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

June 23, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Jun-23 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 23 June 2003 Lundi 23 juin 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

IMMIGRANTS

NORTH BAY HERITAGE FESTIVAL

WEST NILE VIRUS

CALEDON TEEN RANCH

ARVATO SERVICES

SOUTH MUSKOKA

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

TRILLIUM GRANT RECIPIENTS

IN DURHAM

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

PARRY SOUND

DRAGON BOAT FESTIVAL

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION

DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

MICHAEL MAXWELL ACT

(HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT), 2003 /

LOI MICHAEL MAXWELL DE 2003

MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

AIR QUALITY

HYDRO GENERATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

USER FEES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

AIR QUALITY

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

EDUCATION FUNDING

TAXATION

EMERGENCY EVACUATION

USER FEES

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

EDUCATION FUNDING

SERVICE DE DIALYSE

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

VISITORS

STATUTORY HOLIDAY

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

HIGHWAY 69

HIGHWAY 518

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Monday 23 June 2003 Lundi 23 juin 2003

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

IMMIGRANTS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Statistics Canada released some very interesting figures that the Minister of Citizenship must take note of. The

poverty rate among immigrants has risen by almost 12%, from 24.6% two decades ago to 36% now. In short, thousands of people are a lot poorer now than a few years ago.

This great gap creates two kinds of Canadians: the well-off and the poor. The gap is widening because of the government's destructive policies relating to

skills programs and, in fact, a host of other programs.

What's really interesting is that those immigrants with the highest education are the least employable and the poorest. Three weeks ago, we passed Dalton

McGuinty's bill on greater access to trades and professions for new Canadians, but to no effect. We still have internationally trained professionals driving taxis and delivering pizzas.

This government's policies are obviously not working. We need a new approach. We need our immigrants working full-time. We need a new government. We need a new

Premier whose name is Dalton McGuinty.

NORTH BAY HERITAGE FESTIVAL

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): It gives me pleasure today to rise before the House to invite everyone to the North Bay Heritage Festival and Grant

Forest Products International Air Show, August 1 to 4.

This festival is important to the Nipissing region, not only because it promotes northern Ontario, but it also creates about a $10-million economic impact on the

entire region. This is one of northern Ontario's largest festivals, with a budget of over $1.5 million, and it's very unique because it is volunteer-driven.

You will get four days of amazing open-air concerts and activities for the whole family, including the Village People, Wave, Leahy, Roch Voisine, Deana Carter,

Jason McCoy, Shawn Desman and many more. We also have the world strongman competition, one of the largest midways north of the CNE, Kid Kountry and the Inflatable Village, Parti Gras, cruises and

the Grant Forest Products International Air Show, featuring the Canadian Snowbirds, the Skyhawks parachute team and the Canadian Harvard Aerobatics Team.

You will witness one of the largest, most breathtaking pyrotechnic displays ever to dazzle our region, by Nortek Fireworks.

I'd like to congratulate John Lechlitner, the management committee and the over 800 volunteers who make this event possible. Admission for the entire weekend is

$20, and you can get more information on the festival at www.heritagefestival.ca, or call 1-800-465-1882.

WEST NILE VIRUS

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Residents of St Elizabeth Village, a seniors' development on Hamilton Mountain, have recently come

to me expressing their deeply rooted concerns over the emergency spraying of pesticides to combat West Nile. They fear that the spraying of the controversial pesticide will have an overwhelmingly

negative impact on both their allergies and their overall state of health.

Their fears were magnified last week when it was confirmed that Hamilton has recorded its first West Nile death. The man was bitten in September 2002 and was

hospitalized until his death in January this year. The man, in his 60s, was active and healthy before contracting West Nile.

I recently wrote to the medical officer of health for the city of Hamilton, asking if the city's public education plan could include a meeting with the residents

of St Elizabeth Village to discuss the health risks associated with the spraying of the pesticide. It is especially important that people of this high-risk group be aware of the health risks that

may ensue as a result of such spraying. The medical officer quickly responded by stating that while they are making efforts to educate the public, the city of Hamilton's budget for West Nile virus

cannot support educational visits to individual institutions and facilities. In fact, the city's budget for West Nile is hardly enough to adequately control the virus.

The minister needs to increase the funding to municipalities and the board of health to ensure that they have the budgetary capacity not only to properly control

the virus but also to educate the public, especially groups that are considered high risk. We don't want a repeat of last year and we certainly don't want to repeat current SARS-related mistakes.

The government has a duty to protect its citizens. It should do its duty.

CALEDON TEEN RANCH

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Riveting revelations about the high-spending ways of the federal Liberals' hand-picked privacy czar have had

people rushing for their morning papers across this country. And when we thought we could no longer be shocked, the most shocking revelation of all: discovering that this guy, who is no stranger to

Liberal largesse, because he was around when the Liberals formed the government here in Ontario back in the 1980s, once again at the trough -- started small and went big. This Liberal enfant

terrible finds himself with over half a million dollars in income taxes being wiped off the books the day before he was appointed to his plush $200,000-plus job.

But we discover this week that Premier Eves, not to be out-Radwanskied, uses his little buddy Ted Arnott -- talk about a Batman and Robin scheme -- to try to

slide a private bill through this Legislature that would relieve Mr Eves's constituent, one Caledon Teen Ranch, of over $700,000 in property taxes. What's most interesting is that Robin, Mr Arnott,

insists that Batman, Mr Eves, knew about it all along. But, holy Radwanski, Mr Eves insists he knew nothing of it. The problem is, they can't both be telling the truth. You can form the inevitable

conclusion that one of them -- I like Mr Arnott. I would never accuse him of lying.

ARVATO SERVICES

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): The twin cities of Kitchener-Waterloo have experienced profound growth since our government was elected

in 1995, and I am proud of what our residents have achieved. It also brings me great pleasure to announce here today that Arvato Services, a leading global provider of integrated and customized

outsourcing services, has chosen Kitchener as the location for a new customer support services centre. According to Arvato president, Peter Schmitz, the community of Kitchener-Waterloo "exceeded

all key location criteria, the most important of which is an excellent supply of customer support specialists for Arvatos's demanding Fortune 500 clients."

Arvato expects to initially hire 150 employees from the Kitchener area. An additional 100 are expected to be hired in mid-July. This is great news for our

community, and I expect that Arvato will flourish. This new investment in Kitchener's downtown area will complement the development and revitalization to which the city of Kitchener has been

committed.

It is always exciting news to have a world-class company choose a city in Ontario as the location for a new office, and Kitchener is a suitable home for Arvato.

Kitchener not only has attractive credentials in information technology, but it is also a great place to call home. I want to take this opportunity to officially recognize Arvato for their

commitment to Kitchener, and to welcome a world-class company to a world-class city.

SOUTH MUSKOKA

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I had the opportunity last week to visit the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital. This hospital has done a

tremendous job in trying to serve the patient needs of that area. I was struck as I stood in the Frank Miller memorial wing, in speaking with the chair of the hospital board along with members of

the administration, to find out that this is a hospital whose community has helped raise all the money required to purchase a CT scanner. Moreover, they have raised enough money to run the

operating costs of that same machine for the first year.

This government has refused to give them permission to go forward and purchase the CT scanner. Lo and behold, the government, in its ideological bent, has given

a private CT to a neighbouring town. What we know is that at this hospital they spend more money sending patients outside of the town for CT scans than it would cost to run the machine at that

hospital in that same year. They send more than 1,400 patients a year. I ask the Minister of Health, why would he waste valuable health care dollars sending patients outside of the town rather than

giving permission to a community that has already raised the money for the equipment?

This is a government bent solely on ideology. We need a government that makes sense. We need a Liberal government in Ontario.

TRILLIUM GRANT RECIPIENTS

IN DURHAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to rise in the House to congratulate two community organizations in Durham riding on their successful

Ontario Trillium Foundation grant applications.

The Bowmanville Horticultural Society has completed two beautification projects in Bowmanville. These include the planting of native species of trees and plants

in parkland adjacent to our tourist information centre and planting at the western entrance to Bowmanville. A total of $20,000 was invested in this project from Trillium, in partnership with the

municipality of Clarington and TD Canada Trust's Friends of the Environment. I would like to congratulate president Diane Howarth and past presidents Johanna Bryant and Luba Samochin for seeing

this project through to completion.

The Great Canadian Town Band Festival in Orono received $60,000 over two years in support of the festival. I would like to commend David Climenhage, chairman of

the committee, as well as board members Judy Climenhage, Sue Pott, Frank Corcoran, Martha Rutherford Conrad, Colin Rowe, Bob Stogryn and the many other volunteers who worked so hard to develop this

new attractive tourism opportunity in my riding of Durham.

These are just two of the grants from the foundation to organizations that make Durham a better place to live, to work, to raise your family and to enjoy your

life. Recent announcements also included funding for the Scugog Shores Historical Museum and the Blackstock Skating Club.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to Alan Strike and Aubrey Oppers, two Durham region residents who serve as volunteer members of the

foundation's grant review team. With their knowledge and community commitment, they have helped to make our community a better place to live and to raise your family.

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On Friday, it was my privilege to attend the 19th annual Workers' Memorial Day in recognition of the tragedy on

June 20, 1984, when a rockburst at Falconbridge claimed the lives of five workers. On display at that workers' memorial was the LifeQuilt. The LifeQuilt is a unique, permanent memorial dedicated to

the many young men and women who have been killed or injured on the job. It is a tapestry paying tribute to those who are woven together in life by a common thread: a workplace injury. The focal

image showcases a figure holding its hands up to the heavens, overlaid with thousands of organza ribbons imprinted with the name, age and type of injury suffered by the young workers. One hundred

commemorative quilt blocks surround the focal image, each conveying the life story of the victim of a fatal workplace injury: those who lost their lives trying to earn a day's wage.

One thing links these names and stories: the fact that these tragedies did not have to happen. Injuries in the workplace are predictable and completely

preventable. That is the extraordinary message behind the Canadian LifeQuilt. More difficult to measure is the untold pain and suffering felt by the families of young workers each time we lose a

young worker to a workplace injury.

PARRY SOUND

DRAGON BOAT FESTIVAL

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): In my riding, the town of Parry Sound was blessed with great weather this weekend for the second annual

dragon boat festival.

