like job-sharing and time off for volunteering in the community.

I want today to congratulate John Mayberry, the president and CEO of Dofasco, and police chief Ken Robertson of the Hamilton Police Service. Both individuals

have done a great deal to help our community. We are very proud in Hamilton to have an employer such as Dofasco. Their slogan, "Our product is steel, our strength is people," very clearly applies

again. Congratulations to Dofasco and again to Chief Robertson and an outstanding, first-class police force of men and women and civilians who serve and protect our community. Maclean's has given

them that recognition.

BROCK UNIVERSITY

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I rise today to talk to you about Niagara's own Brock University. The Globe and Mail released a special report,

University Report Card, yesterday with the rankings of universities across the country that were drawn from University Report Card responses by nearly 21,000 students.

I was impressed, but not surprised, to see that Brock University in Niagara ranked sixth in overall results. Brock scored ninth in quality of education, just

one behind the University of Toronto.

Not surprisingly, Brock came in at number 5 for buildings and facilities. Brock has been the recipient of significant SuperBuild funding from this government.

Over $15 million was provided to Brock to help with the construction of its new academic complex. Brock also received approximately $2.4 million out of the 2001-02 SuperBuild facilities renewal

program to help modernize and upgrade existing facilities. In fact, at that point in time, students voted in a referendum to increase their own fees to contribute to those facilities, a wonderful

move and vote of confidence on their part.

Brock University continues to be an ideal choice for students across the province. Students surveyed ranked Brock fifth for university atmosphere and second

for financial assistance.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Brock University, its staff and students, on their great performance in this survey. I'm proud to

represent a region with such a prestigious and recognized university. The rest of Canada is waking up to the university sector's greatest secret: Brock University is one of Canada's finest

institutions.

MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA WEST

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Like most members of this House, I know relatively little about the fine state of Oklahoma,

except for the musical, of course. Did you know that Oklahoma produced the bank robber Pretty Boy Floyd? I bet you even he could teach John Snobelen a thing or two about the fast getaway. Did you

know it was the birthplace of Geronimo, and that Oklahoma's favourite son is Chuck Norris, the karate-kicking star of Missing in Action?

But Oklahoma is for cowboys, from Tom Mix to Will Rogers. One Oklahoma cowboy said, "The best place for me is on the back of a horse looking at the backside of

a bunch of cattle. To me, it just doesn't get any better than that." The only problem is that the same Oklahoma cowboy was elected and is paid to be an MPP here in Ontario.

John Snobelen wants to be a cowboy. That's his right. We all have dreams. I want to join the Village People. Regrettably, I don't have a trade and I can't

sing, but I am willing to put in a good word for John Snobelen. But he cannot serve his constituents in Mississauga from the back of a horse in Oklahoma. John Snobelen must resign, because

Mississauga deserves to have someone who will put them first and the backside of the cattle second.

OLIVER GAFFNEY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to tell my fellow members about a very distinguished individual from my riding of

Perth-Middlesex.

During this the 50th season of the Stratford Festival, it is only fitting that the city of Stratford's senior citizen of the year be Oliver Gaffney. Mr Gaffney

was involved in the creation of the Stratford Festival in 1953 and his company, Gaffney Construction, built the original amphitheatre and stage. He is also a past president of the Stratford

Festival Foundation.

While Mr Gaffney says he is most proud of the role he played in the beginning of the now world-famous Stratford Festival, he has given his time to a great

number of other local causes and organizations. Mr Gaffney's community involvement also includes having been a district governor of the Rotary Club of Stratford, past president of the board of the

children's aid society, member of the board of directors of Stratford General Hospital, and chair of the YMCA building committee.

It is citizens like Oliver Gaffney who make Stratford a great place to live and work. I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr Gaffney for his tireless work

on behalf of the citizens of his community and congratulate him for being named Stratford's senior citizen of the year.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I just wanted to take a moment to review the government's legislative agenda for the first few weeks of

this session. I'd remind members that on September 18, Ernie Eves, Ontario's Premier, said he would be bringing forward a busy legislative and policy agenda when the Ontario Legislature resumed on

September 23. Well, he promised it. Let's see what we've done.

