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

June 11, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Jun-11 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 11 June 2002 Mardi 11 juin 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JAMAICAN RELIEF EFFORT

CHILDREN'S SAFETY VILLAGE

JUVENILE DIABETES

PEEL CHILDREN'S WATER FESTIVAL

BORDER CROSSING ISSUES

HAMILTON CHINESE

LANGUAGE SCHOOL

BRAMPTON BLOCK PARENT PROGRAM

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

FUNDRAISING EVENTS IN

BARRIE-SIMCOE-BRADFORD

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT

(HYDRO SALARY DISCLOSURE), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

(DIVULGATION DES SALAIRES

DANS L'INDUSTRIE DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 CONCERNANT

LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

MEMBER FOR LANARK-CARLETON

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

HYDRO ONE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

CENTRAL NORTH

CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

ONTARIO RENTAL HOUSING TRIBUNAL

HAZARDOUS WASTE

MAMMOGRAPHY SERVICES

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL

OF EASTERN ONTARIO

BIOTECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 118

PETITIONS

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

OPTOMETRISTS

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES /

SERVICES DE SANTÉ POUR ENFANTS

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

HYDRO ONE

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING

SERVICES DE SANTÉ POUR ENFANTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Tuesday 11 June 2002 Mardi 11 juin 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JAMAICAN RELIEF EFFORT

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Jamaica and Jamaicans are currently facing a perilous situation. Heavy rains and thunderstorms have

caused widespread flooding and landslides throughout Jamaica. The heavy downpours, which began May 22 and continue today, have uprooted people from their homes and damaged roads, power and water

supplies and personal property.

The hardest hit areas are St Elizabeth, Manchester, Clarendon, St Catherine and St Thomas. Prime Minister P.J. Patterson has declared these five parishes

disaster areas. Vivia Betton, the consul general for Jamaica in Toronto, has appealed to all Ontarians to assist in the relief effort. Monetary donations have been requested, as well as bedding,

blankets, lanterns and candles. The Jamaican consulate has opened a bank account at the Bank of Montreal at 200 King Street West in Toronto, where deposits can be made to assist the flood victims.

Furthermore, contributions can also be made at any TD Canada Trust branch.

I am pleased to report that prominent Jamaican-born Michael Lee-Chin, CEO of Hamilton-based AIC mutual fund company, has pledged to match relief donations to a

maximum of C$3 million for all donations made to the special account set up at TD Canada Trust. In addition, the consulate general is accepting donations in the form of cheques or money orders.

Donations can be sent to 303 Eglinton Avenue East. I encourage all Ontarians to contact the Jamaican consulate and make their contributions.

CHILDREN'S SAFETY VILLAGE

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to tell members of the House about the Children's Safety Village in London, which recently celebrated

its first year of operation. The aim of the Children's Safety Village is to reduce the current statistics of 600 children injured each month in the London area. Some 95% of these injuries are

preventable through education and hands-on experience.

The Children's Safety Village of London Area consists of a main building with two classrooms and a miniature town and is built on four acres of land provided by

the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. It has approximately 26 scaled-down buildings, roadways, traffic lights and signs, an operational railway crossing and a school bus. After classroom

instruction by police, fire and other safety personnel, the children demonstrate their knowledge of safety through the use of electric cars, bicycles and walking around.

The key to success is having fun in a learning environment. The target market is 15,000 students each school year in the London area from grade 1 to grade 4.

They are taught pedestrian, bike, fire, rail and personal safety, stranger danger, and electrical and other household hazards.

The Children's Safety Village mission statement is, "Tell me and I will forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I will understand." We cannot afford

to overlook the significance of a comprehensive safety education that will ensure the well-being of our children.

I know that all members will join with me in wishing many more years of success to the Children's Safety Village of London Area and to congratulate the board of

directors, board chair Andrew Murray, executive director Bill Brock, volunteers and the support staff for the important work they do.

JUVENILE DIABETES

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My statement today is to the Minister of Health. As I'm sure you know, diabetes is the leading cause

of blindness, amputation, kidney failure and heart disease in Ontario. We have a treatment for it, but we do not yet have a cure.

Type 1, or juvenile diabetes, is only 10% of all cases but it causes 50% of the complications. For our young people, this is a life-altering condition. However,

research has developed and proven that an insulin pump not only prevents complications with these young people but in many cases reverses it by putting a regular amount of insulin into the body

that extremely closely matches what the body naturally does. Unfortunately, the cost of this pump prevents most Ontarians from having the use of it. It is approved in other countries. It costs

about $5,700 per patient to equip them with it and $2,200 per year for supplies. But if one person has the complications from juvenile-type diabetes, it costs the health care system over $100,000 a

year. Not only is it the right thing to do from humanity's viewpoint, it is good fiscal management to prevent these complications.

Minister of Health, I urge you to investigate immediately the feasibility and the process by which this province can provide funding for our young people, in

fact for all of our citizens, who would benefit from the use of an insulin pump. It alters their life. It is a humane thing to do and is fiscally responsible. I urge the minister to act now on

this.

PEEL CHILDREN'S WATER FESTIVAL

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): Last Monday and Saturday I had the privilege to join other distinguished guests to welcome children from

grades 2 to 5 to the Peel Children's Water Festival and to speak to them about something we all take for granted: water. This five-day event, now in its seventh year, took place at the Heart Lake

Conservation Area in my riding of Brampton Centre and in the heart of Heart Lake, which is where I live. It's an interactive educational event designed to complement the Ontario curriculum and give

students hands-on learning about the importance of water in everyday life.

Over 5,000 Peel students joined up to participate in more than 50 activity centres, learn about water in the environment, water quality, distribution and

conservation. On Saturday, with the assistance of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, children released a tank of trout into the Heart Lake Conservation Area to understand the value of

conservation and appreciation for our fish and wildlife.

In addition to Peel students, there were a number of other schools participating. High Park Alternative School from Toronto, Donwood Park Junior Public School

from Toronto and Brant Township Central Public School from Walkerton also enjoyed the festivities, as I did.

I thank all the participants who were involved and give a special thank you to all the partners that made this year's water festival a resounding success. I look

forward to attending again next year.

BORDER CROSSING ISSUES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Later this week, in Windsor and Detroit, the Michigan-Ontario summit will occur. The Premier of Ontario

will represent Ontario there. My understanding is the Governor of Michigan will attend on behalf of the state of Michigan.

There are a number of pressing issues between the state and Ontario, between our great country and the United States. We reflect today as this meeting begins on

the state of our border crossings, the Ambassador Bridge and a proposed third link. In its last budget, the federal government pledged $600 million to improved border crossings, of which

approximately three quarters is directed to the Windsor situation to help improve the flow of goods and services between Windsor and Detroit. It is the largest dry port in the country, one of the

largest ports in the world. It is absolutely essential that the province of Ontario come up with its share of money to improve that border crossing and to ensure that the studies that are proposed

today don't take the projected 10 to 12 years.

This is probably the most significant economic and trade issue between our great nations. The federal government of the United States and the federal government

of Canada are at the table; it's now time for the Premier of Ontario to put the government's money, and the people's money, where its mouth is, and that is to support a speedy resolution of the

dilemma at the border crossing.

I'd also urge the Premier to discuss with the Governor of Michigan at that time the situation involving health care professionals going to and fro across the

border and the need for Ontario to be able to retain and recruit new nurses in particular.

HAMILTON CHINESE

LANGUAGE SCHOOL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I rise to acknowledge an important anniversary that is taking place this weekend in Hamilton. The

Hamilton Chinese Language School is proudly celebrating its 25th anniversary. For the past quarter of a century, thousands of students have attended classes at Sts Peter and Paul, and St Patrick

and St Charles schools in Hamilton.

One person who has played a crucial role in the success of the school is principal Mrs Rhoda Mark, who will be honoured for 25 years of teaching excellence,

leadership and dedication at her retirement party this weekend. Mrs Mark was instrumental in founding the Hamilton Chinese Language School. As principal of the school, she helped enrich the lives

of many young people and has made an outstanding contribution to the community with 25 years of dedicated service. Throughout her career, she has worked to promote the importance of learning about

the Chinese language, heritage and multiculturalism and what it is to be uniquely Canadian. I'm sure all members will want to join me in paying tribute to Mrs Mark and extending best wishes for her

retirement, as well as best wishes for continued success to the Hamilton Chinese Language School.

BRAMPTON BLOCK PARENT PROGRAM

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): On behalf of the people of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, I'm pleased today to pay tribute

to our volunteers at the Brampton Block Parent program. Block Parents are people whose homes display a red and white sign so that children know where they can get assistance if they're lost, scared

or in need of help. Since 1991, Brampton Block Parents has been part of the Brampton Safe City Association. Brampton Safe City is also a recipient of funding under the Ontario government's

community policing partnership program. The Brampton Block Parents have elected a new and energetic board that is eager to make the program a success, but they're going to need community help as

well. Block Parents are always looking for volunteers. Brampton Block Parents can be reached at 905-793-8132.

This fall, Brampton Block Parents will be going to many schools to inform the children about this program. I ask the folks who are watching at home, the next

time you go for a walk with your kids, point out the Block Parent homes so that children know. If your block doesn't have a Block Parent, then perhaps you should volunteer to be one. Nothing takes

away a child's fear more than seeing a friendly and reassuring smile. If you'd like to have more information, you can contact my office at

www.ramindergill.com .

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Yesterday, Maclean's magazine ranked several cities across the nation -- 54 of them. A big surprise -- or

at least, it shouldn't be to the Minister of Health -- was that Windsor ranked 54th out of 54 cities for the number of doctors per capita. This should not be a surprise to anyone on the other side

of the House. We have been bringing this issue forward for, at a minimum, the last seven years.

The government's answer to our woeful inadequacy of doctors: the minister decides to announce a southwest rural training centre, which may see 10 medical

students coming through the Windsor area as part of their training. Let me say that even if all 10 students were to stay, we may have some remedy for family doctors in the next 15 years because

this number won't even keep up with attrition -- the number of retirements and doctors moving from our community.

Western University is to launch this program in the month of July. That's next month. Western University hasn't received one red cent yet to begin this program.

How can we expect universities in Ontario to float these new programs on their own, considering the operating woes that our universities face? We insist that the minister come to the table to help,

especially in areas like Windsor that are so woefully inadequate in the number of doctors, specialists and family doctors.

FUNDRAISING EVENTS IN

BARRIE-SIMCOE-BRADFORD

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): On Saturday, June 8, I was pleased to attend and sponsor my sixth annual pancake breakfast at the

Royal Canadian Legion in Barrie. The pancake breakfast has raised funds in excess of $12,000 in support of women's cancer research, treatment and prevention at Royal Victoria Hospital. It also

raises awareness of women's cancer and the excellent treatment provided by the professionals at Royal Victoria Hospital. I wish to thank all those who attended the breakfast and the proud

supporters, those being the Barrie Examiner, Shoppers Drug Mart, A&M Super Food Store, the Barrie Jazz and Blues Festival, Wagg's Linens, B101, and Papermate Business Solicitations Inc.

