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

October 28, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Oct-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 28 October 2002 Lundi 28 octobre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JOHN MALETTE

PETERBOROUGH PROMOTIONAL BROCHURE

HIGHWAY 69

SCHOOL POOLS

CANADIAN HORSE

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING PRACTICES

VOLUNTEERS

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE CONVENTION

VISITORS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

MFP FINANCIAL SERVICES

HYDRO DEREGULATION

LONG-TERM CARE

MFP FINANCIAL SERVICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ENERGY CONTRACTS

DIAMOND MINE

AUTISM TREATMENT

HYDRO RATES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

RACCOON RABIES

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

WILDLANDS PROVINCIAL PARK

PETITIONS

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

NATURAL GAS RATES

LONG-TERM CARE

NATURAL GAS RATES

WILDLIFE REHABILITATORS

HYDRO RATES

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

NATURAL GAS RATES

HYDRO RATES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Monday 28 October 2002 Lundi 28 octobre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JOHN MALETTE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): This morning, my home community of Windsor laid to rest a son of our community who was well regarded by

many members of this House. He was a friend and colleague to all of us. He was a friend of mine. His name was John Malette.

John served our community for many years and in many capacities. He was a family man first, an active member of his religious community and, most importantly, he

gave back to his community.

John found time for many endeavours. He was a businessman by profession. He operated a number of different businesses very successfully. But what always struck

me about John was what he gave back to the community. He served as vice-chairman of Villa Maria, which is a home for the aged in Windsor. He was the chair of Hôtel-Dieu Grace. He was the

youngest-ever elected member of the Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board. He chaired the high school committee of that organization. John also served in a variety of other capacities,

including the advisory board of St Peter's Seminary in London, and was a dedicated active member of our parish, St Gabriel's.

Most important of all, John was a husband and father. His wife, Renee, and his children, Jacqueline, Rachelle, John Paul and Gabrielle, understandably are very

proud of him.

John did many things very young. Unfortunately, he died young. He was 45 years old. He was a remarkable individual. He gave a great deal to our community and,

most importantly, a great deal to his country, his province and, above and beyond all else, his family.

PETERBOROUGH PROMOTIONAL BROCHURE

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Today I would like to share with all members of the Legislature a good-news story from my riding of

Peterborough: international recognition of a promotional brochure produced by the Greater Peterborough Area Economic Development Corp.

This brochure received an honourable mention in the special-purpose brochure category for communities with populations between 50,000 and 200,000. The award came

from the International Economic Development Council promotional materials awards competition that is held during the IEDC's annual conference in Oakland, California.

The brochure entered in the competition is targeted at site selection consultants and decision-maker influences involved in business locations. It includes

information on the benefits of the greater Peterborough area which it offers to investors, and stresses the high level of customer service provided by the GPAEDC staff.

The brochure was designed by a Peterborough graphics design firm, Point of View Visual Communications, owned and operated by Chris White and Dan Wakeford. I'd

like to mention that both of these gentlemen are graduates of Sir Sandford Fleming College in Peterborough. Peterborough photographer Michael Cullen, owner of Trent Photographics, took the

photographs for the brochure.

I'm very proud of all those who contributed to the development and production of this initiative to attract business to the Peterborough community, a wonderful

place to work, do business, live and raise a family.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Finally, this government has acted on Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound. After intense lobbying from my

community, from the Crash 69 committee and from the Henderson family, the government finally installed warning lights around the Killarney turnoff. They did that with much fanfare. I would suggest

that doing the bare minimum after seven years in power isn't anything to brag about.

Today, my community challenges Ernie Eves to make the following announcements when he comes to Sudbury on November 21 for his annual fundraiser, taking money out

of Sudbury. We want him to bring money into Sudbury. We want him to announce a starting date for the four-laning of Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound. We want him to announce that the

environmental assessment for the whole stretch of highway between Sudbury and Parry Sound will be done by next June. We want him to announce that indeed he will ensure that the stretch of highway

between Sudbury and Parry Sound is the number one priority of the federal-provincial infrastructure program that he and his Minister of Transportation will make to the federal government. We

challenge this government to not only make announcements that are interim at best, but to show that it is truly committed to Highway 69 and, on November 21, to announce a start time for this

project.