It's been five weeks, 32 days, since we came back to this Legislature. We have had eight ministerial statements and six new government bills. And get ready for

this. How many do you think have been passed?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): None.

Mr Duncan: None. Not one government bill passed.

The current government House leader must have the greatest record when it comes to time allocation. This government has to time-allocate bills that all three

parties in the Legislature support. What kind of record is that?

Where is the Safe Drinking Water Act? Have we seen that? No.

The investor security legislation: have we seen that? No. All we've seen on that file is an attempt by the government to make it more difficult to gain access

to information on all of that.

This government is not dealing with the problems. It's not dealing with health care and education. Move aside. Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals are

ready to do just that.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Mr Speaker, I'm delivering this statement on behalf of the member from Durham, Mr John O'Toole.

I rise today to congratulate the school communities of Clarke High School and the Pines Senior Public School who have successfully advocated for community

safety zones on Highway 35/115 in Durham riding.

By way of background, traffic for these schools exits and enters on to Highway 35/115. This is a very busy divided highway. As the traffic flows increased,

there were concerns over the safety of school buses and cars accessing the highway. That led to a number of suggestions, including the introduction of community safety zones. I am pleased to report

that early this month they held the official opening of the community safety zone. Drivers may face increased police presence. Those who exceed the 90-kilometre-per-hour speed limit face double the

usual fines. Most importantly, the safety zones help alert traffic to the presence of the schools.

I think it is important to say this is a co-operative effort between the school council, the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, the Ontario Provincial

Police, the Ministry of Transportation and the municipality of Clarington.

There are many, many people to thank for their initiative and for their co-operation in making the community safety zones a reality. They worked very hard to

get it. We will continue to work on other road access issues for these schools because there is more to be done. However, I am pleased to report that progress has been made.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

AND FIREFIGHTER RECOGNITION

DAY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE PRÉVENTION DES INCENDIES

ET LE JOUR DE RECONNAISSANCE

DES POMPIERS

Mr Wood moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 194,

An Act to proclaim Fire Prevention Week and Firefighter Recognition Day / Projet de loi 194, Loi proclamant la Semaine de prévention des

incendies et le Jour de reconnaissance des pompiers.

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

Mr Bob Wood (London West): This bill officially proclaims in Ontario Fire Prevention Week and Firefighter Recognition Day, to be observed at

the times in October of each year that they are now observed. This bill is intended as a companion to the firefighters memorial bill now before the Legislature, and I may, at the appropriate time,

move the provisions of this bill as amendments to the firefighters memorial bill.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe I have unanimous consent to move a motion

without notice regarding private members' public business.

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

Hon Mr Stockwell: I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following changes be made to the ballot lists for private members'

public business:

Mr Ruprecht and Mr Kwinter exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Ruprecht assumes ballot item 68 and Mr Kwinter assumes ballot item number 65;

and

Mr Kennedy and Mrs McLeod exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Kennedy assumes ballot item 71 and Mrs McLeod assumes ballot item 67; and

That, notwithstanding standing order 96(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 65.

The Speaker: Mr Stockwell moves --

Interjection: Dispense.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Minister of Energy. I've got in my hand a Toronto Hydro bill, the "gobbledegook" that

you referred to during estimates committee. I know you weren't able to read an energy bill then, but you probably have memorized every line item by now, so maybe you can explain to the people of

Ontario what the last item is on every Toronto Hydro bill and many other bills like it. It's called a PPVA. What the heck is a PPVA, a purchase power variant account balance?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): In two or three, maybe four, municipalities in the

province the public utilities in those communities are billing on a fixed rate. In the city of Toronto I believe it continues to be billed, after market opening, at 4.3 cents. Whenever hydro is

lower than that, they would accrue a credit, for example in the months of May and June, and whenever hydroelectricity is more expensive than that, such as the three months previous, they would

accrue a liability.

The overwhelming majority -- some 90%, 95% -- of publ