I also extend an invitation to my constituents to attend on Sunday, June 16, from 10 am to 2 pm at Casey's Bar and Grill on Bayfield Street, and the Barrie Jazz

Festival at Heritage Park, in support of men's cancer research treatment and prevention at the Royal Victoria Hospital.

Finally, my fourth annual pancake breakfast starts at 9 am on Saturday, June 22, at Holy Martyrs of Japan church in Bradford-West Gwillimbury to raise funds and

awareness for women's cancer research, treatment and prevention at Southlake Regional Health Centre.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin, in the member's west gallery we have Mr René Fontaine, who was the member for Cochrane

North in the 33rd and 34th Parliaments. Please join me in welcoming our colleague.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT

(HYDRO SALARY DISCLOSURE), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

(DIVULGATION DES SALAIRES

DANS L'INDUSTRIE DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

Mr McGuinty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 85,

An Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 by making the corporations created under it subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act / Projet de loi 85, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l'électricité en assujettissant les personnes morales créées en vertu de celle-ci à la

Loi sur l'accès

à l'information et la protection de la vie privée.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Quite simply, this bill will act to protect the interests of Hydro's ratepayers by breaking down

the wall of secrecy around that company and by requiring it to make available information on compensation and other matters of interest to the Ontario public.

TRUTH ABOUT IPPERWASH ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 CONCERNANT

LA VÉRITÉ SUR IPPERWASH

Mr Phillips moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 87,

An Act to provide for a public inquiry to discover the truth about events at Ipperwash Provincial Park leading to the death of Dudley George /

Projet de loi 87, Loi prévoyant une enquête publique pour découvrir la vérité sur les événements qui se sont produits au parc provincial Ipperwash et qui ont

conduit au décès de Dudley George.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): The bill's short form is called the Truth about Ipperwash Act, 2002. It requires the Premier to

recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council that a commission be appointed to inquire into and report on the death of Dudley George and to make recommendations directed to the avoidance of

violence in similar circumstances. The commission is given powers under the Public Inquiries Act. Once the inquiry begins, the commission must make an interim report in six months and a final

report in 12 months.

MEMBER FOR LANARK-CARLETON

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent to pay our

respects to the long-serving member for Lanark-Carleton.

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

Hon Mr Eves: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought that might be the only way I got unanimous consent.

It's a pleasure for me to rise and recognize a person and an individual who I think has been respected by all sides of this Legislature for over 25 years now. I

understand a tribute was paid to our good friend Mr Bradley yesterday, but Norm Sterling was first elected to the Legislature in the same election on June 9, 1977. He has outlived three different

name changes in his riding to date -- I say "to date" -- with Carleton-Grenville, Carleton and, of course, now Lanark-Carleton. It doesn't seem to make any difference what the riding is called or

what it's boundaries are, but Norm seems to earn the respect of the people he represents. Abraham Lincoln once said, "You don't have to fool all the people all the time, you just have to fool the

majority of them." I guess Norm has done that very well.

He's the longest-sitting member of the PC caucus, having been re-elected for a seventh time in 1999, which would make him the dean of our caucus. Of course, as

honourable members know, he currently serves as Ontario's Minister of Transportation.

Prior to this, Norm has held many different portfolios. He certainly has had a well-rounded experience in this place. I don't know what that says. Either he

solves the problems at all the ministries he's at or we move him on to another one. He has been the Minister of Consumer and Business Services, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, government

House leader, Minister of the Environment and Energy and Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

In his first term, he served as parliamentary assistant to the then-Attorney General Roy McMurtry. It was there that I first met Norm Sterling on my arrival at

Queen's Park in 1981. I was a very lowly backbencher sitting way back there in the fourth row. Norm took pity on me, I guess, and invited me to an Attorney General's conference in Vancouver. Of

course we had --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Before they go too far over there, James Breithaupt, the good Liberal member from Kitchener of course, and James Renwick were also

in attendance, as I recall, and contributed greatly to the conference, I might add.

Norm, of course, very shortly thereafter became a minister without portfolio and then became Provincial Secretary for Resources Development with primary

responsibility for native affairs in the Niagara Escarpment. It was under those auspices, I guess, that I really got to know Norm fairly well because I was asked to take over his portfolio in 1985.

You might expect an individual whom you were replacing to be somewhat bitter about the experience, but I will never forget how gracious and helpful Norm Sterling was to me as he took me through the

different problems and concerns with respect to that particular ministry. He always put the peoples' interests first and put other interests, including his own, aside. That told me a lot about Norm

Sterling as an individual.

Norm has also served in this House as PC deputy House leader; chair of the PC caucus; PC critic for intergovernmental affairs; for treasury and economics; for

industry, trade and technology; and for consumer and commercial relations.

Norm has several degrees, which may come as some surprise to those members of the House opposite. He received a bachelor of engineering, a civil engineering

degree from Carleton University in 1964 and a law degree from the University of Ottawa in 1969. He was called to the bar in 1971. Some would say that Norm is educated beyond his intelligence, but I

wouldn't say that.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): He's your friend, Norm. Wait till it gets to this side.

Hon Mr Eves: I just thought I'd prepare Norm for the comments that might follow from the opposite side of the House.

Prior to entering politics, Norm worked as a civil engineer. He owned and operated a small manufacturing firm and he practised law for six years.

Norm has always had a bit of a flair for the unusual. You just never know what's going to come out of Norm next, so to speak. In 1992, he introduced a private

member's bill called the Drop the Penny Act to abolish the penny. I can remember the great fanfare and commitment with which Norm stormed through the Legislature and talked many, many a time about

the logic of this great initiative.

He also introduced a resolution in 1992 -- that must have been a particularly difficult year for Norm -- stating that the Senate of Canada should be abolished.

Of course, others have followed him in that regard many times over. Obviously, Norm doesn't have any aspirations to get appointed to the Senate of Canada, and if he ever did, they're gone now.

Norm also was very influential in supporting the Corel Centre, the home of the Ottawa Senators, and bringing forward freedom of information legislation and

legislation prohibiting smoking in the workplace and initiating the Drive Clean program in the province of Ontario.

In 1996, while Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Norm had another particular little quirk when he amended the Liquor Control Act of Ontario to

allow drinking on the golf course. I can still remember all of the interesting fallout that came from that.

Norm is a huge golf fan. You'll notice I didn't say, "A huge golfer." He's a huge golf fan. He relishes the game and the challenge that it brings, and

certainly enjoys the odd toddy afterwards. He loves the Ottawa Senators and he enjoys a good glass of scotch. Of course, anyone who loves the Ottawa Senators should enjoy scotch quite a bit because

they get a chance to indulge quite a bit.

While in opposition, the Conservative filibuster to read out every single lake and stream into the Legislature Norm claims was his suggestion, not Mike

Harris's. That might be news to Mike, but it probably was Norm's suggestion, knowing Norm's penchant for such unusual ideas and solutions to problems.

On a personal note, Norm has been together with Joan Stearns for 12 years and they've been married for the last two. They have four adult children: Sara, Ian,

Jarrod and John. His passion in life is the three grandchildren: Madleine, Brayden and Tierney. Norm even claims to have owned a few racehorses to pay his way through law school, although I've been

to the racetrack with Norm and I doubt that could ever possibly be the case. But he certainly enjoys telling the stories and relishes an evening or a day at the track.

Norm and Joan took up ballroom dancing together, and they stunned the guests at their wedding when they danced the tango. Now, Norm's been known to dance

around a few issues at Queen's Park, but that was a sight to behold indeed.

It's kind of ironic that what goes around often comes around in life. When Norm was first out of school and looking for a job as an engineer, he was offered a

job with the Ministry of Transportation, but turned it down because the pay was inadequate. Today, the pay's still inadequate, but he stands as the Minister of Transportation in the province of

Ontario.

Congratulations, Norm; another 25 years to you.

Applause.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Yesterday, Norm Sterling had the chance to say a few words about me, and he was very kind, I must say.

Today, on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus, and I'm sure on behalf of many people of Ontario, I have the pleasure of saying a few things about Norm Sterling.

The first thing I would say is that Norm is a very good friend of mine, as a member of this Legislature, and has been since he was elected in 1977. I'm very

proud to count him among people whom I would call close friends, and it is a result of both of us serving in this Legislature. I've had a good deal of respect for Norm's views on issues. A lot of

people, perhaps, if they don't follow the Legislature closely or an individual's career, wouldn't recognize that Norm is a very independent-minded person. Those in the caucus would know it and

those who served in cabinet would know it. Norm isn't afraid to express his point of view. That has been shown on a number of occasions, when he has even voted the opposite way to his party and

spoken out on a number of issues.

What is an enemy, sometimes, of those of us who serve in the Legislature is something called Hansard, because it's there forever and one can read back some of

the comments, which at the time seem to be very wise aren't always a little later. But for Norm they are.

One thing I've always relied upon in the Conservative government is that Norm Sterling would be speaking on behalf of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. That's

because when he was the provincial secretary for resources development he was responsible for overseeing the development of the Niagara Escarpment plan. So when issues come up that are contentious,

as they do from time to time in cabinet and in caucus and in the realm of public policy, I as a strong defender of the Niagara Escarpment Commission have always been able to rely upon my friend

Norm Sterling to speak out on behalf of the preservation of the escarpment. I think the people of this province should know that. Certainly people who are close to Norm would know that.

Second is the issue of freedom of information, which is topical at all times; it's topical in this House today. There was a bill introduced in the federal

House at this time; they're talking about freedom of information. When Norm was the parliamentary assistant to Roy McMurtry, the Attorney General, he was responsible for developing a plan to

implement freedom of information. My suspicion would be, although one has to be careful when speaking about a Chief Justice in Ontario, that Norm was more radical on the issue than perhaps Minister

McMurtry might have been at the time and he actually fought for a very meaningful program and policy and bill which would bring into action freedom of information in government.

He was also ahead of his time in his smoking legislation; that is, in terms of anti-smoking. Today it is almost accepted in many quarters that public buildings

are completely free of smoke. Norm brought forward his resolution when it wasn't quite so popular to do so, and he was somewhat in a minority. Today people have come around to his point of view,

and he of course was right in advancing that particular legislation or that resolution.