SCHOOL POOLS

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise today in defence of the many swimming pools in this city, some 84, that risk being closed down.

Every day we hear about the possible closures, especially since the hand-picked supervisor has been put in to look after the school board in Toronto. But some of the parents and students have

decided that it's time to fight back. This morning I had the privilege to meet with two of them, and they are here today in the gallery, one parent and two students who have gone that extra little

step. Mrs Susanne Gyasi, her daughter Brandi-Lee and friend Roxy are all here today.

What these students did is truly remarkable. They determined that at their school, D.A. Morrison school, the swimming pool ought not to close. They have gone

throughout the school, to the students and teachers, and into the surrounding neighbourhood and they have collected on a petition some 250 names of people who are fighting to keep their school pool

going. It isn't enough for them to simply say that they're going to lie down, that they're going to see the pool actually close. They want to take a proactive part. I salute them and I salute all

the students in the school and all the students and parents across Toronto who are fighting for the same thing.

They have presented me a copy. Unfortunately, it's not suitable for presentation in the Legislature, but I intend later today to give it to the Deputy Premier,

because that is for whom it is intended, to let everyone know that in this school and in this city, people want to keep their pools open.

CANADIAN HORSE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House to recognize a farm in my riding that is doing its part to preserve a living example of Canadian

heritage. I am of course referring to a rare breed known as the Canadian horse. This animal has been recognized by Parliament as our national horse, and rightly so. Like Canadians and indeed like

the citizens of my own riding of Durham, this breed is strong, versatile, hard-working and from a proud heritage. Some describe them as the little iron horse, much like myself.

The breed nearly became extinct in the early years of the past century. However, there is a renewed interest in the Canadian thanks to people like Tim and

Frances Tufts of Kendal Hills Kennels. They are proud owners of three Canadian horses, with two foals expected this spring. I am grateful for the information they have shared on this very unique

breed.

The Canadian is descended from the royal horses originally sent to the New World by King Louis XIV of France in the mid-1600s. By the 1800s the breed was

renowned in Canada and the United States. In fact, it was the foundation of several other strong breeds, including the Morgan, Standardbred, Tennessee Walker and American Saddlebred.

While its numbers declined drastically in the past century, today the Canadian is making a comeback and there are an estimated 3,000 registered today. They are

not only prized as carriage horses, but also can be found in dressage, eventing, mounted patrols, trail riding, and indeed anywhere there is a demand for good-natured, hard-working, versatile

horses -- much like myself.

I commend breeders such as Frances and Tim Tufts in Durham riding for preserving such an important part of our Canadian heritage.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING PRACTICES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): It's now seven months since our fiscal year ended here in the province of Ontario and still we don't

have an audited statement. I remember very clearly that in Mr Eves's first budget in 1996 he promised the audited statements would be presented a maximum of 120 days after the year-end, and they

would aim for 90 days after the year-end. We still don't have it. It's the latest, I think, we've ever not had audited statements.

I also remember that very shortly after election, Mr Eves promised to get rid of the two sets of books in the province. The people of Ontario will be, I think,

surprised to learn we still have two sets of books and billions of dollars of difference.

The government also promised back in 1996 to present a budget before the fiscal year started. This year it was three months after the fiscal year started before

the budget was presented.

Frankly, it's a bit embarrassing. The government likes to say that they want to run the government like a smooth business. Let me just say that no business could

get away with audited statements seven months after the fiscal year, two sets of books with billions of dollars of difference, and a budget not presented until three months into the fiscal year. As

I say, it's embarrassing for the people of Ontario to find that now, almost seven years after he promised them, we still don't have the things that Ernie Eves promised he would deliver seven years

ago.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It is a pleasure for me to rise today to pay tribute to volunteers. This past Wednesday, I had the

distinct honour of hosting the 2002 Volunteer Service Awards in Parry Sound. It is particularly satisfying to participate in this annual ceremony, as it recognizes volunteers and their valuable

contributions to our communities.