Dragon boat racing is very impressive. To race one boat takes 22 participants. In Parry Sound they had 47 teams competing. That's over 1,000 people in a town of

6,000 people. The community spirit and commitment was amazing, as one out of every six local residents was racing, and a good portion of the rest were there to cheer them on. The dragon boat

festival is organized by the Parry Sound Rotary club and the West Parry Sound Hospital Foundation, with the generous support of the Royal Bank and other local businesses.

Without the hard work of local Rotary president Ralph Smith and the hospital foundation's director of community services, Dawn Cooper, as well as their many

volunteers, this event could not have been such a great success. I was at the festival on Friday night and walked in their parade with my team from the hospital, the Rusty Trustees. The festival

was opened with remarks from West Parry Sound Health Centre board chair Len Yauk and welcomes from Mayor Ted Knight and MP Andy Mitchell.

I joined Ray Pavlov, the local Trillium board representative, in recognizing the $22,500 that the foundation had contributed to supporting the event. This year

the hospital foundation raised $36,000 in pledges to support local charities, plus the monies they raised over the weekend. Events like the dragon boat festival exhibit each of our great

communities. They promote towns like Parry Sound as great places to live and visit. As the busy tourist season begins, I'm glad that our government, through the Trillium Foundation, has supported

the Parry Sound dragon boat festival and many other similar events.

VISITORS

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Tyler Goettl, who is one of our wonderful pages from London-Fanshawe,

would like to welcome his grandmother, Mary, his aunt Kristen, and her friend Tom. Please welcome them to the Legislature.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Transportation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to take this opportunity to welcome constituents Mrs Rose

Ladha from Oak Ridges and her children Shereen and Raheem Ladha. Please welcome them.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We welcome our guests.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to have second and third readings of Bill 110, An

Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which will make June 30 a statutory holiday in the year 2003.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

I'm afraid I heard some noes.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent to have this day, the first

day of a deadly smog season in Ontario, officially declared Smog Day Baird, in recognition of the Eves government's total inaction to reduce smog in this province.

What do you think, John?

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No.

Hon Tina R. Molinari (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like the House to recognize

a constituent of mine, Paul Chrétien, from Thornhill, who is here visiting today in the members' gallery.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

Mr Tascona moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 with respect to public holidays for certain workers / Projet de loi 119, Loi modifiant la Loi de

2000 sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui a trait aux jours fériés pour certains travailleurs.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): The Employment Standards Act, 2000, is amended to guarantee that workers who have entered into

agreements providing that they may elect to work or not when requested to do so are entitled to the benefits of the public holidays part of the act.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION

DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

Mr O'Toole moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 120,

An Act to regulate the spreading and storage of sewage sludge and biosolids / Projet de loi 120, Loi réglementant l'épandage et le

stockage des boues d'épuration et des matières sèches biologiques.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'd first like to be on the record as thanking constituents in my riding for being good stewards of our environment,

namely the Protect the Ridges organization, and others, I might say, who take an interest.

This bill amends the Environmental Protection Act to regulate the land application of biosolids such as paper sludge. I might make reference that this is the

second time I've introduced this, with a couple of improvements which I might outline: a specific reference to paper sludge biosolids, and also to regulate the use of products derived from

biosolids that would include Sound-Sorb and Nitro-Sorb. I would expect the House to be interested in passing this legislation.

MICHAEL MAXWELL ACT

(HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT), 2003 /

LOI MICHAEL MAXWELL DE 2003

MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

Ms Martel moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 121,

An Act, in memory of Michael Maxwell, to amend the Health Insurance Act to provide for immunization against meningitis C / Projet de loi 121, Loi

à la mémoire de Michael Maxwell modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé afin de prévoir une immunisation contre la méningite C.

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

The member for a short statement?

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The purpose of the bill is to convince the Ontario government to adopt a province-wide immunization program

against meningitis C. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization has accepted and endorsed a vaccine which is safe for use even with infants aged two months. Both Quebec and Alberta have begun

province-wide programs to protect infants and adolescents because they recognize that meningitis C is a serious public health issue which must be addressed.

It's time for Ontario to follow this lead by adopting a province-wide meningitis immunization program so that the tragedy which affected the Maxwell family can

never occur with another Ontario family.

VISITORS

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to introduce Ralph and Katie Porter, from my

constituency, who are here today. They actually bid good money at a charity auction to come and spend a day with me. They're both very sensitive people. For what they paid the charity, they would

appreciate it if there would be no heckling of me today.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We appreciate that.

It's not a point of order, but while we're at it, we also have Robyn Perritt's family -- Bob Evans, her grandfather, and Robert, her brother, all from

Peterborough -- here to see her. She's one of the pages. We welcome them as well.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, if he's in the precinct at this time. This is the

acting Minister of the Environment, I guess.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We'll look for some guidance. We'll stop the clock and set it back to the beginning. If not, what we can do, as

you probably know, is stand it down.

Interjection.

The Speaker: We'll stand the question down. That brings us, then, to the member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question is to the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services.

When it comes to protecting children in this province, your record is abysmal. Children in provincial care are being put at risk because of your neglect. These are children who have no parents. It

is your job to be their parent. It is your job to take care of them, to protect them, and you are failing.

Between 1978 and 1995, there was not one single questionable death of a child in a provincial facility. Since you took office, there have been seven

questionable deaths of children in provincial care facilities.

There are over 280 recommendations from public inquests into the deaths of five of these children that you have not implemented. Minister, why, after seven

children have died on your watch, do you continue to sit on your hands and do nothing? Why do you continue to fail the children you are supposed to be caring for?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I can only say to the member opposite that I could not disagree

more heartily with the comments she just made. This government is very concerned about the children we are tasked to care for. That is why in 1997 we changed the family act so that not only would

we be able to protect, under law, the children who are abused in the province of Ontario but also those suspected of being neglected. That is why, in the province of Ontario, under Premier Eves,

over $1 billion is devoted to the programs of care for children who are brought into foster care through the children's aid society and other programs.

We take these issues very, very seriously. From time to time, we have had incidents where it was recognized that perhaps we might be able to do a better job.

When that has occurred -- most regrettably -- we have listened closely and we have made tremendous changes, for instance, improving the training for those who are responsible for caring for

children in group homes.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Minister, your response only demonstrates how truly out of touch you are with this file. As someone who is supposed to

advocate for children, you are not doing your job. Here's what Ontario's child advocate, Judy Finlay, had to say in a recent article, called "Drawing a Line in the Sand," and I quote her: "There

appears to have been a lowering of the bar in terms of standards and expectations of group home providers. In some circumstances, the living conditions of children in care are deplorable." She goes

on to talk about the seven deaths in Ontario on your watch, and I quote again from the same document: "All of these deaths were avoidable and unnecessary."

Minister, your own child advocate is saying you are failing these children. Why are you preventing her from doing her job? Why are you afraid to meet with her?

You haven't met her. You haven't called her. You haven't even sent her a greeting card. Why are you muzzling her?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I want to be very clear. Neither I nor any member of this government has done a single thing in any way to impede the

activities of the child advocate. We have never, ever heard from the child advocate to indicate that services or advice have been denied. We have never stopped the child advocate from going into

any of our facilities. Not one change has been made on this side of the House to the powers or the mandate of the child advocate, nor have we made any limitations to her authority. We are very

clear on this side: the child advocate's office is allowed to, and indeed should, investigate any circumstances that they feel should be investigated. They do not need to call the minister's office

first. We would hope that she would do just that.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Ms Finlay has been quite clear: you have lowered your standards. Children are dying under your care. That's your record. You

can stand up here and recite all you want, but seven children have died. For 18 years there was not a single death; now there have been seven. Now the child advocate is raising questions.

Are you trying to muzzle her? Judy Finlay told the Globe and Mail that there is a dynamic tension between her office and you.

Section 102(

b) of the Child and

Family Services Act directs the advocate to advise you, not your bureaucrats -- and you haven't met with her. I have met with her.

While you try to shirk your responsibility to protect children, I take mine very seriously and will advocate for them. Ontario Liberals will not sit idly by

while children in provincial care facilities continue to die. If you won't meet with the child advocate, if all you're going to do is prevent her from doing her job, then get out of the way and let

someone who is capable do your job.

Hon Mrs Elliott: I think the member across the way perhaps does not understand the role of the child advocate. The role of the child advocate

is to operate independently of the minister, to assist families for our children, or for whatever reason they somehow feel they need assistance that is not working through the ministry. It would be

completely inappropriate for the child advocate to be under my thumb, so I think that it has been very right to let the child advocate be independent in the work that she does. Never have we

changed the mandate, never have we indicated that there would be any limitations on the work she would do.

There have been a number of allegations made that are completely incorrect. I want that to be very clear. The member opposite has said that we somehow

prevented the child advocate from getting posters. I've indicated that posters are available; they are reproduced and the material is made available. In fact, it is now under Plexiglas in some

facilities because the children would actually rip up the material and it couldn't be shared with other individuals. Those things have been addressed. We are taking every action we can on this side

to make sure --

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

AIR QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, and the Minister of the

Environment. As we enter the summer months, it is obvious that we're in exactly the same serious situation with smog that confronted Ontario all last summer. We know that almost the entire southern

part, and even some of the northern part, of the province is affected by smog which is choking people with respiratory problems. What is worrisome is that the Eves government has placed the health

and well-being of vulnerable Ontario residents at risk by withholding vital information about bad smog episodes.

Last week, in downtown Windsor, Windsor West, Tiverton, Sarnia and Mississauga, an ozone reading of 50 or over was recorded, indicating the need for vulnerable

adults and children to take action to avoid being confronted with a respiratory crisis, yet no smog alert was issued to the news media in Ontario. Isn't it time that the Eves government began to

protect the personal health of the people of Ontario, rather than the political health of your tired and cynical regime?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Minister of the Environment): I'd be happy to get further information for the

honourable member. My understanding, that I learned from the smog summit last Friday, in reading reports from it, is that that period of smog in Windsor lasted for two hours. The standard in North

America is to issue an alert after smog occurs for six hours or more. I think that's why it wasn't done. But in case I'm wrong, I'll be sure to get back to the honourable member if I need to

correct any of that information.

Mr Bradley: Last Friday morning I attended the Toronto Smog Summit at Metro Hall and listened to a number of speakers, including Dr Ted

Boadway of the Ontario Medical Association. It was an air quality conference that quite frankly I expected to see you, as Minister of the Environment of Ontario, attending, and not just for a cameo

appearance.

Should I pause while you get prompting from the commissioner? The commissioner is trying to prompt you over there.