In addition to that, he has talked about the role of the individual MPP. I'm quoting from an Eric Dowd column. What would we do without Eric Dowd, the dean of

the press gallery, who has even more newspapers and clippings than I have in my office? It is said, and I'll be very careful because I don't want to cause any problems -- but Norm Sterling, a

former minister, called his Premier's lack of regard for elected members "disgraceful and a charade." He was talking about a Premier; he wasn't talking about the present Premier. I want to assure

you of that. This was a number of years ago. It was because he recognized, as he always has in this House, the importance of the role of the individual member and has some strong views of what that

role should be. He was a good House leader, when he was the House leader, for that reason and was tough to deal with in negotiations as a House leader but very fair. The one thing you always liked

about Norm was that when he gave his word on a House leaders' agreement, you knew that his word was as good as gold in that case.

I should tell you, though, that he had this to say about party leaders and so on. He said in Hansard in 1987, "My answer to the question of who rules is that

it is neither the members of this Legislature nor the critics. It is the Premier of the province who rules and rules alone, and the leaders of the party to a minor degree." So he observed something

that others across Canada are observing today.

He said, "I suggest that it is necessary to change not only the written rules but also the chemistry of what happens between each and every one in this

Legislature, including my relationship with my leader, my relationship with the Premier and the relationships of government members with the Premier.

"I am going to suggest some very radical things that I would like to see changed as well," supporting the member for Humber in this particular case. He said,

"I would like to remove the Premier's absolute control over the financial well-being of every member of this Legislature. I believe that every member of this Legislature, whether he is a cabinet

minister, a parliamentary assistant, the head of a committee or a member of the opposition, should be paid the exact same dollars. Therefore, people seeking to become cabinet ministers, seeking a

higher position in their party, seeking to become leader of their party would seek those positions on a matter of principle alone and they would not feel financially compelled to stay in a position

if they differed with a policy of the Premier or of the leader of the party." How do you like that?

So, needless to say -- and I'm not trying to get you into trouble, Norm -- he had some very popular views. He didn't suggest that other salaries be lowered. He

suggested, I think, that all salaries be lifted.

Read the biography. Biographies are pretty dry, but the Premier has mentioned an exceptional background: business background, law background -- an engineer and

a lawyer at the same time. Norm has an excellent background to come to this Legislature and contribute to public life.

As I mentioned, as a House leader you couldn't ask for better, although the present House leader is certainly trying to reach the level of his Housemate there

-- this House of course.

I want to say as well that Norm was kind enough, without any prompting -- just one request to him -- to come down to a dinner in St Catharines where I was

being feted, I guess is the word you say, for 25 years in the Legislature. But Norm's the kind of --

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): Feted.

Mr Bradley: "Feted" is the word? We were feted, you know. I'm glad you mention that. I'm glad we have that former Speaker in the House to tell

us that.

The point is, it took no prompting for Norm. He so willingly came down. We know the busy

schedule that cabinet ministers have, and I was pleased to see

that.

The beer on the golf course is appreciated by many. I, of course, have been corresponding with the temperance union in Ontario, indicating that I'm not

entirely in support of what he has suggested, but there are many people in my constituency who thought that was what we would call a "progressive" move.

He has, as well, an excellent sense of humour. In this job you have to have a sense of humour. At one moment, we can be angry with one another or angry at a

situation, but Norm Sterling always has that sense of humour which can defuse a very tense situation, and that's what we need in this House.

I appreciate that he's a person who doesn't jump on the bandwagon of the Toronto Maple Leafs, for instance. I know it was popular to do so in Toronto, waving

the flags and so on. But even when the Premier went to St Catharines and said, "Anybody who cheers for the Senators is a loser," I stood up in this House and defended Norm Sterling for indicating

he was prepared to stick with the Ottawa Senators.

The last thing he is well known for is wanting to abolish the penny. I can't think of anybody in this province outside of those who make pennies who would want

to see those pennies remain.

Norm, it's been a pleasure sitting with you. I know you're not about to retire. What happened yesterday -- somebody phoned my office after what he referred to

as a "eulogy" in the House for some reason and said, "I hear you're retiring." I had to correct him, of course, because you indicated, when you said there was still fire in the belly for you and

for me, that neither one of us would be retiring. I'm happy to hear you are going to continue on. Needless to say, we will have a very strong Liberal candidate in your riding who will once again

try to unseat the "squire of Manotick," as you used to be referred to by my colleague Sean Conway.

We wish you well. You've been a good representative for your constituents. You've been an excellent person in opposition and recognized the importance of the

opposition. You've been an outstanding cabinet minister with a breadth of experience and a lot of empathy for the people of this province. We thank you for that service, and we all wish you well

for many years to come.

Applause.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The competition was fierce among this cabinet -- or this caucus; how interesting -- among the nine of us as

to who was going to participate in this tribute to Mr Sterling on the occasion of 25 years. We resolved this unusual conflict among these nine caucus members by determining that we'd assess the

references to Norm Sterling and perhaps the caucus member who was most like him would have the opportunity to stand and pay tribute to him.

The 1987 headlines in the Ottawa Citizen: "Norm Sterling: A Touch of Rebellion Under Quiet Exterior." I concede the quiet exterior to Mr Sterling. In 1985, a

Globe and Mail

article wherein "Mr Sterling Announces That He Will Indeed Vote Against His Government." In 1994: "MPP Sterling Under Fire for Stalling Bill." In 1985, a headline: "Frank Miller Will

Not Discipline Renegade Conservative Norm Sterling."

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): What paper is that?

Mr Kormos: That indeed was the Globe and Mail again.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: No, no, you misunderstand. Mr Sterling was not disciplined.

Look, 25 years in this Legislature is, in and of itself, a tremendous career. It's two and a half decades of commitment to one's own community, one's

constituency, one's riding, one's constituents, and it's 25 years of commitment to this assembly.

I was first here, of course, with Mr Sterling after he had been in government and in positions of power within government. He was serving here in opposition,

as was I. He was here and I was blessed and fortunate to become a member of this Legislative Assembly when the rapport among members of the assembly -- as Jim Bradley indicates, while there was

debate as acrimonious as any and as partisan as any, the rapport was such that once that debate ended, and I mean once the Speaker rose and announced the adjournment of the Legislature to the next

day, there was an opportunity and there were frequent occasions wherein members would associate, would socialize, would indeed develop and pursue agendas together with what has been spoken of so

often, that level of collegiality that is increasingly absent from the chamber. As well, senior members of the assembly -- and don't forget, by the time I got here, Mr Sterling had already been

here for beyond a decade -- regardless of the partisan differences, gave their support and counsel to new and junior members of the assembly, and once again, without regard for the partisanship

that inevitably occupied and preoccupied the debate.

Politics is in many respects so tough on families, and in this regard I'm pleased that the Premier made mention of Mr Sterling's family because the support

that families give their spouses or their parents who are members of the assembly is essential to that member being able to pursue his or her goals and professional and political career here. As a

lawyer, as has been noted, as an engineer, as a small business person, Norm Sterling has clearly, with a strong professional background, been someone who has attracted and maintained the support of

his constituents.

I also note, though, the newspaper reference to what must have been an incredibly challenging occasion for Norm when, in 1987, he had to acknowledge that for

the first time he had to rely on his personality rather than his party in his pursuit of his seat and his re-election here at Queen's Park. I've had occasion, not so much in the recent past but in

that distant past when Mr Sterling was a member of the opposition and I was a member of the opposition, to travel, for instance, to the Ottawa airport. Mr Sterling, once again, as I told you, in

that model of the senior member who's so instructive to junior members, was most helpful to me in explaining how, notwithstanding one's reservation in the economy seats, if one delayed one's

attendance at the desk where the flight was being announced and tickets were being taken, and did it with precision, one could, as Mr Sterling demonstrated with remarkable agility, find oneself in

first class, notwithstanding the economy-tourist class ticket.

He also introduced me to -- I had no idea; I had never been in and, quite frankly, haven't been in one since -- the exclusive lounge that frequent flyers get

at airports by virtue of the Air Canada points and the accumulation of those sorts of things. I tell you that he introduced me to that dark, mysterious, wonderful, affluent world of the private

lounge for the frequent traveller. I've never been in one since. I'm grateful for his having taken me on that brief but remarkable journey, and I'm going to remember it for the rest of my life.

New Democrats here congratulate Norm Sterling on his service to his constituents, to his community and to this Legislature. He has been a formidable force

within the Progressive Conservative Party. He certainly has performed roles of leadership, and continues to do that. We congratulate him, we applaud him and we wish him well in future years.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Transportation): Thanks to Mr Eves, Mr Kormos and Mr Bradley for their kind remarks. Of course, I would

not have been as successful in politics and I think as successful in getting re-elected had I not had the help of so many people, but I think also in terms of doing a lot of good things, not only

on a big scale but on a small scale, for a lot of the people I represent.

I cannot forget coming here near the first day when one of my seatmates was a fellow named Bruce McCaffrey, who was a member here until 1987. With him came a

very important person to our caucus for a long period of time, Barbara Colantonio, who is also celebrating her 25th anniversary here.

Applause.

Hon Mr Sterling: I think everybody in Hansard should know that that was a standing ovation for Barbara.

There could probably be no better politician or political adviser than my wife, Joanie, who is sitting with us today in the members' gallery. Joan has been a

tremendous strength to me, and she's a hell of a lot better looking than I am too.

Interjections: Hear, hear.

Hon Mr Sterling: Let's not go too far here.

When a member gets to sit in this place for 25 years and experience 12 years sitting on the executive council and cabinet, you do have a perspective of

government, you have a perspective of how things are done and you have a perspective of what's happening back in your area. I have been extremely privileged to be supported by a whole number of

people in eastern Ontario. I've always considered that my home, and I've really been very appreciative of their support over that period of time.

When you have that 25-year perspective, you can trace some of the things you did back in your early career to benefits that occurred in the later part of your

career. I think one of my greatest achievements, which Mr Eves did not mention, was the building of Highway 416, which would not have happened had I not resurrected it early in 1982 or 1983, when

everybody else had forgotten it, and pushed for the environmental assessment hearing to go ahead. Eventually the government was in a position to finish that in 1999.

I was here when the city of Kanata was created, way back in 1978. In fact, as a young backbencher, I asked the then Premier, Premier Davis, a surprise question

about the fact that he was going to dump the Mayo report and the city of Kanata was not going to be created. I have seen that city being created and now becoming part of the city of Ottawa. So you

get a different perspective about things when you have been here as long as Jim and I have, and I believe it's valuable to the other members of the Legislature to draw on that experience from time

to time.

I have been a very, very strong defender of this institution, this institution and the other institutions we rely on in our courts. I, like Jim, have never had

to leave this chamber because of something I've said, because I have never considered it an honour, nor have I ever clapped for anybody who has been expelled from this place, because I believe that

the defending of the institution is far more important than the issue of the day.