People who received Volunteer Service Awards last Wednesday were recognized for giving of their time, expertise and resources to make a difference in Parry

Sound-Muskoka: people like Jean Beckett, who received her five-year pin for her work with RISE in Parry Sound; Mrs June Crooks, who also received her five-year pin for volunteering with the Lioness

Club of Huntsville; Mr Thomas Hart, who was recognized for his more than 30 years of volunteering with the Emsdale Agricultural Society; and Mr Don Scott for his 15 years of dedication to the

Gravenhurst Volunteer Fire Department. These are some of the more than 100 people who received their awards last Wednesday.

I am pleased that we not only have a fine volunteer base in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, but that our government has taken the time to recognize these

people who make a difference in our communities. I would like to personally congratulate all those fine people who volunteer in our province for their outstanding efforts and contributions to

making Ontario the best place in the world to live.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE CONVENTION

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I hold in my hand today's top 10 list.

Top 10 Moments from the Tory AGM:

(10) John Snobelen skips the convention because his horse won't go up the escalators.

(9) Cam Jackson complains about downgrade to hotel room. Delegates tire of "When I was a minister" stories.

(8) When asked about the tax break for sports teams, Mike Harris also blames another Premier: Leslie Frost.

(7) Open margarita and daiquiri bar creates typical Tory scene: government lurches from ices to ices.

(6) Harris leaves the convention early because Flaherty won't stop following him around saying, "Please, come back. Please."

(5) Jean Charest says, "I did that driving-the-bus-into-the-convention thing in 1993. That's my bit."

(4) Delegates and at least two ministers seen sporting buttons handed out by the Liberals.

(3) Best-attended session: "How to blame others for your mistakes," chaired by Ernie Eves.

(2) Jim Wilson forced to apologize to Deb Hutton, David Lindsay and Bill Farlinger after accidentally threatening to fire all civil servants who are members of

the PC Party.

And the number one top 10 reason, "Why I enjoyed my time at the Tory convention"?

(1) Ernie Eves asked the real leader of the Ontario PC Party to stand up, and nobody did.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin, we have with us today in the Speaker's gallery the new Consul General from Pakistan, Mr

Ghalib Iqbal, who is accompanied by his wife. Please join me in welcoming our special honoured guests.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House

shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, October 28, Tuesday, October 29, Wednesday, October 30, and Thursday, October 31, 2002, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Baird moves that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i) --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1346 to 1351.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 79; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

VISITORS

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to take a minute to welcome the

grade 5 students from Ridgewood Public School in my riding to Queen's Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Energy, and it concerns Ontario Power Generation, that

electricity producer wholly owned by the government of Ontario, that public company that controls 70% of the Ontario electricity market.

As you will know, Minister, Ontario Power Generation has today produced its third-quarter financial report for the

period July, August and September, 2002. In the financial report of this public company owned by the government of Ontario, controlling 70% of the electricity market, we are told that net earnings,

profit for that three-month period, July, August and September of this year, is up at $215 million, two and a half times what it was for a corresponding period the year before; this at a time when

millions of Ontario electricity consumers -- residential, commercial and industrial -- are paying through the teeth for this kind of earnings report with extravagantly high electricity

prices.

My question, Minister, is simply this: are you confident and can you say to the electricity consumers of Ontario today that your company, our company, Ontario

Power Generation, is not in fact, in these very difficult and trying times, gouging Ontario electricity consumers?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Recognizing the market share that Ontario Power

Generation has in the marketplace, when the market design committee established the rules and procedures, that the government certainly accepted, a rebate was put in place just to act as a check on

the market power of Ontario Power Generation. They are required to remit, I would suggest, at least 50% of rates in addition to the 3.8% base amount with which the company was set up to be

commercially viable. Any excess profit in the amount of 50% will go back to consumers.