Dr Boadway provided clear and irrefutable evidence that smog has a serious impact on human health immediately upon coming into contact with our lungs. He has

also informed us that 2,030 premature deaths occur in Ontario each year as a result of smog and that smog costs our economy over $1 billion a year.

I'm having a hard time getting through to you because you're being prompted by Mr Gilchrist.

Why is it that when bad air has an immediate impact on human health -- on children, on the elderly, on people with respiratory problems -- that you will not

issue a smog alert unless the Eves government predicts that it will experience six hours of bad air, when Dr Boadway said it has an immediate impact on their health?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'm not exactly personally sure how the six hours was arrived at, except that it's the same standard you had when you were

Minister of the Environment. But you never made smog days public back then.

Mr Bradley: You're getting prompting from Gilchrist. He wants to answer the question, but he's not a minister, unfortunately.

It is obvious that the minister and his government's cozy relationship with Ontario Power Generation means that they are calling the tune on smog reduction

requirements, and it is clear that no one but your government and OPG believes that they will meet any targets that have been set. It is equally clear that Ontario's lack of meaningful action will

cause Canada to be in violation of the US-Canada air quality agreement.

Today I'm trying to get you to at least commit to alerting Ontario residents from Aberfoyle to Algonquin Park to damaging smog levels which will seriously

impact on their health.

Minister, will you commit to the Legislature and the people of this province that you will abandon your politically convenient policy of refusing to alert the

people of Ontario through the news media unless the bad smog is, in your estimation, going to last for six hours, contrary to the recommendation of Dr Ted Boadway?

Hon Mr Wilson: There's a word for this line of questioning by the honourable member. I would just ask him when he's going to apologize to the

people of Ontario for never alerting them about smog days. This government is the first government to make it known, because even people like myself -- I have bad sinuses, and no one likes

smog.

This government has taken a number of actions, including that of OPG trying to curtail its use of its coal-fired plants during smog days, and that's why it's

helpful that the alert is public. We ask others to try and curtail barbecuing, for example, and to curtail activities like cutting the lawn during smog alerts.

The government puts out these alerts to try and help clean the air. All of us have a part to do in that. Smog alerts aren't new in the world. They were

practised elsewhere when that guy was Minister of the Environment, and he never made it public to the people of Ontario. This government has the guts to do so. We're happy to do so because we all

need to work together to keep smog in check.

HYDRO GENERATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. This week Ontario is bracing for a heat wave that could

plunge us into brownouts and blackouts. More than two months ago I offered you a suggestion on how you could avoid this situation. It's called an aggressive conservation and energy efficiency

strategy. California used it when their experiment with hydro deregulation blew up in their face. I showed you how you could save about 3,500 megawatts through efficiency and conservation, but

you've put all of your eggs in one basket: your expensive emergency generators.

Minister, why have you completely ignored conservation and energy efficiency and put all of your faith in expensive emergency generators?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs, Government House Leader): I take a great amount of

interest in listening to the honourable member, who chastised members on this side of the House allegedly for pointing to California as the promised land to look at their experience with respect to

energy policy. Now he, of course, is lauding California as an example for Ontario.

The leader of the third party did come up with a California energy model, of which energy analyst Tom Adams, who is a vocal spokesman for energy interests in

Ontario, said, "Hampton's conservation claims are `not credible.'"

Mr Hampton: This is the same Tom Adams you used to cite when you said that hydro prices are going to go down and we've got lots of

hydroelectricity. You just keep on citing him, Minister. He'll get you into more trouble.

We've had a chance to look at these emergency generators that you've lined up, these very expensive, private, for-profit emergency generators. We've discovered

that TransAlta, Toromont and TransCanada Energy, the people you've given these $100-million contracts to, are also very large contributors to the Conservative Party. In fact, the three of them have

contributed $120,000 to the Conservative Party.

It seems to the public that you're more interested in rewarding your corporate friends who give the Conservative Party lots of money; you're more interested in

doing that than you are in protecting the electricity future of the people of Ontario. Minister, why have you done that? Why have you ignored conservation and energy efficiency and given these

lucrative contracts to your corporate friends?

Hon Mr Baird: I take great offence at the comments of the leader of the third party. For him to suggest that there was any political

interference with respect to a public request for proposals in these contracts is patently false. It is not true, and I would dare suggest that the member opposite has not a shred of evidence to

back up that claim. If he wants to suggest that, I encourage him to do it outside this place, if he has the courage of his convictions and the guts to say it outdoors. He is engaging in smear,

gutter politics, which will not build his credibility.

Mr Hampton: We're seeing gunslinger John Baird. Well, Mr Baird, let's go outside. These companies gave the Conservative Party $120,000. You

gave them a $100-million contract to provide so-called emergency generators.

But this gets worse. In your original request for proposals, you said they had to have the emergency power on-line by June 15. These corporate friends that

you've given the emergency generation contracts to can't provide the electricity. They couldn't provide it on June 15; they can't provide it now. They won't be able to provide it, it looks like,

until the end of July.

I repeat my question, Minister. Why are you spending $100 million of the public's money to line the pockets of your corporate friends when they will not be

able to provide emergency hydro generation on hot days like we're having this week and next week? Why are you putting the public of Ontario at risk of brownouts in order to line the pockets of your

corporate friends?

Hon Mr Baird: The leader of the third party is engaging in gutter politics, and I think it's beneath even him.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My second question is for the Minister of Finance. We'll deal with the Minister of Energy later.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Outside.

Mr Hampton: Outside. I'll repeat the charge outside, and you can tell people why you gave your corporate friends such lucrative contracts when

they can't provide the hydro.

Minister of Finance, we see daily instances now where the people of Ontario are becoming increasingly upset with your skyrocketing auto insurance scheme. But

what is upsetting them even more is the discrimination which becomes evident: people are assigned auto insurance rates not on the basis of their driving record but on the basis of their gender, on

the basis of their age, on the basis of where they live in the province and on the basis of a whole lot of other extraneous factors that have nothing to do with their driving record.

Let me give you an example. A 19-year-old driver in Toronto would pay $2,553 for auto insurance on a 1996 Toyota. In Vancouver, he'd pay only $1,298. Why?

Because there he's judged on his driving record.

Why do you continue to insist on an auto insurance plan which results in this kind of unfairness and this kind of discrimination?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): We insist on an auto insurance system that is going to meet the needs of consumers. That's why we're

making the changes that we are proposing to make.

Mr Hampton: You were forced to admit outside the Legislature last week that the scheme you have in mind, which will be to reduce or limit

people's medical benefits when they're injured in a car accident, will not bring down auto insurance rates; it will simply moderate the increase.

The real problem in the auto insurance system is this: your friends in the auto insurance industry lost billions of dollars on the stock market. They gambled

on the likes of Nortel and Enron, and when Nortel and Enron went down the sewer pipe, they lost billions of dollars. Now they want the consumers of Ontario to make up that money.

But equally, they continue to insist on an insurance system that is based upon discrimination. People are not classified on the basis of their driving record;

they're classified on the basis of: what's your gender; are you single or are you married; where do you live; what's your age etc. None of those things are directly related to someone's driving

record. In British Columbia, good drivers don't subsidize bad drivers. You're judged on your own individual driving record.

Why won't you bring in a public, not-for-profit auto insurance system, which doesn't involve the kind of discrimination we're seeing in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, other taxpayers subsidize those driving records. Secondly, there is a process in place to ensure that criteria do

relate to driving experience, that they are accurate assessments of risk. If there are questions on that, we'd be very pleased to take a look at that, because that is an important issue that the

honourable member raises. Thirdly, the reforms we are talking about are actually about improving benefits for consumers, not taking them away, as the honourable member insists on scaremongering.

Finally, we are not bringing in public auto insurance because we think there was an expert who actually commented on this some years ago, former Premier Bob Rae, who said, "We will not be

proceeding with it for two very simple reasons: it will cost too much money; it will cost too many jobs."

USER FEES

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is for the Minister of Education and Deputy Premier. The funding formula your government

introduced in 1998 provided no funds for community use of school spaces. Since then, fees for sports teams and clubs for children have skyrocketed. In Scarborough, the fee to play house league

basketball jumped from $4 a child to $100. In Collingwood, the cost for trailblazer basketball jumped from $25 to $400 for each child.

But while community programs using school facilities are being strangled, you're trying to slip through a tax break for one private recreation institution. Why

is the Premier pushing a $700,000 tax write-off for a private recreation centre in his riding, while basketball groups, Boys and Girls Clubs, the Ontario Special Olympics and other organizations

are being shut out of public school spaces?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I would strongly recommend that the member opposite very carefully check the

facts. I understand that the issue she's talking about refers to a private bill. As the member herself knows, private bills are brought forth at the volition and the expense of the proponents of

the private bill. As you know, they usually approach your constituency office. However, if you're a member of cabinet, you cannot introduce those types of bills, so it's usually referred to another

MPP.

What we're talking about here is a bill that the Premier was first personally informed about on June 9. At that time, he was made aware of the fact that Mr

Arnott was going to introduce it. He didn't know the details of this bill, but as you know, the Premier has been very clear.

I can also tell you that the Caledon town council unanimously passed a motion today that they will form a committee to work with the Caledon Teen Ranch in

reviewing the arrears of taxes and the taxes on a go-forward basis. I understand the private bill is going to be withdrawn pending a made-in-Caledon solution, so I would not --

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

Ms Di Cocco: I guess the only reason that this bill is going to be withdrawn is because the Premier got caught. Mr Arnott introduced the bill

at the request of the Premier's office, and he kept him informed --

The Speaker: Just to interrupt the member for a quick minute. Her first question was related to funding formulas and so on with the minister.

It isn't appropriate to ask a question regarding private members' bills. You know it has to be within the minister's responsibility. That isn't within the responsibility. The last one, with a bit

of a spin on it, dealt with the funding formula. I would ask the member to ask a question relating to the minister's portfolio, if she would, please.

Ms Di Cocco: I guess it's about a skewed sense of priorities. We have here an awful problem, a crisis across this province regarding school

that Boys and Girls Clubs now have to pay up to $1,000 for two hours. It's just unfair.

We tried to get through a bill that was going to give $700,000 in tax breaks and, at the same time, we have all of these groups across this province who can't

access public spaces. They are being shut out. These are programs that help kids learn better; they keep them off the street; they are good for their physical activity and for their health. Yet

you're shutting them out, while at the same time the priority is to give a possible $700,000 tax break.