I will say this about the two institutions that I'm most closely allied with and have the greatest interest in, and those are the courts and this place, the

Legislative Assembly. I'm worried about both of them going into the future. Quite frankly, I'm confused as to how to fix both. While being a strong supporter of the Charter of Rights, I do believe

the judiciary is taking, at this point in time, far too active a role in what former politicians decided in this place and in our House of Commons. I do hope, going into the future, that will be

corrected. I don't know how to correct it, but I do sense that that is one institution, which I have defended very strongly, which has to be brought back in line.

As far as this place, I have tried, as the House leader, deputy House leader, both in opposition and in this place as the government House leader, to bring

change to the rules to allow this place to be more meaningful not only for the executive council but for the other members of the parties here, because I believe they're here not only to criticize

but also to be constructive while they are here.

Back in 1987, when we were in a minority situation, I was able to negotiate the ability for members of the opposition to bring forward for discussion certain

topics in committee. Unfortunately, that was used by the opposition over a period of time for partisan purposes and was not used for what I had envisaged in my own mind in terms of really giving

opposition members the opportunity to bring forward topics that were of interest to them and would lead to greater study and then would lead to law.

As the House leader here, I brought forward the opportunity for members of a committee to bring forward committee bills in two of our committees.

Unfortunately, that has not been used nearly enough, as far as I'm concerned, and I encourage members to use that tool.

I brought forward the opportunity to send bills out after first reading, and we have done that on a number of occasions. I know when Mr Clark was the

parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health he brought forward Brian's Law, and that worked out very well.

I think we have to look at this institution and, in the future, try to be more innovative, to make this place more meaningful, to make the debate more pointed,

or the public will continue to hold us in the low esteem that some of them do at the present time.

I'm sorry to go on in a philosophical tone at a time of celebration. I left two professions to come to this profession. I believe being a politician is an

honourable profession. I think it is one of the most exciting jobs a person could have and I think it's one of the most rewarding jobs a person can have, because you can do things for people. In a

very small sense, my greatest 25th anniversary present was to be able to bring to a small community that I represent a new high school for that community. I will continue to be thrilled by -- not

changing laws in the big sense; that is important, but it's also important to do things back home for our kids and for the people in our communities.

I look forward to the challenges of the future, and for those of you who might be interested in whether I'm going to run the next time, I'm going to continue

to run until we bring the pensions back.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question today is for the Premier. Our public schools are in trouble: classes are too large;

textbooks too few; school closures too many; there are 39,000 children on a waiting list for their first psychological assessment; and the failure rate, we have learned, for students under the new

curriculum is twice what it was under the old curriculum. Our schools and our students need your help. In the face of all this, Premier, can you tell us why you remain committed to spending half a

billion dollars in private schools?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the leader of the official opposition, first of all, he throws numbers

around, he grasps them out of thin air and states them as fact on many occasions. We recently, as he will be well aware, have committed some $440 million in this fiscal year alone in additional

funding to the education system in Ontario. We firmly believe in the public education system in Ontario. The Minister of Education has asked Dr Rozanski to come back with recommendations later this

year with respect to the funding formula to protect and improve the public education system in Ontario, and we will remain firmly committed to that goal.

Mr McGuinty: I can understand why the Premier didn't address the issue of private school tax credits, because it's very difficult to defend

the indefensible. It is very difficult to defend something which you yourself, sir, called ludicrous.

This year you are spending $100 million on your private school tax credit. Next year it'll be $200 million. When it is fully phased in it'll be $500 million.

and security measures like surveillance cameras which would better protect our students.

I ask you again, Premier, in the face of all these needs within our public school system, how can you possibly justify spending one cent in private

schools?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, we happen to believe that choice in education is a good thing. Parents have a right to send --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): At the expense of the public system.

Hon Mr Eves: No, not at the expense of the public system. It is not at the expense of the public system, with all due respect to the

honourable member for Kingston.

With respect to the public education system, as I said in my first response, we are spending well in excess of $14 billion on public education in the province

of Ontario this year. We have committed close to half a billion dollars in additional funding in this fiscal year alone and asked for a review of the funding formula so we can further improve upon

it.

Going back to the issue with respect to choice in the education system, we happen to believe that choice is a good thing. It doesn't have to take away from the

public education system. It won't take away from the public education system, and it isn't going to cost anywhere near as much as the leader of the official opposition would have one believe.

Mr McGuinty: You said it was ludicrous. If you have whatever you call it, whether it's $300 million or $500 million, for private schools in

Ontario, I say that's coming at the expense of money that should be invested in public education.

Speaking of expense, it is parents who are shouldering this burden. Parents are paying out of pocket to try to shore up public education. Last year, parents

raised $38 million for things like basic classroom supplies and they're doing that because you won't provide those supplies, Premier. Private tutoring is a booming business in Ontario because

students are not getting the help they need in their schools and you, sir, are not providing that help to our students.

My priority is public education and public schools. We put forward a variety of plans, Premier: Helping Kids Now, smaller classes, better safety measures in

our schools. Why won't you stand up for public education? Why won't you renounce that investment in private schools and, instead, help shore up public education?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I note that he's reduced his own calculation of the education tax credit from $500 million to $300 million in 10

minutes. If we stand here for another 10 minutes, it'll be down to $100 million, no doubt.

We are absolutely committed to a quality public education system in this province. We've proved it by spending half a billion dollars more this year than we

did last year on public education, and we will continue to prove it and demonstrate it as we go forward with a review of the funding formula and no doubt come forward with further improvements to

the public education system in the province.

With respect to private tutoring etc, I had a son who was in the public education system whom we helped to get private tutoring because he had a learning

disability. It's why I made special education a commitment of mine when I was Minister of Finance. It's why we're now spending $1.4 billion a year on special education that has to be spent there,

which your government never did when you were in power.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday I asked your Minister of Energy if he would support a

bill, which I introduced today, that would require that Ontario Hydro be subject to the provisions of the freedom of information legislation. He said that he would not do so. He said that it would

put that company, Hydro One in particular, at a competitive disadvantage. That is nonsense, sir, and if you take a look at the freedom of information act, you will find out why it is nonsense.

Will you support the bill that I introduced today?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Well, I haven't read the bill the honourable member introduced today. But I

will say that if you want, and I note that you have been on record as saying that you're in favour of Hydro One operating as a private company, as a Business Corporations Act entity, then you can't

have two different levels of corporations under the Business Corporations Act in the province of Ontario. You're either going to act as a corporation of the Business Corporations Act of Ontario or

you're not. So if you're going to try to set up some sort of special status for one company out of the tens of thousands in Ontario under the Business Corporations Act, I would not be in favour of

that.

Mr McGuinty: The issue here is not as you framed it. The issue is whether or not you feel that ratepayers are entitled to have access to that

information. That's the issue. By the way, Premier,

section 18 of the freedom of information act reads as follows: "A head may refuse to disclose a record that contains ...

"(

c) information where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of an institution or the competitive position of an

institution."

The freedom of information act specifically provides for an exemption if to provide that information would put the company at a competitive disadvantage. So I

ask you again, sir, why will you not support my bill which would ensure that Ontario Hydro ratepayers have access to important information?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member surely knows that Hydro One releases annual public filings and quarterly financial reports. He also knows

that today an interim board of Hydro One was appointed. They are to report back to the government on issues of corporate governance and how to make that corporation operate more smoothly and in

fact get information more quickly to the shareholders, who happen to be the people of the province of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: If you want to put some important information on the record, Premier, this is what Ontarians should know. Before you imposed a

blackout on information coming from Hydro One, this is what we learned. Paul Rhodes received $225,000 after an untendered contract paid him $2,000 a day. Tom Long's company was paid $650 an hour to

write speeches and US$250,000 to do executive recruitment. Leslie Noble's contract paid her $7,000 a month. We don't know what Deb Hutton is now making, and we feel Ontario ratepayers are entitled

to that information. I believe the real reason has nothing to do with putting Ontario Hydro at a competitive disadvantage; it has everything to do with covering up contracts and perks awarded to

your friends.

Premier, you can show me to be wrong. Prove me wrong and make this company, Hydro One, subject to freedom of information legislation.

Hon Mr Eves: I think the leader of the official opposition has been following the goings-on of the House of Commons in Ottawa a little bit too

closely lately. With respect to Hydro One, we have put in place a decent board of directors as an interim board. We are asking that board, as boards should do, to report to the shareholder on

issues of corporate governance, compensation and severance -- all the issues he has been complaining about in the Legislature for the last three weeks. We now have an interim board in place that

will deal exactly with those issues. You might want to take those issues up with Murray Elston. I'm sure he'd be happy to hear your point of view as you go forward.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. This morning hydro rates skyrocketed to over $700 a megawatt hour.

That's 15 times higher than they were before hydro deregulation. The IMO sent us a chart which shows what happened, but you have to flip the chart up to see exactly how much the hydro rate hike

is.

The Independent Market Operator says we're in for a long, hot summer. The IMO says there will be hydro shortages and these incredible hydro rate hikes are

going to happen very frequently.

Premier, my question to you is, how high will your new hydro rates have to go before you admit that hydro privatization and deregulation are not good for

Ontario consumers or Ontario industry?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, the leader of the third party may have a very unique plan,

where he pays by the hour or day, but I don't know of any such plan in existence in Ontario. He knows very well that you take averages of the hydro rates. There have always been spikes in

electricity prices. They are now there for people to see and recognize.

He will also know that if you happen to subscribe through OPG, your hydro rate of course is guaranteed and locked in at no higher than 3.8 cents a kilowatt

hour. He will also know that since the market has opened, the average has been below that amount every day. If the average ever happens to be above that amount, OPG will reimburse the ratepayer for

those overages.

Mr Hampton: OPG will only play that subsidization game for a couple of years. The IMO is very clear: we are facing hydro shortages, and

they're saying we are going to see huge hydro rate increases.

Let me give you the example of Abitibi-Consolidated, which has five paper mills in this province. Abitibi-Consolidated has told their employees that when the

price of hydro goes up, as we're seeing today, they will simply close their mills and lay off their workers. Falconbridge in Sudbury has told their workers they're going to take a seven-week

shutdown this summer. Part of the reason is because they're expecting these huge hydro rate increases, so they're going to lay everybody off and send them home.

Premier, is it your idea of something good for Ontario workers and industries that factories simply shut down for six, seven or eight weeks at a time and lay

off thousands of workers? Is that a good idea?

Hon Mr Eves: I see the Minister of Energy chomping at the bit down here to answer this question.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): First of all, I would like to know where the IMO is quoted

as saying there are going to be power shortages this summer. I've not read anywhere that they've said that. All I've ever read is that they did a supply study and they say our supply is

adequate.

Second, you won't give up. For five months before the market opened, you told us about rolling blackouts and brownouts and doubling prices. It hasn't happened.

Now you stand here in June telling us we're going to have a doubling of the price, a spike in the market. We haven't exceeded the average price yet. The market opened May 1.

Will there be periods of time during summer seasons where the price will go up? Yes, it will. But over a 12-month period, measure the average price of hydro

and it will be competitive.

All you do is keep saying, "The sky is falling." The only place the sky is falling is in your little, tiny NDP world.

Mr Hampton: I guess, according to the Premier and the Minister of Energy, schools should shut down during the daytime when prices spike,

hospitals should cancel all their surgeries and

schedule them for midnight when the price comes down and industries should just lay off their employees.

Premier, I refer you to Consumer Reports, the most respected consumer journal in the United States. This is what they have to say about hydro deregulation and

privatization: "Broken promises, deceptive marketing, and dreadful service have become accepted business practices in an increasingly Wild West marketplace where incessant telemarketers interrupt

your dinner but customer service won't answer the phone." That's their account of what's going on now in the United States with deregulation and privatization of electricity.

In Ontario, we've had a million consumers literally bilked into signing rip-off contracts and your government says you're not going to do anything about it.

Premier, why don't you follow the advice of Consumer Reports, which has watched what's happened in the United States, and cancel electricity privatization and deregulation now?

Hon Mr Stockwell: You talk about people who sign contracts leading up to the market opening. Why did some of those people sign contracts?

Because you put a bus out there with your picture on it and a light bulb above it, telling them prices were going to double and we were going to have blackouts. You intimidated them, you scared

them into signing these contracts. Now you stand in this House and tell us, "Why did they sign these contracts?"

Secondly, you're referring me to Consumer Reports. I'll refer you to the reality world. The reality world is this, Howard. The reality world is prices --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I don't know why you take exception to this. You ran around this province in a bus telling every senior you bumped into that

prices were going to double and we were going to have blackouts. Then these people signed contracts to limit the exposure and Howie's mad because they signed contracts.

The only concern that you should have at any time in this debate is, if anything you said actually came to pass, everyone in this place would pass out because

nothing you've said has come true at any time in six months. Stop fearmongering, Howie. Stop trying to frighten people, to frighten seniors and to scare the public. Nothing you've said has come to

pass. It's all --

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

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier, I just want to remind you that eight months ago I was telling you that salaries and

bonuses were out of sight over at Hydro One and you said it would never happen.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm still waiting for that

open letter that you claim was sent to 300 people.

Mr Hampton: I sent it to you last week.

Hon Mr Stockwell: No one received it.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): That is not a point of order.

Mr Hampton: You don't answer your mail, just like you don't answer questions.

Premier, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance says that we can get cleaner air in Ontario by shutting down the coal-fired hydro generating stations. But then they

point out that under your scheme to privatize and deregulate, Hydro One and OPG aren't planning to shut down any of this.

In fact, what they're planning, according to the privatization prospectus of Hydro One, is to build more transmission cables into the United States and instead

of shutting down the coal-fired stations, transmit the electricity into the United States where they can make more money. So the United States gets cheaper electricity; we get the smog and dirty

air from privatization.

Premier, can you tell me how this is good for Ontario's environment, how this is good for the health of Ontario people, your scheme for privatizing hydro and

sending coal-fired, dirty electricity south?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, the leader of the third party knows that the government has

taken several actions to limit pollution coming out of coal-powered plants in Ontario. He also knows that we have regulated the Lakeview generating station to cease burning coal by April 2005. I

happen to think that the very report he's talking about talks about different methods by which the province of Ontario and OPG could get to exactly where he claims he wants to go, to a cleaner

environment in Ontario, and we're quite prepared to look at it.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Your plan to privatize hydro means the opposite. Right now, the coal plants only burn at peak times. If

you go ahead with your crazy scheme, they'll be burning seven days a week, 24 hours a day. People are dying premature deaths because of the pollution coming out of those plants.

Premier, while you're busy promoting burning dirty coal, your own MPPs on the select committee on alternative fuels are taking a different course, including

the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of the Environment. They've signed a report calling for a complete phase-out of coal- and oil-fired plants. Premier, are you going to follow their

advice? Are you going to shut down those plants?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I note that both her leader and the member herself haven't gone on to talk about the other issues mentioned in the

very report they're quoting; ie, you haven't talked about how they're suggesting that the province of Ontario, once two nuclear reactors are back up and running, will alleviate the need by OPG to

use and burn coal and certain other plants across Ontario. They have said, as I understand it, that that's a preferable alternative to what is being done today. Are you in favour of that? I haven't

heard either you or your leader say today. You're quoting from that report. Do you embrace the recommendations of that report?

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): In February, former Premier Harris launched a $15-million libel suit against the Globe and Mail

because of an

article mentioning the shooting death at Ipperwash. Apparently, Harris's legal bills are all being paid by the taxpayers and will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's an

important issue because, if members of the Legislature can simply launch a lawsuit using taxpayers' money, I think it can lead to threatening the media. I think that any member then can say, "You

run that story and I'll sue you," and the taxpayers will be forced to pay the entire bill.

During your leadership campaign, Premier, you said you would look into this. I want to ask you, now that you've had a chance to look into it, is it appropriate

for any member of the Legislature to use taxpayers' money on lawyers to launch a libel suit against the media?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm not familiar, of course, with all the particulars of the lawsuit itself

and what the claims are and aren't. I certainly am aware of the issues and the information that are divulged through the media with respect to this particular lawsuit.

My answer, as a matter of principle, to the honourable member would be, when members of the Legislature are engaged in their duties as members, be that as

cabinet ministers or individual members or whatever, and incur certain legal liabilities and situations and problems because of acting in their duties, then I think it is incumbent upon people to

be able to look to the taxpayers for reimbursement.

But if, for example, in this particular lawsuit that he's talking about the former Premier is successful, I would presume that this should not cost the

taxpayers of Ontario any money, and I presume that he would be able to obtain costs from the other side if in fact he has a valid case.

Mr Phillips: It's an extremely important issue and, frankly, Premier, you said four months ago that you would look into it, so I would assume

that you've had a chance to examine this. This was not a case of Mr Harris defending himself. He launched a $15-million lawsuit against the Globe and Mail. I think it was designed to chill them. I

think it was designed to shut them up.

I say again to you, Premier, that it's an important issue. Do you believe it appropriate that members of the Legislature acting on their own, launching libel

suits -- is it appropriate for the taxpayers to be paying their legal bills when they launch a civil libel suit against the media? Is that appropriate or is it not, Mr Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: I don't believe that this lawsuit or any other lawsuit launched by any other member of the Legislature should end up costing the

taxpayers of Ontario one cent. I don't believe it should.

CENTRAL NORTH

CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Simcoe North has the floor now. Order.

Mr Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Public Safety and Security. Minister, it has now been about seven months since the

$90-million Central North Correctional Centre opened in my riding in Simcoe North in the town of Penetanguishene. As the members of this House will recall, there was substantial outcry regarding

the opening of this facility, mainly because it was being operated in a private-public partnership. I know there have been over 300 jobs created at that facility and about a $30-million impact on

the town of Penetang in construction alone.

Now that we are well on our way to the first anniversary of this facility, could you please update my constituents and the members of this House on the

progress that Central North Correctional Centre is making.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): I'd like to thank the member for Simcoe North for the question. As well, I

want to thank the member for his support and interest in this project. He has rallied behind my predecessor, Rob Sampson, to help make this project the success it has been. I'm pleased to say the

facility has been running very smoothly since its opening just over seven months ago. The institution is almost at full capacity now, and it is becoming a benchmark for other facilities to match.

Not only is it running more efficiently, but it is also providing a wide range of rehabilitation and industrial programming for the offenders so that they will have a better chance of becoming

law-abiding citizens once their sentences have been served.

Mr Dunlop: Thank you very much, Minister, for that response, and I am pleased that Central North Correctional Centre is now nearly at full

capacity and that the offenders are spending their sentences learning the value of turning their lives around. That's so important for any correctional centre we have in our country.

The members opposite are not the only ones to have voiced their concerns over the public-private partnership of this facility in my riding. Some community

members in the town of Penetanguishene have also expressed concerns on the opening of this new facility. Minister, how are you addressing some of the current concerns?

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm very much aware of the concerns expressed by the community, both before and after the facility was opened. However, I'd

like to tell the local member today and all members of the House that the opening of the facility has gone smoothly and has provided an economic boost to the local community. In fact, 70% of the

facility's annual budget is being spent locally. That's unlike a fully public institution. That's more than $20 million being spent each and every year at local car dealerships, restaurants,

clothing stores and other small businesses. This is on top of the $25 million that was pumped into the community during the construction phase. Finally, approximately 300 new jobs have been created

in the community. These are local residents who work at the jail and spend their hard-earned money in the North Simcoe area. All sectors of the community have felt the positive impact of having

this new facility in their neighbourhood.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to return to the Premier and his answer to us earlier. You indicated that you did think it

was inappropriate for the lawyers' bills of an individual member of the Legislature to be paid by the taxpayers. Can you assure the House today that Mr Harris's lawyers' bills are not currently

being paid? If they are, will you assure the House that you will notify Mr Harris that, henceforth, he should pay his own lawyers' bills and should reimburse the taxpayers for the money he has

expended on behalf of himself in this $15-million lawsuit?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will say this to the honourable member: at the end of the day, I don't

believe that Mr Harris's or anybody else's bills for such a lawsuit should end up costing the taxpayer any money and that the taxpayer should end up paying for them.

Mr Phillips: In my opinion, this libel suit was designed to chill the Globe and Mail, to shut them up, and if the government is allowed to do

that, I think it's totally inappropriate. I return to the central question. We've been trying to find out how much he has actually spent. We can't get that, of course, because we're being silenced,

we're being gagged on it.

I would like you today to assure the taxpayers that you have an undertaking from Mr Harris that he no longer will be using taxpayer money for his private

lawsuit against the Globe and that he will undertake to repay the money he's spent. If he wins the lawsuit, so be it; if he loses it, so be it; but let Mr Harris handle that on his own. This is not

something the taxpayers should be involved in.

Hon Mr Eves: I know the honourable member talks a little bit about the merits of the lawsuit and I'm not going to get into that because, quite

frankly, I don't know what the merits of the lawsuit are on either side of the equation. I've heard of proposed offers through the media, as I assume he and other members of the Legislature have.

But I will say very directly to him, at the end of the day, I will see to it that the taxpayers of Ontario do not end up paying any money in legal fees in this regard.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. On March 21, 2002, the softwood lumber negotiations

between Canada and the United States broke off, leaving Canada with subsidy and dumping duties totalling 27%. Clearly this is a blow to Ontario's softwood lumber industry.