Hon Mrs Witmer: It concerns me that the member continues to make the allegation, which I've just pointed out to her was incorrect.

I would also remind the member opposite, if she were to go back at least to 1937, boards of education in this province have always been able to use their

schools for other purposes and they have been able to collect fees for the use of those facilities. It's up to boards to decide whether or not they're going to allow this to happen. We would

encourage them to make sure the charge is based on a fair recovery of the actual cost and that it also be sensitive to a group's ability to pay.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Finance. In order to encourage investment, economic growth and job

creation, the government has announced 225 tax cuts since 1995. Can the minister tell the House what this government has done to ensure that its economic plan continues to support economic growth

and prosperity?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): At a time when the Canadian economy and the Ontario economy are indeed facing challenges, I think it is

more important than ever that we stick to an economic plan that has allowed us to pay down debt, balance budgets and help the private and public sectors create over a million new jobs. The tax cuts

that we have put in place have provided over $16 billion in tax relief.

We know that the Liberal Party is against tax relief. They have voted against every tax cut we have brought forward. We know that according to the taxpayers'

federation, the agenda they have brought forward and the promises they are making are going to result in over a $4-billion tax increase, something that at this time we certainly don't think is

appropriate for more job growth, prosperity and future employment growth in this province.

Mr Miller: I certainly share your concerns that the Liberals, with their planned $4.6-billion tax increase, would take us back to the days

when high taxes stifled economic growth in this province.

Just last night I spoke with an Ontarian who had been working in the United States and just moved back to Oakville. I asked him how he felt about being back in

Ontario and he said, "Taxes are too high." My friend commented that in Ontario it takes six weeks to earn what it took him four weeks in the United States.

Minister, can you expand on why we cannot afford to go back to the tax-and-spend Liberal days?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Quite simply, because it would destroy the record of growth, jobs and prosperity that we've seen in this province.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I hear the honourable members across the way from the Liberal Party laughing at what the taxpayers' federation said their

promises will cost -- over $4 billion -- in terms of tax increases. They like to quote the federation to criticize us, but certainly not when he points out the problems they have.

Let's take a look -- not at what they're promising -- at their record. They voted against every tax cut we brought in; every single one. Secondly, they're

promising to reverse tax relief. But thirdly, if any taxpayer had any doubt about where the Liberals are coming from, look at their record: they increased the sales tax from 7% to 8%; they did a

$2-billion employer health tax; they raised fuel taxes by $1 billion; and then there was the commercial concentration tax. They believe in higher taxes --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The time is up.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Madam Minister, last week in this House I asked you

a question, which was: why is it that 192 days after the passage of Bill 198, while Ontario's motorists are being given renewal notices with an average increase of 19.2%, we in this House, five

days later, are not being provided with an opportunity to see the regulations that you have focus-grouped and round-tabled and sent out for consultation? For all we know, you've had seances to deal

with the regulations that you've been talking about.

Ontario's motorists want to know: where are your regulations? Will you table them for all members today to get a glimpse at them so we can see exactly what

reforms you're talking about and why it is you can't get them through your cabinet?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): The honourable member may recall in this House when he asked previously that I did offer to send him a

copy of the regulations, which have been publicly available since February. If he hasn't availed himself of that opportunity, I'm very sorry. We'd be quite happy to send them across.

Again, when we brought forward legislation in this House to allow us to take steps to help consumers, you voted against it, sir.

Mr Smitherman: The minister has a very hard time remembering that we voted against her Bill 198 because it had a bunch of flaws in it,

including the pension stuff that she had to retreat on fully. So don't be wagging your finger at me about the quality of the piece of legislation you brought forward to this House.

With respect to the regulations you offered to me, the February version isn't what we're interested in. What we're interested in is the version that you're

working with now, the version that you're taking out to focus groups in places like London, Ontario. So instead of offering me some stale-dated version of your regulations that everybody has seen

and commented on, I'm rather more interested in the current set of the regulations, the ones that you're keeping to yourself and that your cabinet colleagues so far haven't had the willingness to

support.

Madam Minister, will you, today, in this House, table the regulations that are supposed to offer some relief to Ontario's driving motorists?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member just said that everyone has seen the regulations, so with all due respect, I'm not sure how come they

haven't shared them with him, if everyone else has seen them. We'd be quite happy to send them over.

Secondly, it's interesting: we responded to the concerns of pensioners, we removed that

section from the bill, and the Liberals still voted against legislation

that promised to provide relief to consumers.

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Interestingly enough, my question is also to the Minister of Finance. In my riding of

Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, I've received many calls from seniors, have spoken with many seniors, by and large living on fixed incomes, and they're asking how they can apply for their property tax

rebate.

We certainly recognize their lifetime of contribution, not only to education funding but also to building Ontario into what it is today. Could you explain to

me how the Ontario Home Property Tax Relief for Seniors Act would benefit Ontario seniors, how it will support them to stay in their own homes and essentially what it will mean for their

pocketbook?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I'd like to thank the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for that question. We do believe on this side

of the House that seniors, many of whom live on fixed incomes, are having challenges in meeting rising costs -- for example, property tax increases -- and that's why we are proposing to provide

additional tax relief focused directly on seniors. Under this program, eligible seniors who own or rent their home would be reimbursed for a portion of their property tax. It will work out to an

average annual net saving of about $475, and that will benefit over 945,000 seniors. We know the Liberals have promised to revoke this tax relief, to cancel this tax relief for seniors, but on this

side of the House we believe that our seniors deserve that break.

Mr Barrett: I know there's been some concern about this, so I do wish to ask the minister if this new proposal for a seniors' tax cut based on

the education portion of their property tax will in any way reduce the amount of funding that goes to public education in this province.

Hon Mrs Ecker: It's a good question. I know the opposition have tried to confuse our seniors about this. The amount of education funding is

based on a very good, validated, student-focused funding formula -- that's what drives the amount of money school boards get. For example, my public school board received over 30 million new

dollars this year due to that particular formula. Education funding does not have any bearing on the amount of property tax that an individual is paying. So seniors can receive this tax relief,

they can benefit from this tax relief and they can know that it has no bearing at all on the amount of money their schools are getting in their community.

AIR QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Today is the first day of what is sure to be a long

and deadly smog season. The OMA estimates that over 2,000 people in Ontario will die from smog this year. About 400,000 children and 600,000 adults in Ontario suffer from asthma, and about 150 of

these people will die this year because they cannot breathe.

Smog in Ontario is a disaster, and just like hurricanes and tornadoes, the NDP is declaring today Smog Day Baird in recognition of your government's total

inaction to reduce smog. We're sending the Minister of Energy this certificate in recognition of your government's total inaction to reduce smog. Minister of the Environment, don't be jealous; your

day is going to come.

I want to ask you, are you content to watch the death toll rise due to smog in Ontario or will you adopt the NDP's Public Power plan of closing the coal-fired

plants by 2007 by implementing aggressive conservation and efficiency methods?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Minister of the Environment): Since the question primarily deals with energy and

conservation, I'll refer it to the energy minister.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs, Government House Leader): I'd like to thank the member

for the certificate. She didn't in fact send the certificate that she promised to send over. Well, why don't you send it over? Send the one over. You didn't do it.

The Ernie Eves government takes the issue of smog and pollution reduction tremendously seriously. That's why we're one of the first governments in North

America to make a commitment to phase out coal-fired plants; that's why we're accepting the recommendations of the all-party committee -- where I believe you sat as a member -- to adopt 2015 as the

date to phase out coal. That's a date that you agreed to, I say to the former minister. We've made a commitment to close the Lakeview plant by 2005; we're spending a quarter of a billion dollars on

pollution abatement measures at two of the larger facilities. We have a substantial agenda with respect to conservation and a substantial agenda with respect to alternative, new green energy. That

will be good news for the people of the province of Ontario. You sat back and did nothing on coal-fired plants the full five years you were in government.

Ms Churley: That's simply not true, but I want to come back to the Minister of the Environment, because this specifically refers to something

you said, Minister. On May 21, the Stayner Sun reported that you told a community meeting that the last of Ontario's coal-fired generators has received state-of-the-art scrubbers to minimize smog.

Well, this is simply not the case. Only two of four units at Lambton and only two of eight units at Nanticoke have any scrubbers.

I think the minister needs to come clean with the people of Ontario about that. Nanticoke is the single worst contributor to deadly smog in Ontario, but your

government has done nothing to shut it down. The NDP's commitment is clear. We brought in an energy conservation and efficiency program that your government cancelled, and what you're doing now is

hiding behind scrubbers that haven't even been installed and, when they are, won't even make a dent in the problem.

Will you correct the record today, Minister, tell the truth about that and admit that the only real action to reduce smog and save lives is to bring in tough

conservation and efficiency measures so that these deadly coal plants can be shut down by 2007?

Hon Mr Baird: I agree that we've got to do more on conservation. The Minister of Finance, in her recent budget, announced that the government

would be pursuing a strategy on conservation. We've already done a huge amount with respect to efficiencies. I know your leader held a press conference that said only 3,200 people had participated

in our appliance rebate program. In fact, as of a month ago, it was more than 45,000 Ontarians getting involved actively in energy efficiency, and that's good news.

I say to the member opposite, when her party was in government they did a big study on vehicle emission tests and then shelved it and did nothing. It was the

Ernie Eves government that took the action to bring in the Drive Clean program, headed up by my good friend Norm Sterling. It was the Ernie Eves government that has been a leader at bringing

forward a plan which you agreed to on closing coal-fired generation. If she and her party were so concerned about coal, why did they do absolutely nothing? Five long years -- not a single

coal-fired plant was closed in Ontario. Zero.

Ernie Eves is providing environmental leadership, more so than any other jurisdiction in North America.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question today is to the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services. Type 1 diabetes

is a very challenging condition to manage. It requires constant monitoring and blood tests. It requires constant injection of insulin. It's particularly difficult for very young children to manage.

Not to not manage type 1 diabetes results in things such as heart attacks, kidney failure, loss of vision, amputations and death.

We have the technology to manage it. Insulin pumps have proven to be literally life-saving in Ontario. They cost over $5,000 to purchase, although one heart

attack costs $100,000 to our health care system. Families have met with you. Premier Eves, when he was in Belleville last month, indicated that he would look into it and he had a concern about

it.