There are remarkable parallels to the US federal farm bill and direct --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I apologize to the member for shouting like that. I didn't mean to. The member has the floor. Sorry for

the interruption.

Mr Johnson: There are remarkable parallels to the US federal farm bill and direct subsidies of US dollars causing injury to Canadian and

Ontario farmers.

The softwood lumber industry is vital to Ontario's economy. Ontario mills sell about $1.5 billion a year in softwood lumber, with about $1 billion in sales to

the US. The Ontario industry employs over 10,000 workers in its mills and forest operations. It is concentrated in northern Ontario, where some 40 communities depend on the forest industry to

sustain their economies.

Minister, could you please outline Ontario's position on the matter of softwood lumber and our commitment to fair trade?

Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the hard-working member for the question.

Ontario is seeking nothing less than full and unrestricted access to the US markets. Ontario has put substantive provincial proposals on the table since last

December. However, the American response has been less than favourable. It is clear that the US administration is not prepared to spend any political capital to rein in the American lumber

companies on this particular issue.

Ontario does not subsidize its forest industry, nor do we believe that Ontario mills are dumping lumber on the US market. We believe that our timber prices are

fair and reasonable, contrary to the US lumber industry claims.

Since a deal has not been reached, we have decided to pursue litigation with the World Trade Organization and NAFTA panels. We can expect fairer treatment from

these impartial bodies than we received from the US agencies that imposed the 27% duties.

Mr Johnson: I am gratified that Ontario has decided to take our case to court.

Interjection.

Mr Johnson: However, I know that Ontario remains interested in a long-term, durable solution to this problem, in spite of the interjections of

the member from Kingston and the Islands, and is prepared to resume talks if we get the right signal from the US.

Interjection.

Mr Johnson: If I can get over the interjections from the member for Kingston and the Islands, I'll continue with this question. He doesn't

care about the farming in this area and he doesn't care about the softwood industry either.

Minister, what are the actions of the Ministry of Natural Resources to protect the interests of Ontario? What is the position of the major stakeholders in the

matter and how is the ministry working with them to start approaching solutions?

Hon Mr Ouellette: Through the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation as well as the Ministry

of Northern Development and Mines, Ontario has been aggressively defending the province's interests as the trade cases proceed.

In terms of working with stakeholders, MNR is carrying out significant consultations with the province's lumber producers and their associations -- the Ontario

Forest Industries Association and the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association. The industry supports both the ministry's efforts to defend its interests in litigation and the ministry's efforts

in exploring a reasonable settlement.

We believe that our actions are in the best economic interests of the Ontario communities that depend on the forest industry for their livelihood.

ONTARIO RENTAL HOUSING TRIBUNAL

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, the Ontario Rental Housing

Tribunal has just boosted its fees to tenants, and many tenants are going to wind up on the street as a result. Some of the fees have gone up 150% and more. The eviction applications have gone up

from $60 to $150. It's not just the landlords who are going to pay for that, because the tenants have to pay if they want to stave off eviction. They have to reimburse the landlord for the

cost.

Is it fair that, if they can't afford the fee, they will be put out on the street? Two hundred and fifty people are before that tribunal every day; 250 people

who have to pay $150 to keep their homes. Are you going to do something about that or are you going to have those 250 families on the street each and every day because of these fee increases?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I had trouble hearing the full question but I think I got the gist of it:

you're concerned about the guideline rental increase that came out for last year and the applications for the above-guideline.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I couldn't hear your question. I can tell you the guideline increase for last year -- and if you take a look at our whole

history of the increase -- is less, on average, than what the NDP's rate of increase was. If we kept up with the rate of increase of when you people were in power, there are a lot of people who

wouldn't be able to afford the places they have today.

In terms of the above-guideline, that's the Tenant Protection Act. It goes through a hearing. If you want to elaborate and speak louder in your follow-up

question, I'd be glad to answer it.

Mr Prue: I hope the minister has his earpiece in. That wasn't my question at all. My question is about how the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal

has raised its fees from $60 to $150 for eviction and that the tenants end up having to pay that in the end if they want to stay in their homes. If they can't pay it, they're evicted. Two hundred

and fifty families are before that tribunal every day.

My second

part is that it's not the only fee. There are fees associated with above-guideline increases too. Photocopying has gone from 50 cents to $1. Those

are hundreds of pages long and tenants have to pay that if they want to fight that. These fees are exorbitant. Tenants are already behind the eight ball. They're up against lawyers, accountants and

whoever the landlord brings. Look at what is happening: they're having to pay fees to stay in their own homes that they cannot afford. What are you going to do about those fees?

Hon Mr Hodgson: There is a cost to filing appeals. There is a cost in the system, there is a cost to hear it fairly and there is a cost in the

photocopying. We raised the fees. If you take a look at the fee schedule, it's more balanced than it has ever been. There are more fee increases for the landlord on the above-guideline increases

than there are for the tenant.

To go from 50 cents to $1 -- and there are caps in place, so if you have a specific hardship, let me know and I'll take a look at it again -- we've tried to

find the right balance to make sure the system's open and accessible but also has appropriate recovery of costs, because there is a huge expense to this.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Between 1995 and October 2000, thousands of tonnes of

hazardous waste from the Swaru incinerator were sent to the Glanbrook landfill site near Hamilton.

Minister, this occurred on the watch of your government. Time and time again, samples were not tested. Time and time again, samples were analyzed six months

after the materials were dumped in the landfill site. This went on for over five years, until the company came forward in October of 2000 and said there was a problem.

Minister, your ministry investigated for 18 months and has not laid any charges against the company or the city for this. Clearly what we see here is a pattern

of neglect from your government. Clearly, for five years you let this happen. Where was the Ministry of the Environment? Where were the inspectors? Where were the checks and balances to ensure

these soil samples were being tested?

Minister, you had five years. It was only after the company came forward that you investigated it. Can you explain to the House why in those five years the

Ministry of the Environment not once stepped in when repeatedly soil samples showed hazardous waste was being taken? What steps should your ministry have taken to ensure this will not happen in

five years, as it did until --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): Let me first allay any fears for the people who live in the

area. There have been a number of sample testings done by the city of Hamilton and the Ministry of the Environment. All those tests have come back negative. There have not been any positive tests

with respect to contamination.

The question is how we may move forward on this. Let me say that as we've looked at this, and the Ministry of the Environment examined the files in the past,

we're trying to determine exactly how the C of A got approved, who approved the C of A and what it got approved for. There's some difficulty following through, and the Ministry of the Environment

is doing that as we speak. All I can suggest to the member opposite is, as this information becomes available, I will provide it to you.

But I want to calm the residents in the community and hopefully calm you as well. All the testing we've had, all the testing that has come back has indicated

that the leachate is fine. It's not running. The contamination is contained. I just think we should maintain that composure as we discuss this. I'm not arguing with the member opposite. There are

many questions that need to be answered here, but I don't think we should be alarmist and create an issue in the community when we don't need to create an issue, when it is in fact contained.

Mr Agostino: Minister, you have investigated this for 18 months. Let me tell you, there were tests that were failed in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998

and 2000. There was clear evidence that those tests showed there was hazardous waste and this material was still taken to the landfill site and dumped.

Again, I'm just trying to understand what role your ministry played here. Where were the inspectors? Where were the checks and balances? At any time, did the

ministry look at the evidence that was there? At any time, did the ministry deal with the company or the landfill site to see if tests were being done, how long it took for those tests to come

back, where that material was going and how much of it got dumped? We don't have any of those answers. You had 18 months. You investigated. You did not lay any charges against the company. That

clearly shows the company did nothing wrong and the problem was with the Ministry of the Environment, your regulations, your certificate. For five years this government neglected to verify what was

happening. It's responsible for that hazardous material going to that landfill site. I'm asking you today, will you undertake an independent outside investigation of the role that the ministry

played in those five years in regard to this particular item?

Hon Mr Stockwell: As I said, I think we should maintain a level of composure here.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: There are communities that surround this site that are also very interested in this issue, and they hear the member talking

about hazardous waste and so on. Let's be clear: ongoing testing of the stabilized fly ash has indicated it's non-hazardous. OK? Additional comprehensive testing of the stabilized waste indicates

it's non-hazardous.

Mr Agostino: That's today.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I appreciate that, to the member opposite. Right now, you're suggesting to the constituents in the community there's a

hazardous waste site there. At this point in time, all the testing has indicated is that it's non-hazardous.

Mr Agostino: That's now. What about 1995 to 2000?

Hon Mr Stockwell: I say to the member opposite, those are the questions we need to answer, but before we start alarming a community by

suggesting there are hazardous wastes being dumped in that spot, and all the testing indicates it's non-hazardous --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I know the member opposite wants to incite the community. I understand that, but all I want to suggest to the member

opposite --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: All I want to suggest to the member is, I know you want to incite the community and make an issue when there isn't any

testing that indicates that, I appreciate that, but that's not the role of the government.

Mr Agostino: For five years you guys were negligent. That's why it happened.

Hon Mr Stockwell: If there's a problem, we will deal with it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Stockwell: If there's a problem, we will deal with it, but all indications are that it's non-hazardous at this time.

MAMMOGRAPHY SERVICES

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member for Peterborough, we'll wait till it gets a little quieter here. We've got some shouting going

back and forth.

While we're waiting, the member for Sudbury, who has MacLeod Public School here, I'm sure would like to get on with question period for our friends from

MacLeod school in Sudbury.

The member for Peterborough, sorry for the interruption.

Mr Stewart: As I said, my question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, last week the member from Windsor West began

fearmongering in my riding, spreading incorrect information about the wait times for radiation and diagnostic services at the Peterborough Regional Health Centre. I was hoping my question to you

last week would clarify an important issue in my riding from the member opposite. I am tired of the accusations the member is making against me, my local hospital and the Ministry of Health. I will

once again ask you, Minister --

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker:

Section 23(

i) of the standing orders specifically forbids one member to

impute "false or unavowed motives to another member." I believe the member from Peterborough has done precisely that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We can announce the MacLeod school on this side too. Order. I would ask all members to be careful of what they're saying.

Certainly when one side does it, the other side does it. We are honourable members, and I would ask all members to kindly watch what they say. I try and listen as closely as I can. It's sometimes

difficult to do that, but I don't think it's helpful when we do that. What ends up happening, of course, is that you don't get your question asked anyway because you just yell at each other. The

member for Peterborough.

Mr Stewart: Mr Speaker, I indeed am trying to pick my words as carefully as I possibly can.