Minister, you're responsible for the assistive devices program, which can provide 75% funding for these. I'm asking you now if you will approve funding under

the assistive devices program for insulin pumps.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): Speaker, I will refer that question to the Minister of Health.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): To the honourable member, the assistive devices program is a Ministry of Health

program, and I can tell you that it is a program that is funded 100% by provincial dollars. There's not a single dime, not a nickel, not a pfennig, nothing that comes in from the federal

government. It is a program that is managed by 100% provincial dollars.

It has been a challenge in the past, I will say to the honourable member, when it comes to funding new devices that come through. We do have a procedure by

which we do seek to consider new devices and their applicability. So I will certainly take the honourable member's points of view into consideration as we continue to improve this program.

Mr Parsons: This is not a new device. This has been around for some years, Minister, with due respect. In fact, insurance companies pay toward

it. The problem is that we now have two-tier medicine in Ontario. For families that are not insured, they're literally going without this life-saving insulin pump. For young children, it is

severely restricting their activities and in fact is restricting their health.

There is a private member's bill from the member for Windsor-St Clair before the House to recognize that this is proven technology, it is cost-saving

technology and it truly affects the quality of life for thousands of individuals. You need only see a small child who is having to have eight or nine needles a day to realize there's got to be a

better way.

Minister, this is a proven technology. With the stroke of a pen or the calling of the private member's bill, this could be in place today. From a financial

viewpoint, it offsets health care costs. From a humanitarian viewpoint, it prolongs life. I will ask you again, given your leader's support for this device when he was in Belleville, will you today

approve, under the assistive devices program, funding for insulin pumps?

Hon Mr Clement: Again, I want to assure the honourable member, and through him this chamber, that indeed I'm aware of the issue. All of these

new technological advances -- even if they're a few years old, they're still relatively new -- are worthy of consideration. The technological advances of the last few years certainly have improved

the quality of life of a number of individuals, including those who rely upon insulin.

I would convey to the honourable member that he can be of assistance to us as we seek to have a new deal with the federal government so that they are paying

more than 14 cents on the dollar when it comes to health care costs. If he could be of assistance to our side of the House because we are battling on behalf of Ontario, that would be very much of

assistance and would prove to be a tangible benefit to the people of Ontario so that we can in fact deliver the quality health care which he cares so passionately about.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Attorney General. A couple of weeks ago, I attended a luncheon in Kleinburg celebrating

the 10th anniversary of the Women's Sexual Assault Helpline of York region. The Attorney General was also present at the luncheon, where he delivered a speech saluting the organization on their

anniversary and for all the hard work they perform in assisting women in York region.

I was wondering if the Attorney General could inform my constituents about the commitment the Eves government provides to assisting women in York region,

specifically the Women's Sexual Assault Helpline and the Outreach centre for York region.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I would be happy to answer the question of my colleague. I

was happy to be there with her at this fundraising luncheon with a very important group in York region.

It's important for all Ontarians to know how committed our government is to reducing all forms of violence against women, and we are proud to take a zero

tolerance stance on this issue.

Through my ministry's victims' services division, this government provides over $350,000 in funding annually to the Women's Sexual Assault Helpline and

Outreach centre for York region.

I am pleased to mention that the centre received two grants from the Trillium Foundation, totalling over $415,000. One was to provide young women in the high

school setting with counselling.

Again, my thanks to all those involved at the centre for all their hard work in combatting violence against women.

Mrs Munro: I am proud to be a member of a government that places the protection of women in such high priority. In fact, last year alone the

Eves government invested $160 million to help prevent and address violence against women and their children. No other government has committed so much in addressing such a serious problem.

This being said, I was wondering if the Attorney General could provide another example of how the Eves government is assisting women in my region and riding

who are at risk of personal harm.

Hon Mr Sterling: Since we've been elected, this government has brought forth many initiatives and services to help those who have been

sexually assaulted or are living under the threat of sexual assault. For example, our government launched SupportLink in 1998. In conjunction with its corporate partners Ericsson Canada and Rogers

AT&T Wireless, SupportLink provides personal safety planning and free mobile telephones pre-programmed to dial 911 to women at risk of personal harm. Last year, SupportLink assisted more than

750 women. The program has proven to be such a success that it is being expanded into five more communities, including York region.

This government is proud of its record in combatting violence against women in all communities across Ontario, including York region.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question today for the Minister of Education. Last December, you had a report from Dr

Rozanski about putting money back that you took out of education. At different times -- on May 27, for example -- you've said things like, "Dr Rozanski recommended $1.8 billion. We're going to be

investing $2 billion." Some people believe you might be indulging in big-number gobbledegook, mixing apples and oranges, blending the funding for annual cost changes with the improvements that Dr

Rozanski demanded. Can you be clear for the Ontario public and this House: have you already committed to implementing all the recommendations in the Rozanski report?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): First of all, to set the record straight, Dr Rozanski did not make

recommendation that we replace the money. Dr Rozanski did a review of the funding formula, which we introduced in 1998. It was based on the fact that we introduced it in order to ensure that all

students in Ontario would have access to fair, equitable funding that would allow stability in the classroom. I'm very pleased to say that Dr Rozanski, when he completed his review, did validate

the funding formula and indicate that it was providing students across the province with fair and equitable funding.

Mr Kennedy: I can understand why you want to avoid the direct question. In estimates committee you said there might be some more announcements

in the future, because you have not committed to even one third of the Rozanski report. There is no money, beyond some small dollars for textbooks, for the foundation grant, for more teachers, for

The fact is, your own independent investigator caught you taking money away from Ontario students and demanded you put it back. But you wouldn't do it. Isn't it true that the money you're talking

about is simply the money that the Premier decided would be available for education even before the Rozanski report came out? What the people, the parents and the students of Ontario want to know

is, why have you failed Rozanski? Why have you failed to get the dollars that students need back into our schools?

Hon Mrs Witmer: One more time we hear information which isn't accurate. I would just remind the member opposite that within three days of Dr

Rozanski's report, we announced $610 million, which was invested. I'm also pleased to say that we have committed over $1.8 billion in three years, while the Liberals are still only promising a

less-than-adequate $1.6 billion over four years.

TAXATION

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Finance. The Ontario government's policy of cutting taxes, balancing the budget

and eliminating unnecessary regulations has inspired business and consumer confidence and turned Ontario's economy around. Will the minister tell the members of this House what this government is

doing to ensure that individuals continue to benefit from ongoing tax cut measures, such as reducing the personal income tax?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): The tax relief program that this government has been following, with 225 individual tax decreases for

individuals in our business community, has been responsible for the job growth we've seen: over a million new jobs. For example, this budget that we've introduced and are debating before the House

this week confirms our commitment to completing the additional 20% reduction in personal income tax by January 1, 2004. I know the Liberals voted against that tax relief for individuals. As a

matter of fact, their record was that they increased personal taxes three times when they were in government. Three tax increases over there, a 20% tax reduction over here -- I think the voters and

taxpayers in this province appreciate that contribution to economic growth.

Mr McDonald: I've heard from many of my constituents, low- and middle-income earners, and their concerns. Could you please tell the House how

low- and middle-income earners will benefit from the proposed tax relief measures?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Again, I think a very valid question from the member for Nipissing, who actually represents a community that has taken

considerable steps to bring down the tax load on their community as well.

The tax relief that we have been providing individuals has benefited an average family of four with $60,000 in income. That family is actually going to see, if

this budget passes, over $2,500 worth of tax relief. Again, I think it's important for the voters, the taxpayers who are watching, to know that the Liberals have voted against that.

Secondly, we have another 45,000 modest-income Ontarians who will be relieved of the obligation to pay any Ontario income tax. It's under the Ontario tax

reduction program. There are now some 700,000 low-income Ontarians who do not have to pay Ontario income tax because of the decisions on this side of the House. The other side of the House does not

agree with tax relief for low- and modest-income Ontarians.

EMERGENCY EVACUATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. This past weekend in northwestern Ontario, hundreds of

residents of Kasabonika Lake First Nation were evacuated by air from their community because of forest fires raging out of control. Evacuation may protect the people, but it does nothing to protect

their homes, their property, their school, their nursing station, the recreation centre. Nor does it do anything to protect their lands, which they rely upon in terms of trapping or hunting or

fishing.

Why is evacuation happening? Because your government refused to implement the far north fire management strategy as requested by the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation

First Nations.

Deputy Premier, can you tell the people who are now watching their homes at risk of burning up, their nursing station, their school at risk of burning up, the

land that they depend upon at risk of being burned, why your government refuses to provide a level of forest fire protection to those First Nation communities that you're willing to provide

elsewhere in Ontario?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I'll refer that to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): We take the forest fire situation very seriously in the province of Ontario. Yes, we

evacuated the community. They're in the far north. As a matter of fact, it was the preliminary work that was done in there that ensured that the fire went around the community. We had sprinkler

systems out. We were able to suppress any fires before they got to that area to make sure that when and if the fire did pass, it moved on through.

Currently, we have in the area of 55 active fires taking place in the province of Ontario. For those who didn't realize it, we've had rather severe weather

fronts move through, where we've had over 12,000 lightning strikes this weekend alone that have been responsible for a large number of fires in the province of Ontario.

Also, we have a large number of fires currently burning. About 130,000 hectares are currently burning right now. We have all the individuals available for that

fire suppression throughout Canada. I might add that currently there are no crews available in Canada, because we've gone all across Canada to get to those groups available.

Mr Hampton: Well, a torrent of information, but none of it answered the question. The question is this: these First Nation communities have

approached your government over and over and over again. They've asked you to implement a far north fire management strategy, which would mean that these forest fires would be attacked much sooner,

that there would be a greater level of protection for these people and for their community. Your government has refused to do that. You've refused to provide them with the same level of forest fire

protection that you provide elsewhere in the province. Meanwhile, your government wants to open up their territory for mining, for forestry extraction, for hydroelectric development.

It seems that you regard their land, their territory, as being valuable when in comes to extracting resources, but when it comes to providing them with a level

of forest fire protection that is equal to that which other Ontarians receive, you refuse. Can you tell those people why, in your view, their resources are so valuable but their communities don't

seem to be valuable to your government at all?

Hon Mr Ouellette: Currently, we have over 2,000 firefighters actively fighting fires in the province of Ontario. We take the far north

strategy very seriously, to the point that a week ago Friday last, I was sitting down with the federal government and all the jurisdictions across Canada to discuss that very issue. We have tried

to sit down with the plan. It's a $1.1-billion plan that we're trying to work out with other provinces and the federal government to come on line to deal with this very serious issue. Quite

frankly, it appears from the results of the meeting that we're getting some very positive responses on the five-point plan. It looks like we may have some aspects that will move fairly soon.

USER FEES

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): My question is for the Minister of Education. Parents across the city of Toronto are very upset because

they feel that, through your supervisor, you're imposing double taxation on them when they try to use school grounds or school gyms for basketball or soccer, for instance.

We've got fees -- for instance, the Swansea Soccer Club is now supposed to come up with $12,000. I've got a group of underprivileged children playing

basketball at Fairbank school. They're supposed to find $10,000 to play basketball in the gym. The kids don't have the money. The parents tell me they've already paid their education taxes; the

schools are paid for. For the last 50 years they had a reasonable little fee for using school gyms and for soccer fields. Now, with your government bragging about tax cuts, they've got to pay to

use their own school gyms and their soccer fields. Even the Boys and Girls Clubs have to pay over $1,000. How can you justify this double taxation on the use of school facilities by your appointed

supervisor, Paul Christie? Stand up on your feet and defend Paul Christie's new tax on Toronto.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): The member opposite knows full well that since 1937, boards have always been

able to make their space available to community groups. Since that time they've also been in a position where they're able to collect fees for the use of those facilities.

You know, unlike what is happening in some other communities, the city of Toronto can work with the Toronto school board, and I understand that they are now,

to focus on how, together, they can improve community access to the schools and to the pools.

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature. It states:

"Whereas the Manitoulin-Sudbury Community Care Access Centre will be cutting homemaking services to seniors and the disabled effective June 23, 2003" -- sadly,

that's today; and

"Whereas nursing services, personal support and homemaking services should be of equal importance;" -- a point that the Associate Minister does not understand

-- "and

"Whereas most seniors and the disabled live on fixed incomes and cannot afford to purchase private homemaking services; and

"Whereas many seniors and disabled people will be forced to move into institutions once their homemaking services are cut off;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that, we the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Eves government increase the CCAC budget in order to

allow them the necessary funds to enable them to continue to provide homemaking services to those who are eligible in Sudbury."

Of course I affix my signature to this petition and give it to Brittany to bring to the table.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): This petition is from Nicole Herbert, the chair of the Leslieville School Council, and parents within

that school. It reads:

"As parents, educators and community members, we are strongly opposed to the continued diminishment of support for our children and their education. The 0.5

loss of our vice-principal is yet another in the already long list of cutbacks mandated by supervisor Paul Christie in order meet his $60-million target. The impact on Leslieville and the students

has already been significant. The new year saw a 0.5 loss of the secretarial staff. The 0.5 loss of the vice-principal will further erode and impact the overall safety of the school's unique and

valuable learning programs currently available, the supports to children at risk and the valuable communication between home and school."

I will affix my name to this petition, because I support it.

SERVICE DE DIALYSE

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): C'est une pétition pour le service quotidien d'hémodialyse à la maison pour

Marie-Ève Chainey.

« À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

« Nous, les soussignés, demandons au gouvernement de l'Ontario d'agir sans délai dans le dossier de Marie-Ève Chainey qui requiert les

services quotidiens d'hémodialyse à la maison. Marie-Ève était candidate pour recevoir ces services sous peu; cependant, mercredi dernier, faute de financement du gouvernement

de l'Ontario, l'hôpital Riverside d'Ottawa lui refuse ce service. Nous demandons au gouvernement conservateur de Ernie Eves d'écouter ses concitoyens et d'agir rapidement. »

J'appose ma signature.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas some motorists are recklessly endangering the lives of children by not obeying the highway traffic law requiring them to stop for school buses with

their warning lights activated;

"Whereas the current law has no teeth to protect the children who ride the school buses of Ontario and who are at risk and their safety is in jeopardy;

"Whereas the current school bus law is difficult to enforce, since not only is the licence plate number required but positive identification of the driver and

vehicle as well, which makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction;

"Therefore,

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

"That the measures contained in private member's Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to protect children while on school buses, presented by Pat

Hoy, MPP, Chatham-Kent-Essex, be immediately enacted."

The bill would impose "liability on the owner of a vehicle that fails to stop for a school bus that has its overhead red signal lights flashing...."

"And we ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

This is signed by a number of residents from Innerkip, Woodstock and Drumbo, and I too have signed this petition.

VISITORS

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Minister of the Environment): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know members

would want to join with me in welcoming Greg Townsend, Doug Townsend and Ashley Townsend in the gallery today. They're the uncle and cousins of a very capable page, Ryan Baulke. A point of history

here is that Ryan's father was also a page in the early 1970s.

STATUTORY HOLIDAY

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a petition that was collected this past weekend in Crescent Town in Beaches-East York. It reads as

follows:

"Petition to Make Monday, June 30, 2003, a Holiday.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the former Conservative cabinet minister, Chris Stockwell, had a lovely European vacation at taxpayers' expense;

"And

whereas the people of Ontario are working longer and harder to support themselves and their families;

"And

whereas Ontario has fewer statutory holidays (eight) than the United States (10), England (13), France (13) and other jurisdictions;

"And

whereas the people of Ontario deserve a real long weekend to celebrate Canada Day and to spend time with family and friends;

"I hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the bill proposed by the New Democratic Party to make June 30, 2003 a statutory holiday."

It is signed by just about 100 people. I am in agreement and will affix my signature thereto.

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I was just speaking with the Minister of Finance and consulting with her. She is a very able person, and I seek her

wisdom.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario's senior citizens have devoted themselves to building Ontario's outstanding quality of life and have earned the right to a safe, secure

retirement;

"And

whereas the government of Ontario has introduced the Ontario Home Property Tax Relief for Seniors Act, 2003;

"And

whereas the act would ensure that every eligible senior homeowner or renter would receive property tax reimbursements on their principal residence

starting July 1, 2003;

"And

whereas this would provide an average annual net saving of $475 for 945,000 senior households;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario enact the Ontario Home Property Tax Relief for Seniors Act, 2003, to ensure" that all "Ontario's seniors benefit from

lower taxes on their homes."

I'm pleased to present this on behalf of my constituents to Robyn, who is one of the legislative pages here.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It deals with the multi-laning of Highway 69 between

Sudbury and Parry Sound, a project that was promised by this government which they haven't lived up to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition and give it to Nicolas to bring to the table.

HIGHWAY 518

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"That the ministry immediately proceed with the reconstruction of Highway 518 between Highway 69 and Highway 11.

"This highway is in a deplorable condition. Those who have to travel this corridor to their jobs, shopping, medical services etc have been promised by the MTO

that this highway would be upgraded to allow for safe and problem-free travel.

"We request the ministry to commence reconstruction immediately."

I sign my name in support of this petition.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition that's signed by a number of residents from Clifford, Mount Forest, Arthur and

Holstein.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas some motorists are recklessly endangering the lives of children by not obeying the highway traffic law requiring them to stop for school buses with

their warning lights activated;

"Whereas the current law has no teeth to protect the children who ride the school buses of Ontario, and who are at risk and their safety is in jeopardy;

"Whereas the current school bus law is difficult to enforce, since not only is the licence plate number required but positive identification of the driver and

vehicle as well, which makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction;

"Therefore,

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

"That the measures contained in private member's Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to protect children while on school buses, presented by Pat

Hoy, MPP, Chatham-Kent-Essex, be immediately enacted. The bill would impose liability on the owner of a vehicle that fails to stop for a school bus that has its overhead red signal lights flashing

and....

"We ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

I have signed this petition.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham, and it reads as

follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Oak Ridges moraine is an ecological treasure that warrants protection and careful stewardship now and into future generations; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario has recognized the importance of the moraine with the passage of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, to protect

natural and water resources, preserve agricultural land and provide clarity on where development can and cannot occur; and

"Whereas the act has resulted in certain limitations on citizens' use of their own property within the moraine;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Parliament of Ontario take all necessary action to ensure there are no undue restrictions on Oak Ridges moraine residents making minor improvements

to their homes and property; and

"That the province of Ontario work together with municipalities and landowners to ensure the

interpretation and enforcement of the act continues to fully

protect the moraine while also giving residents the right to fair and reasonable enjoyment of their property."

I'm pleased to present this to Caitlyn, who is one of the pages. And your riding is?

Interjection: Brant.

Mr O'Toole: That's a good riding. Who is the member there?

Interjection: Dave Levac.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much. I also sign this.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature, and it concerns the homemaking services cutbacks.

"Whereas the Manitoulin-Sudbury Community Care Access Centre will be cutting homemaking services to seniors and the disabled effective June 23, 2003" -- that's

today, Speaker.

"Whereas nursing services, personal support and homemaking services should be of equal importance" -- and the associate minister does not seem to understand

that.

"Whereas most seniors and the disabled lived on fixed incomes and cannot afford to purchase private homemaking services;

"Whereas many seniors and disabled will be forced to move into institutions once their homemaking is cut off;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Eves government increase the CCAC budget in order to

allow them the necessary funds to enable them to continue to provide homemaking services to those who are eligible."

Again I give this petition to Brittany, after I sign it, to bring to the table.

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's indeed my distinct pleasure again -- and an infrequent occasion -- to present a petition to the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Ontario's senior citizens have devoted themselves to building Ontario's outstanding quality of life and have earned the right to a safe, secure

retirement; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced the Ontario Home Property Tax Relief for Seniors Act, 2003; and

"Whereas the act would ensure that every eligible senior homeowner or renter would receive property tax reimbursements on their principal residence, starting

July 1, 2003" -- that's right away.

"Whereas this would provide an average annual net saving of $475 for 945,000 senior households;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario enact the Ontario Home Property Tax Relief for Seniors Act, 2003, to ensure Ontario's seniors benefit from lower

taxes on their homes" immediately.

I'm pleased to present this to Tyler, from the riding of London-Fanshawe, Frank Mazzilli's riding, a great member. I'll sign and endorse this.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have yet another petition, signed by a number of residents of Peterborough and Lakefield.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas some motorists are recklessly endangering the lives of children by not obeying the highway traffic law requiring them to stop for school buses with

their warning lights activated;

"Whereas the current law has no teeth to protect the children who ride the school buses of Ontario, and who are at risk and their safety is in jeopardy;

"Whereas the current school bus law is difficult to enforce, since not only is the licence plate number required but positive identification of the driver and

vehicle as well, which makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction;

"Therefore,

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

"That the measures contained in private member's Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to protect children while on school buses, presented by Pat

Hoy, MPP, Chatham-Kent Essex, be immediately enacted....