I will once again ask the minister to ease the worries of my constituents, many of whom have experienced unwarranted anxiety and fear, and clarify the reality

of wait times for radiation diagnostics in my riding.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I will take the Speaker's words, carefully considered, and say that the honourable

member from Windsor West was a tad confused when she began making claims against the Peterborough Regional Health Centre.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Will the minister take his seat? Member for Windsor West, please come to order. I can't hear the question.

Minister, sorry for the interruption.

Hon Mr Clement: I did try to clarify the facts on Thursday. The member for Windsor West released yet another communiqué afterwards

stating, "Women are currently waiting three times the recommended wait time for mammography." The wait times for mammography that the honourable member opposite speaks of include non-symptomatic

women who are scheduled regular mammograms for the breast screening program. These regular screenings are what we on this side of the House call preventive medicine, detecting potential health

problems before the symptoms are present.

With the logic the honourable member uses, one would be arguing that any annual examination means that the wait time is one year. That's what the honourable

member is suggesting. That's why they call it annual testing. Our record is clear. If there is an emergency in Peterborough, they are looked after, and that's what the people of Ontario care

about.

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid no one heard.

Member for Peterborough.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Mr Minister, for clarifying the facts on radiology wait times. It appears the member opposite is in a state of

confusion.

After all the paranoia created in my riding last week by the member opposite, I was pleased to read the report on health care released by Maclean's magazine.

I've always trusted my local experts to tell me the status of health care in my riding, but it's nice to see a national study acknowledge the gains Peterborough is making.

I understand the Windsor area is also reflected well in this study. I'm sure the member from Windsor West now realizes that --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Sorry, member for Peterborough. This is the last warning for the member for Windsor West. I can't keep getting up like this.

Quite frankly, we would have gotten down to another Liberal question, had I not been up -- we were going very well -- and you're going to end up not getting another question now. If the members

want to have questions, they can do that; if they want to just shout at each other, then we'll just stand up here. We were moving very quickly and now we lose questions from members who may want to

ask questions. The only reason is that people want to shout at each other, and quite frankly no one at home hears what you're shouting anyway. Either side isn't going to change the other side. I've

been here 10 years and it hasn't happened yet, so your shouting is actually pointless.

Member for Peterborough, sorry again for the interruption.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I mentioned, I understand that the Windsor area was also reflected well in this study, and I'm sure the

member now realizes that all the health initiatives this government has made in her riding are paying off.

Minister, can you please expand on what the Maclean's

article said, especially about mammography services in my community?

Hon Mr Clement: The Maclean's health report is indeed out. As the member for Peterborough is already aware, his community gained seven places

from last year's overall ranking. The report touches on two areas where Peterborough excels: stroke survival rates and mammography wait times. In fact, mammography services in Peterborough ranked

fourth in all of Canada. I know the member for Peterborough is very proud of that; we're all very proud of that.

But I would like to take this time to acknowledge another community's high ranking, the Windsor-Sarnia area. While the member for Windsor West occasionally

talks about the horrors of health care in her area, the Maclean's report is telling a much different story. Since last year's study, the Windsor area climbed 13 spots, ranking 19th overall in

Canada. So while she releases communiqués about how poor mammography services are, Maclean's tells a different story. In fact, Maclean's ranks Windsor-Sarnia as the number one community in

Canada to have a mammogram -- number one in Canada.

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL

OF EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the leader of the government. Mr Premier, as leader of the government, are

you aware of just how angry and how upset the people of eastern Ontario are, not just in Ottawa but in Pembroke, Renfrew and Hawkesbury and Cornwall and Napanee and many communities through the

region, about your government's proposed shutdown of the children's heart surgery unit at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'd refer this question to the Minister of Health and Long-term Care.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): We are, of course, all waiting for the review of the review by Dr Keon and I would

not wish to prejudice his comments or his conclusions.

Of course, this is a very emotional issue for the entire community. It's emotional for all of us. What we all want, and I'm presuming I'm including the

honourable member opposite in this, is to ensure that any child who has this kind of condition that needs to be remedied has the best, and the best available, kind of care that we can possibly

pursue in Ontario. That is the goal that this government has on this side of the House. We want the best results, the best outcomes, after cardiac surgery involving a person age zero to 18. That's

what we all want and we are seeking a way to get there to ensure that is not only the case now but also in the future as well.

Mr Conway: This past Sunday afternoon in my home community of Pembroke, hundreds of people gathered at the waterfront to express to me, and

the mayors and other community leaders, their upset, their anger, their incredulity at what's happening at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. They presented to me, after just a few days, a

petition signed by over 10,000 people in my part of the upper Ottawa Valley. They've great respect for and confidence in Dr Keon, but these people, particularly the scores of young moms and dads

who were at the meeting, wanted me to stand here and say to you, Minister, and more importantly to you, Mr Premier, that these parents are very pleased with the service they've been provided with

by the children's heart surgery unit at CHEO. They are extremely upset not just at the prospect of the loss of that cardiac unit but all of the support services that would go with it. The thought

that these young families would have to travel from communities like Beachburg and Eganville and Pembroke, not 150 kilometres to Ottawa but 400 and 500 and 550 kilometres to Toronto through

terrible country in the wintertime, is beyond their comprehension. These people, these petitioners --

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

Hon Mr Clement: Of course, the pediatric review committee that originally looked at this issue did take into account travel times, did take

into account the issues of convenience, but ultimately came down on the side that if increased mortality was the result of keeping things the way that they were, no one could countenance that in

our society.

We are all trying to get to the best result for our kids as close to home as possible. That is the whole intention of the review. That is why the review

recommended that we have a complete, province-wide pediatric cardiac care system, not five hospitals operating by themselves alone; that they all be part of a province-wide pediatric cardiac care

system. That bodes well for CHEO. That means CHEO is part of a world-class, province-wide cardiac care service. That is what we want. We want CHEO to be excellent at what it does. We want excellent

results for our kids in the future.

BIOTECHNOLOGY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I had the pleasure of attending

the opening of the BIO 2002 conference in Toronto --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We'll let him start over. I apologize; there was some carrying on. I hate to interrupt him like that when he's on

a roll. We'll start over.

Mr Gill: As I was saying, I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the BIO 2002 conference in Toronto, the largest biotech conference in

the world. I'd like to welcome all the delegates to our beautiful province.

Along with many other topics, they are also discussing biotechnology and the use of alternate fuels. This is very timely, since our government has promised to

safeguard the environment by using green fuels made from agriculture commodities. David Suzuki and other biotech opponents disagree. They are trying to say we are not ready for biotechnology.

Minister, can you explain to individuals who hold this belief how Ontario's agriculture products can be converted into environmentally friendly fuels?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I would like to thank the member for the question. Let me say first off that our

government fully supports the development of a life science economy that will address environmental issues on the one hand and foster economic activity in Ontario on the other hand. Because

biodiesel is made from agricultural commodities such as soybeans or by-products from the rendering industry, it's identified as one of the most effective ways Ontario can meet air quality and

greenhouse gas reductions. So it's very important that we consider that.

We heard the committee talk about that with its recent report. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food recognizes the importance of biotechnology because it can

lead to new markets that can help find ways to use our excess agricultural product. What this means to the agricultural community is that we have benefits. Our environment is safer and the rural

economy enjoys new activities, jobs and businesses. It's a win-win for everyone.

Mr Gill: It's difficult to believe there are skeptics of biotech research, especially when you address these biofuel issues.

Summer seems finally to be here, and along with it come concerns about smog. I know we are aggressively attacking the smog problem. The Drive Clean program has

reduced emissions by 11.5% in the Golden Horseshoe. Minister, how does this government, and specifically your Ministry of Agriculture and Food, intend to help in reducing emissions?

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say we want Ontario to be one of the most competitive places in North America. One of the ways we can do this is by

proposing to promote the use of environmentally friendly products made by the agricultural community in the province. Biodiesels are completely interchangeable with petroleum-based diesel fuels.

The fuel is being adopted by a number of commercial truck fleets in Ontario, including Toronto Hydro, which seems like a little bit of an irony. Biodiesel is currently being imported from the US.

The production and use of biofuels is identified as one of the most cost-effective ways Ontario can meet air quality standards and greenhouse reduction targets. By running vehicles on biodiesel,

urban centres could reduce emissions and rural Ontario would experience a whole new industry whereby agricultural products will be used to replace petroleum-based fuels, a win-win for the

agricultural community.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): This question is for the Minister of Education. It is well documented that your government's funding

formula is biased against urban school boards with small community-based schools. You have acknowledged finally that there is a problem with the funding formula and ordered a review. The problem

is, Minister, schools are slated to be closed; indeed, St Aloysius school in my riding is slated to be closed. It is a highly respected school with an excellent special education program and

consistently high standardized test scores, and it is a focus point for the community. Grandparents pick up children, when the parents are working, for lunch and after school. All of this is going

to end if that school closes. The population is growing in that part of East York.

I am asking you, Minister, for the sake of that community and these children, what are you going to do to help to keep this school from being closed? Will you

place a moratorium on the closure of these community-based schools at least until the review of your funding formula is complete, and then we can look at those recommendations and go from there?

Will you do that to help my community today, Minister?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): In response to the question from the member in the third party, as I noted

yesterday, school closings are the responsibility of trustees on school boards. That has always been their responsibility. They make those decisions based on many reasons. I would recommend that

the member of the third party, if she has concerns, should speak to the local school board.

I know that school closings are always very difficult issues. I don't think there's ever been a school closed that hasn't caused a lot of concern for parents,

and I can understand that concern. But it is a local trustee decision.

I can give you facts that indicate that 37 public and Catholic schools were closed in Toronto between 1985 and 1990. In 1995 to 2000, there were only 20. There

were more schools closed in Toronto between 1985 and 1990 than there have been recently, so you can't blame it on the funding formula as you have been.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 118

Hon John R. Baird (Associate Minister of Francophone Affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a serious point of order with regard

to Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, standing in the name of Mr Martin, which has received first reading and is currently on the order paper.

Standing order 56 states that, "Any bill, resolution, motion or address, the passage of which would impose a tax or specifically direct the allocation of

public funds ... shall be proposed only by a minister of the crown."

I believe that if you examine

section 1 of the bill and the subsequent sections of this proposed act, you will find that the bill is in violation of standing

order 56.

In a ruling of December 6, 1968, Speaker Cass defined a money bill as "any bill, the real purpose of which is to raise, repeal, abate or direct the

appropriation of public revenue." He further indicated that a bill enlarging the class of persons eligible for payments out of public revenue was a money bill and hence outside the competence of a

private member.

In Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, with respect to the financial relations between the crown and Parliament,

section 595 reads:

"The crown, being the executive power, has the responsibility for the raising and spending of money. Acting through responsible ministers, the crown makes

known to the Commons the financial necessities of government. The Commons grants such aids and supplies as are necessary to meet the demands of the crown and provides through taxes and other

sources of revenue the ways and means to meet the supplies that have been granted. The crown, therefore, demands money, the Commons grants it and the Senate assents to the grant. The Commons does

not vote any money except for the necessities of the country as defined by the crown."