"Bill 112 imposed liability on the owner of a vehicle that fails to stop for a school bus that has its overhead red signal lights flashing and....

"We ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

I too have signed this petition.

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): The petitions keep coming.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario's senior citizens have devoted themselves to building Ontario's outstanding quality of life and have earned the right to a safe, secure

retirement; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced the Ontario Home Property Tax Relief for Seniors Act, 2003; and

"Whereas the act would ensure that every eligible senior homeowner or renter would receive property tax reimbursements on their principal residence, starting

July 1, 2003; and

"Whereas this would provide an average annual net saving of $475 for 945,000 senior households" in Ontario -- marvellous.

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario enact the Ontario Home Property Tax Relief for Seniors Act, 2003, to ensure Ontario's seniors benefit from lower

taxes on their homes."

I am pleased to present this to Bryant from the riding of Leeds-Grenville -- Mr Runciman is the member there -- and sign this on his behalf.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to

standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 23,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 and the Municipal Franchises Act

in respect of consumer protection, the governance of the Ontario Energy Board and other matters, when Bill 23 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to

dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without further debate or amendment, at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may then be immediately called; and

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

amendment; and

That no deferral of the second and third reading votes pursuant to standing order 28(

h) shall be permitted; and

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

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister?

Hon Mr Baird: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise in debate to the motion before us.

With the indulgence of the House, I did want to congratulate an outstanding citizen of Ontario. Madame Helen Vari, who has made an outstanding contribution to

Ontario, was awarded an honorary doctorate of laws at York University last week. I regret that new cabinet responsibilities prevented me from attending her receiving this honorary degree.

Helen is involved in a lot of projects in Canada and internationally of cultural, social and humanitarian nature. She is the president of the George and Helen

Vari Foundation, founded in 1984, to promote education and cultural exchanges between nations. She is the founding and honorary president of the World Monuments Fund France, a worldwide foundation

for preserving cultural heritage.

The George and Helen Vari Foundation donated the central building of York University, called Vari Hall. They've also funded the Vari Laboratory at Princess

Margaret Hospital in Toronto, among other projects. Most important, and in a very nice cultural gesture, in the year 2001 the foundation donated 3,000 Ontario maple trees to the Versailles castle

and the city of Paris after the storms which took out a lot of very historic trees.

Helen was awarded the Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur de France in February 1993. She's a great ambassador of Canada and francophones in Ontario,

where she takes a particular pleasure and interest in promoting the fact that in Ontario we have a dynamic and big francophone community, and it's not exclusively limited to the province of Quebec.

She's a great ambassador for Canada and for Ontario in France.

It's certainly a privilege to know her and to call her a friend. So I wanted to recognize that accomplishment and achievement. I know all members of the House

would want to join me in congratulating a great humanitarian like Madame Vari.

With respect to the motion before us concerning Bill 23, the Ontario Energy Board reform that was committed last fall, I think by and large this is not a

terribly controversial bill. It's significant, it's certainly not a housekeeping bill. It's not a terribly controversial bill, I would indicate to all members of the House, and I think by and large

most members, if they looked at the content, would not take great exception to anything contained in the bill. They may suggest additional measures be put in the bill, such as making it

retroactive, but by and large the content of the bill, I think, is good for consumers, good for the energy industry. It is a win-win scenario.

I did listen with great interest to the speech by the member for Renfrew North. He spoke very well, and he talked about the government's commitment to follow

through with the legislation. Would we have the people and the finances to have a topnotch regulator in the province of Ontario? Of course, we have the person and the leadership of the Honourable

Howard Wetston. His character is beyond question. He's a phenomenal individual. I think he represents one of the very best appointments we've seen in the province in the last 10 years. I was

certainly very proud to nominate him and to have him confirmed by the committee, with the official opposition supporting him.

Of course an important part of the legislation, to go to the point that the member for Renfrew North spoke of, is the ability of the Ontario Energy Board to be

self-financing. There is, I suppose, some degree of a conflict of interest when we want a regulator to be independent, to operate at arm's length from the government. Today, the Ontario Energy

Board's budget is actually parked with the Ministry of Energy. The general manager is in a situation where he has to get his resources approved, not just by the executive council but indeed by this

House. In virtual unanimity we heard that there had to be regulatory independence, that the government of the day, for political reasons or partisan reasons, should not become involved in decisions

of the board, and its becoming self-financing is a step to strengthen that independence, an independence which has universal support.

I should say, with respect to the speech by the member for Renfrew North, that I think he had the attention of all members of the House. I want to use this

opportunity, in what could be the last week the House is sitting, to wish him well and to acknowledge the contribution he has made to Ontario. I don't agree with everything he says, but he

certainly has the respect, I think, of all members of this place, and that should be acknowledged. I'd like to put that on the record. He is someone, as the critic for energy, who will likely know

more about energy policy when I leave this post, even if I did serve in it for a full term. So that speaks to his experience.

To talk about the need for the time allocation motion before this place, I think there is a need for reform of the way we practise legislative affairs in this

province. It is regrettable, I think, that even with a bill that is relatively uncontroversial like this, there can't be agreement. I certainly look forward to trying to reform the relationships

that all three political parties -- we will debate a terribly controversial, substantive bill for the same amount of time as a relatively straightforward bill. I don't think that's in the best

interests, and I don't think anyone can point fingers. I think there's probably responsibility on both sides of the aisle for that.

In listening to the debate, I'd encourage any member or member of the public to look at the debate we had on this bill. By and large, there wasn't a lot of

debate. We had excellent debate, but not debate on Bill 23. We had discussions about energy policy. We had discussions about the issue of supply, which I think is a fair and legitimate issue and

should be a fair and legitimate concern for residential customers and for enterprise in the province. We had debate on pricing. We had debate on privatization. We had debate on deregulation. We had

debate on an open market. We had debate about a lot of things in energy, but we didn't have a huge amount of debate on Bill 23, yet today we're dealing with a motion to get on to the next important

part of debate, which of course is to have a vote in principle on the bill. I think it's important that we do take a period of time to debate the bill, but an important part of the debate is

actually to make a decision, to allow members on all sides of the House to express their support or their opposition to the bill by standing in their place and being counted.

I don't think there was a lot of debate about the bill, because I think, by and large, members on all sides of the House support it. I listened to the debate

from members opposite with great interest, and I frankly don't know whether they're going to vote for the bill or not. I'm hoping they'll look at the content of the bill and see fit to support it.

It's not a partisan bill. The bill is not in any way, shape or form linked to deregulation or to an open market in electricity. The Ontario Energy Board does deal with a lot of very important

issues with respect to natural gas and the monopoly substituting for a market economy, which of course can't exist with the monopoly on the distribution side of natural gas. The board has an

important function with respect to the transmission and distribution of electricity, to the generation and retailing of electricity. But the Ontario Energy Board of course doesn't deal with the

issue of opening the market, because that of course is settled in this House, not by the regulator.

I feel very strongly about good adjudicative-regulatory instruments and bodies. I served as a member of the Agency Reform Commission for a year, where we

looked at what we could do to reform adjudicative justice and approve it. I worked under the Bob Wood committee on agencies, boards and commissions, where we reviewed every agency board and

commission. We were able to reduce them substantively to do a better job for the taxpayer. So this is something that I have a personal interest in as an important part of government. Too often

we've seen that these agencies, boards and commissions, which were set up to provide a function outside of the courts, have not been as effective as they could be. I think Bill 23, before us, will

help the board administer itself better.

I think folks at the board have done a very good job with the tools that they have had available. What this bill, Bill 23, seeks to do is to give them

additional tools. In many respects, the board's mandate has grown quicker than it could have. I'm pleased that we will have some tools to give the folks at the board some help in doing a better job

for consumers.

Bill 23 takes dead aim at a real concern that taxpayers have. It's with respect to retroactive prices. We have a regulatory regime in Ontario that allowed an

18-month retroactive charge to go forward. I think its important that we put in place a regulatory regime that ensures that that doesn't happen. It deals with the retroactivity by ensuring that we

have a regulatory calendar and performance measures and that there's a time frame. I say to the member for Windsor, it is a difficult task indeed to make anything retroactive. What we want is to

ensure that we have a good regulatory regime in place that ensures that consumers are protected. The enhanced consumer protection in this bill and the tools that the board will have on the staffing

side, on the financial side and on the power side to step in and protect the interests of consumers is good news for the people of Ontario. It's good news for enterprise in the province, those

companies like the auto companies in Windsor that use a lot of electricity or the companies that use a substantial amount of natural gas. It is tremendously good.

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): It's privately generated, thanks to the NDP.

Hon Mr Baird: What is privately generated?

Ms Pupatello: Cogeneration.

Hon Mr Baird: Cogeneration? Yes. The member for Windsor talks about the major privatization and expansion in privatization. The second-biggest

privatization that took place in the electricity sector was, as the member for Windsor said, the NUG contracts, the non-utility generator contracts, where the NDP said, "We don't want the

government or Ontario Hydro to generate electricity any more. We want to get private sector companies to generate electricity for the government." They're call non-utility generators. That was done

under the NDP.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): No, that's not the way it happened.

Hon Mr Baird: That is exactly how it happened, I say to the member for Timmins-James Bay. I guess they forgot about that because they were

worrying about the auto insurance issue, making it public. Of course, they didn't do that either.

Did they privatize the coal plants? Did they get rid of the coal plants and shut them down? I said to the officials at the Ministry of Energy, "Get me a list

of all the coal plants that were shut down by the NDP. I want a list of every single one of them." They couldn't get me a list. "Where's the list?" They said they didn't close down a single

coal-fired unit in Ontario. Nothing.

Thank goodness, under the leadership of Premier Ernie Eves, we finally have a commitment to do that. We have a moratorium on new, coal-fired plants. They're

not allowed. Ernie Eves vetoed the sale of two private sector partners unless there was a commitment to close the coal-fired plants.

The Ernie Eves government, through the Ontario Power Generation, is ensuring a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar investment in pollution abatement at Nanticoke and

Lambton, something that could have been done under the NDP, but they didn't do anything. They kept the coal-fired plants open. They had no plan to reduce pollution. It was go forward, full steam

ahead.

We have a responsible plan, unlike the provincial Liberals, who won't release their plan on closing the coal-fired plants by 2007. I'd like the Liberals to

tell us what the price of electricity would be in 2007 if they fired they coal-fired plants? We see the huge, looming, natural gas shortage coming from Alberta, and we'll see how they do it. If

you'd like eight-cent power, 10-cent power, 15-cent power, vote for Dalton McGuinty. He's the one to do it.