Furthermore,

section 598 of Beauchesne's reads, "No cases can be found of any private member receiving the authority of the crown to propose a bill or motion

involving either the expenditure of public money or an increase in taxation."

I go to Erskine May, the 21st edition, under "General Rules of Financial Procedure of the Commons." From the 21st edition I quote from page 688:

"Rule 2. The financial initiative of the crown. A charge cannot be taken into consideration unless it is demanded by the crown or recommended from the

crown."

Furthermore, on page 691, "The long established and strictly observed rule of procedure, which expresses a principle of the highest constitutional importance,

that no public charge can be incurred except on the initiative of the crown...."

It further goes on, on page 993, under "Public Money,"

section 46 --

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It's sleazy, John.

Hon Mr Baird: I say to the member opposite that this should be an issue not involving personalities, it should be about the issue in question.

I hope he'll have the opportunity to listen --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I know he's wrapping up. The member for Sault Ste Marie, please come to order. I'm listening to the

member.

Sorry for the interruption. Chief government whip.

Hon Mr Baird: It's regrettable that the member would say those types of things. I think it's beneath him and it's beneath the people he

represents in this place.

On page 993: "46. Recommendation from crown required on application relating to public money. This House will receive no petition for any sum relating to

public service or proceed upon any motion for a grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the consolidated" revenue "fund or the national loans fund or out of money to be

provided by Parliament, or for releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the crown, unless recommended from the crown."

I have two or three quick precedents, and I'll be brief, Mr Speaker. On Friday, October 12, 1973, the Speaker rose and quoted from the legislative counsel,

whose opinion he accepted: "It is the opinion of this office that the proposed bill in question is a money bill.

Section 2 of

section 7 of the act provides for the payment of interest by the

Treasurer of Ontario at a rate which is to fluctuate as to reflect market conditions at the time the interest is paid. Since the interest is paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, and under

today's conditions would probably be at a rate which is higher than the 5% and 6.5% rate established under the act, this would involve an expenditure of public funds." The Speaker then accordingly

removed the bill from the order paper.

On May 17, 1979, the Speaker ruled, "This afternoon the member for Sudbury East, Mr Martel, introduced a bill entitled

An Act respecting insurance services of

the Ontario health insurance plan. At the time that the member made his explanation of the bill's purpose, I felt that it was a money bill. However, I reserved a ruling on it until I could examine

it more carefully. Having done so, it is obvious to me that as the bill would increase the services under OHIP, it must of necessity increase the expenditure of public funds out of the plan. I must

rule that the bill is a money bill, which can only be introduced by a minister of the crown, supported by a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor. The bill is therefore out of order

and will be omitted from the order paper."

Again, finally, on June 21, 1983, the Speaker ruled as follows: "Yesterday afternoon, the member for Sudbury East, Mr Martel, introduced a bill entitled

An Act

respecting insurance services under the OHIP plan. On careful examination, I find the principle of the bill yesterday to be the same as the one introduced by the member on May 17, 1979, and

subsequently ruled out of order by Mr Speaker Stokes. His reasons at the time were that the bill would increase the services under OHIP and must of necessity increase the expenditure of public

funds under the plan. I totally concur in that ruling and find that the bill, being a money bill, can only be introduced by a minister of the crown, supported by a message from the Honourable the

Lieutenant Governor." I would point out Speaker Stokes was a New Democratic Party member of this place.

Finally, a very good ruling, which will be the last one, and then I'll take my seat: on May 9, 1991, Mr Speaker stood up: "On Monday, April 21, the member for

Etobicoke West" -- the now government House leader and former Speaker, but he was not a former Speaker at that time -- "introduced a bill entitled

An Act respecting government expenditures. It has

been brought to my attention that

section 1 of this bill specifically directs the allocation of public funds. I must therefore rule the bill is a contravention of

section 54 of our standing orders

and can only be proposed by a minister of the crown, supported by a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor. The bill is therefore out of order and must be omitted from the orders."

Briefly, the title of the bill requires annual cost-of-living adjustments. Subsection 1(1) of the bill again uses the word "requiring," mandates clearly

directing money from the consolidated revenue fund. I think it's an important principle, not just within the standing orders, but of the way our government and our parliamentary system operate.

I'll be happy to provide this information to you. We ask for your ruling on this important issue.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Mr Speaker, you're going to be called upon to make a ruling as to whether or not this bill is or is not

in order. First of all, the member for Sault Ste Marie is one of the members in this House of great conscience. On behalf of the official opposition, I can't determine how you will judge this, but

I would ask you, in your capacity as Speaker, that if you find the bill to be out of order, the member be allowed to bring something in a resolution form to the same effect. I can give this House

the undertaking that the official opposition would support that, and I would assume the government would want to support that as well so that we have the opportunity to discuss this very important

issue.

So I would ask you to consider the waiving of notice requirements and allowing the member, who brings this issue forward in very good conscience -- I believe

it's in order; I don't want to suggest for a moment that it's not. This was offered at House leaders last week -- that needs to be said -- and the government has chosen to wait this long, obviously

trying to put you, sir, in a position where you're forced to make a difficult decision on short notice.

I would say to the chief government whip and to the government opposite that if in fact the Speaker finds this out of order, the same functionality of the bill

can be put into a resolution format and be allowed to be debated. That being said, in my view, the bill is in order and it ought to continue for debate on Thursday morning as has been proposed, and

it would be my hope that it does.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I express gratitude to the government whip for advising me of his intention to bring this point of order.

Mind you, it was but a few minutes prior to raising the point of order. He did, however, signal his interest in this matter last Thursday.

First, we have to look at this bill very carefully. Second, standing order 56 is long-standing. Third, members rely upon, and I put to you, Speaker, that the

Speaker has to give great weight to, not only the historical rulings of this House in terms of the response to points of order but the precedents that have been created by any number of bills which

have been advanced at first reading, then proceeded to second reading and been permitted, notwithstanding that a point of order has not been raised. A bill is either in order or it isn't, and the

mere fact that a point of order hasn't been raised does not cure a bill. Therefore, I put to you that we have a history or a succession of bills that have received second reading, which the Speaker

implicitly has approved by virtue of hearing the debate around second reading and permitting the matter to go to a vote.

Virtually any policy initiative suggested by way of private members' public business, private members' bills, is going to inherently involve some sort of

expenditure of monies that wouldn't have existed prior to that bill being advanced; in contrast to, let's say, resolutions, which are merely opinion. A bill does things, and to do things, almost

inevitably you need money.

Let me distinguish this, for instance, from the illustration provided by the government House leader regarding a bill advanced by Mr Martel, which was ruled

out of order by Speaker Stokes. Mr Martel wanted to create, as I understand that bill, a new class of things which fell under the umbrella of OHIP. In this bill -- a very short bill, very easily

read -- there is no suggestion that, for instance, there be a redefinition of who is entitled to ODSP. We're dealing with the existing class of persons, the existing group of persons.

As well -- and this is very important -- please take a look at

section 2 of Bill

Section 2 is critical to the bill having any effect. The bill is very

carefully drafted. The author of the bill was well aware of standing order 56. Look at the language: "A regulation made under paragraph 4.1 of subsection (1) may provide" -- permissive but not

mandatory -- "that the amount of income support provided be adjusted on April 1," to wit, giving effect to the indexing factor being proposed. That is critical. That is the

section of the bill that

puts it into action, that triggers it, that makes it work. It is permissive and it relies upon regulation, which is not in the scope or within the capacity of the private member, Mr Martin, who

puts this bill forward for first reading; it's within the scope of the government. It's the government that could advance and must advance regulations and approve them through either one of the two

channels by which regulations are approved.

This does not, in and of itself, necessarily entail an increased expenditure. Having said that, I put to you that most, if not all, private members' bills that

advance new policies or broaden policy initiatives inherently entail cost. This does not, of course, create a new tax. I put it to you that this bill is consistent with any number of bills which

have preceded it in this House during the course of the last year, two years or three years and which have received approval, either explicitly or implicitly, by you, the Chair, the Speaker.

The bill has been drafted carefully, clearly cognizant of the impact of standing order 56. I put it to you, sir, that if reflection is required, then upon

reflection the Speaker ought to find, and should find, that this bill in fact complies, because of its very specific construction, with standing order 56.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, chief government whip and the House leaders for both the official opposition and the third party. I will

review the bill and reserve my judgment.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On Thursday of this past week, the member from Peterborough stood in the

House and I understand that he was corrected by the member from Thunder Bay-Atikoken as to information that was being relayed to the House. The information was in fact coming from the Ontario

Association of Radiologists.

I would ask the Speaker if he could also engage the Minister of Health to table information as to the difference between urgent and --

The Speaker: I'm afraid it's not a point of order.

PETITIONS

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I'm enormously proud and pleased this afternoon to present to this Legislature several

petitions signed by over 10,000 of my constituents and our neighbours on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River Valley, which petitions read:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province is considering closing the cardiac unit at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, we request that the Legislative Assembly

refrain from this action, which will cost the lives of children in this area who require emergency care;

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

"Keep open the full cardiac unit at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa."

I'm pleased to sign and endorse this petition and present it to you, Mr Speaker.

OPTOMETRISTS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"I do support the bill proposing an amendment to the Optometry Act to give optometrists the authority to prescribe therapeutic pharmaceutical agents for the

treatment of certain eye diseases, and I urge the government of Ontario to ensure speedy passage to the bill."

This is signed by hundreds of Ontarians, as well as by myself.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario government is shutting down the heart surgery unit at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario; and

"Whereas every year CHEO treats 140 cases of seriously ill children close to home; and

"Whereas centralizing children's heart surgery in Toronto will force patients and their families to travel 400 to 600 kilometres away from home at a traumatic

time; and

"Whereas there is a waiting list for cardiac surgery in Toronto but not at CHEO; and

"Whereas the people of eastern Ontario demand accessible, quality health care for their children;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately override the government's decision to close this life-saving program and

ensure that top-quality, accessible health care remains available to every child in eastern Ontario."

I've also signed the petition, along with 2,100 of my constituents.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas many high school students in Ontario, outraged at the harshness of the new curriculum, choose to leave school on May 15, 2002;

"Inadequate funding made difficult the implementation of the new curriculum;

"High school students should not be used as forced labour in addition to the extra hours required for the new curriculum;

"There is inadequate funding for the double-cohort year. Universities and colleges will have trouble providing room for all those students;

"Therefore,

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

"We demand that a committee with government, teachers, trustees, parents and high school students establish a funding model to correct the shortcomings in the