People wonder where Dalton McGuinty stands on these issues. He, of course, was a big proponent of an open market. The official spokesman for Dalton McGuinty

said, "Ontario Liberals have always been consistent. We support an open marketplace." The Liberal Party said in a fundraising letter.

On November 11, I saw Dalton McGuinty in Ottawa at the airport. He was flying to Toronto where the government was making an announcement with respect to

electricity policy. I said, "Dalton, would you look at the policy? It's a good one. I bet you might be able to support it." Dalton said, "No, John; unlikely." Of course then he came out against the

November 11 announcement. Five days later, he actually said he was going to vote for it. He was against it, in favour of it, against it, then in favour of it, and then all the Liberals stood up in

this House and voted for Bill 210.

The day Dalton McGuinty changed his mind for the third time, he sent out a fundraising letter to all energy companies saying, "Give me money. I want this money

for energy policy too." He was consistent, and he supported an open market. The very same day that Dalton McGuinty put out that letter that he was trolling for energy bucks on Bay Street, he

changed his mind again. I don't know whether he signed those letters in the morning asking for money from the oil companies and the energy companies and then changed his mind after lunch. I don't

know whether he even caucused the issue. I did notice, when we voted on Bill 210, that the official spokesman for the Liberal Party on energy snuck out, because he didn't want to be there to vote

against his own party. That was most interesting. The official spokesman of the Liberal Party didn't want to be there to back up his leader on energy policy.

Frankly, I am looking forward to seeing the plan. I thought Jim Bradley did a good job on the all-party committee on alternate fuels. Doug Galt was involved

with that, as was --

Interjection: Chaired it.

Hon Mr Baird: -- chaired it -- as was Commissioner Gilchrist.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It was Mr Baird that called Howard Hampton outside. Howard's been waiting

for him for 45 minutes.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. The minister may continue.

Hon Mr Baird: While Howard is playing political games, I'm in here doing my job as government House leader, as Minister of Energy. I look

forward to talking to my friends outside.

I think it's important, though, that people should conduct themselves in an integral way and they shouldn't engage in sleazy name-calling and tactics when they

have nothing to back it up. I found the conduct of the leader of the third party in the House this afternoon quite frankly disappointing. The comments he made and the inferences he suggested were

frankly not fit for a member of this House, let alone a person who wants to become Premier. I know him to be an honourable man, and for him to suggest the things he did in the House reflect poorly

on him and poorly on his party. I think those comments were regrettable.

I am looking forward to finishing the debate on this motion and on the bill because an important part of the debate is that we have an opportunity to vote, to

take a stand. Peter Kormos -- I know where he stands. I bet you I know where he stands on this bill, and he'll have an opportunity to stand and be counted.

I want to see where my friends in the official opposition will stand, because I think frankly Bill 23 is a good piece of legislation. I think Howard Wetston is

a good man for the job of chair of the Ontario Energy Board. The changes that go on there will be good for administrative justice and for regulatory affairs in the energy field in the province of

Ontario.

I ask all members of the House to support Bill 23, to look at the bill and at the debate on the bill in Hansard. I say to my friend from Windsor, what was the

percentage of the time that people actually spoke to the bill? Very little, which suggests to me that there's not a great objection to it. There was a 100-day period where we had widespread

consultations from the public, from stakeholders, from consumer groups. We reflected on what they said and responded. I haven't heard a substantial amount of criticism anywhere in the province

about this legislation. Local distribution companies and most of the publicly owned companies in our communities support the legislation. Consumer groups have reacted positively to the legislation.

Energy industry officials say it gives a greater arm's length and independence to the regulatory function of the Ontario Energy Board.

I ask all members of the House to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation to allow us to better protect consumers and to ensure that

enterprise in the province has a fair and level playing field at the same time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): The floor is open for further debate.

Ms Pupatello: I am pleased to speak to this bill. It is a time allocation motion.

When the government decides it wants to talk about energy, we realize it insists on tinkering around the edges of what the real problems are in energy today in

Ontario. I listened to the minister very carefully talk about how people addressed all kinds of issues in the debate over Bill 23, specifically around this regulatory body, but he didn't really

want us to talk about the real underlying issues around energy in Ontario.

I come from a very southwesterly part of the province. I come, fortunately, from a place that is very industrial. We have our history with energy in Windsor.

Our industry in Windsor has led the charge in moving to low-cost, reliable energy, and in those years it dragged the Ontario government along and it worked with local utilities. I'm going back to

the early 1990s, when expansions were afoot and they said, "We are prepared to pour money into our auto industry in the Windsor area, but we need to be guaranteed good-priced, good-quality energy

and it has to be reliable." At that time, they worked with the NDP government and they said to them, "We are prepared to invest, we are prepared to join and partner with the private sector to

produce this low-cost, reliable, good energy for our sector. Will you let us do this?" The NDP government came along and in fact opened these plants to allow our industry to flourish, and it does

to this day.

Our Windsor Utilities Commission, under the direction of Kent Edwards at the time, was a leader in the utilities business, working with other sectors to make

energy reliable and affordable for industry, which drives all of our communities. I spoke with Kent Edwards, going back, longing for those days again when we understood that those partners we had

in this field had an ability to work with all levels of government to make it happen where it was required.

When I fast-forward to today and the last meeting I had with our local utilities -- now, under new legislation, its own corporation, and the shareholders are

all the residents of Windsor -- I asked them what their issues of the day are. Well, the issues of the day are as long as my arm. We are now dealing with utilities across the province that are

massively in debt thanks to the provincial government. We had a government that came along and said, "No, no, we know how to do this better. We are going to have the market bear the price of

electricity, and they will tell us." Sure enough, like everyone could predict, because we had never addressed the issue of supply, the prices went through the roof, to the point that consumers

could not stand it. That meant we heard from businesses and residents alike who could not afford their utility bills, because this government decided they were going to deregulate the market.

I remember at the time doing wide-ranging interviews, discussions and on-air talk shows on radio about what the real issues were with electricity. Most people,

I suspect, in the area of electricity need to know that when they get to the light switch and flick it on, the light comes on, and when they don't need it, they shut it off. I suspect they don't

need to worry typically about when they're going to run their dryer, their washing machine, all of those appliances in the home, and worry that it's going to blow a fuse; that everything works. I

suspect too that most of us have to get a lesson quickly, when you move into a new home, as to where all the switches are, just in case you blow a fuse, and that generally is the extent. We know we

have to pay monthly bills, and we sure do worry when those bills are more than they're supposed to be or more than we predicted they could be.

It's one thing for residents to suddenly get slapped with more and higher bills and the bills keep going up monthly, unpredictably so; it's quite another

situation to be in business and realize that your business is very much based on electricity and you can't control that your sales will increase in that same month to account for this massive

increase in the cost to deliver that service. So we heard from businesses across the board. They could not afford these new electricity prices.

At that time we said, "Look, the market is deregulated. The government's deregulated the marketplace." But after eight years of being in government, we the

consumers, we the businesses, we the other MPPs in the House would think that the government's done some kind of long-range plan to see that we are going to have the supply that Ontario requires to

meet its needs.

I marvel at the number of the times that ministers stand up in this House and want to go back to the NDP and blame them, and go back even further to blame the

Liberals because somehow it was their fault, when this government's been around eight years. Eight years you've been at the helm, eight years you've been in charge to see that we have enough

supply, that it might be at a price that we can afford and that someone actually could do some prediction over what would happen if you deregulated the market.

You went to the local utilities and you said that in order to prepare for deregulation you would have to do these number of things, which in the end cost

millions of dollars for local utilities. It cost my own utilities in the Windsor area millions of dollars to prepare for deregulation. When the government changed its mind and re-regulated the

market, our utilities were stuck with tremendous bills, tremendous deficits that they cannot recoup from their consumers. Consumers don't want to have to suddenly have to pay millions of dollars

for things that don't directly benefit them.

So here they are today, hat in hand, saying, "How do we manage these millions of dollars?" at a time -- in particular for communities like mine, communities

like Hamilton, that have old centres, that perhaps have industries that have been around a long time -- when taking care of the system is just as important to us.

I have a unique perspective, living across the river from Detroit and the power that's generated over there through Detroit Edison. When they have a terrible

storm or something that causes a blackout, when they have regular brownouts in Detroit, what we marvel at on the Windsor side of the river is just how long people go without power. Mostly because

of the infrastructure in place and the maintenance that's never been kept up to the standard that it ought to be, they are scrambling in Detroit to get their system back up and running.

In Ontario we had some sense of that when we had the ice storm in the east of Ontario, when we saw what happens when you do without power for days upon days

upon days. We're not used to that here; we're used to utilities being able to manage their infrastructure and keep it humming all the time.

I can tell you now what utilities are having to decide. Thanks to this government, that's been around for eight years, that has caused millions of dollars to

utilities virtually across Ontario, they are now making decisions about the kind of infrastructure projects they can move forward with. We have transformers so old they should have been replaced

long ago. They can't keep to their

schedule of infrastructure maintenance that they should because they will not have the money to afford it. Nor will they be able to go to their consumer and say,

"Let's tack on another $100 this month because we have infrastructure we need to care for." We all collectively say that it's imperative that we can offer reliable, low-cost power to the consumer.

Everyone agrees with that.

So then it comes to the how. How will we produce all this power? Often every party in here has gone to the California experience and either quoted it, lauded

it, blasted it or something. But we have to remember that one significant reason that California got out of the mess that it was in when it too suffered massive supply issues. It went into red

alert when it came to conservation. All of a sudden people in California saw that there are ways not to use power when we've been so used to using power. One of the reasons they could get out of

the pickle they were in is that they dramatically dropped how much and when they used supply.

I believe a significant cornerstone, a foundation of any policy of any party in this place has to be centred around conservation. Who is talking about

conservation here? Any of us who have been in the school system in the last three decades, say, would remember that they used to use icons in the classroom, little cartoon characters to make the

point in the classroom about safety. We remember Elmer the Safety Elephant and how he would teach us as kids in the classroom about safety around a whole myriad of issues. What we need in our

province is someone to teach us, in this new day and age when everything is electronic, how to use power efficiently, how we can go forward through our children in the school system and parents who

run the household, how to use appliances efficiently and the kind we can buy.

Frankly, I don't believe -- and I remember the commercials and th