The member opposite is correct that the third-quarter numbers were substantially higher than they've been in the past, but on the other hand, the nine-month

net income for the company are actually down from last year.

Mr Conway: We'll get to that in a moment. I just want to be clear so everybody understands the situation we're in. All of your constituents

will know their hydro bills are up, and up sharply. I got a call the other day from the people who operate the Cobden Arena in Renfrew county. Their bill for electricity for September 2002 was

8,000 bucks, compared to 5,000 bucks a year ago. That's 60% in one year for one month in a community arena. That situation is going to be played out in virtually every community across Ontario as

we head into the fall and winter of this season.

Rates are up. You know what else is up? The stranded debt of Ontario Hydro and its successor companies is up by nearly a billion dollars. People don't know

that, but since the Eves-Harris government deregulated the stranded debt of the province's utilities, it's up by hundreds of millions of dollars. My question is simply this --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: This is your plan, your plan that promised to bring down debt, bring down rates and improve service. Rates are up, debts are up and

service is in the tank.

My question is a very straightforward one and it concerns Pickering A. This particular report tabled today by Ontario Power Generation indicates that the cost

increases with the refurbishments of Pickering A are up an additional $230 million over the original estimate. The report indicates that OPG is now going to reassess whether or not it is going to

complete the four-unit refurbishments later on.

Can you give the House today your best information as to what precisely is the plan for the full refurbishment of Pickering A? What are the true costs? What

are the reasons for the delay?

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite raises a number of issues in his question. I would indicate to him that Ontario Hydro's debt has not

increased. In fact it's been reduced, as reported in financial statements for 2002. The member opposite would find that since 1999 liabilities have declined by more than $500 million. I would want

to put that on the record.

With respect to Pickering A, it is no secret that this project is not Ontario Power Generation's finest hour. As minister, I'm not happy with what we've seen,

and I think there's a lot more that can be done.

The member opposite requests information with respect to why the project has been delayed. They had to conduct a 20-month environmental assessment, which added

a substantial delay to the project. I do think it's important that whether there be environmental improvements, nuclear safety and reliability enhancements, millions of dollars being spent to meet

federal regulatory requirements in addition to the security enhancements are very important for the future safety of this important economic resource.

Mr Conway: Not our finest hour: years behind schedule; at last report, $1.5 billion over budget. Not our finest hour, I'll say. Nothing in the

short and intermediate term will have a more serious and immediate effect on electricity prices that Ontario citizens and businesses will pay than what goes on at Pickering A.

The people of Ontario know they have an obligation to pay the billions of dollars that are at risk at Pickering A. They also have a right to know what the hell

is going on down the road at Pickering A.

Minister, on behalf of your government, will you give me and the electricity consumers of Ontario this assurance: will the Eves government on a priority basis

-- and I mean in the next very few days -- commit to ordering public hearings where the Ontario Power Generation people must come forward to a public place where they can be cross-examined on the

details of (

a) what is the specific set of problems that is causing the delay and the multi-billion dollar cost overrun at Pickering A; and (

b) what is the current, latest thinking at OPG and the

Ontario government as to what you are going to do, should these delays continue and these costs continue to rise? Are you prepared to commit to a public hearing so we can find out what in fact is

going on?

Hon Mr Baird: I was prepared, and I did sit through some seven and a half hours of estimates and this certainly did not dominate the

discussions with which the member opposite -- had he seen it as such a concern, he would have wanted to participate.

We are working on getting six reactors up on-line. We believe we might be able to get three back on-line next year: two at Bruce and one at Pickering. We also

are learning that at Bruce they're actually looking at potentially bringing on two more that they had previously thought they would have to mothball. That is obviously encouraging news and good

news for the people of Ontario.

I did notice that the other Liberal critic this year said, "Our position has not changed since 1997," and then he went on to say, "The only way we're going to

get more made-in-Ontario electricity is to permit the private sector to come in and build made-in-Ontario electricity," something he and his own party voted against just four days ago. Where is the

consistency from this member on these issues?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member from Renfrew used some terminology in his statement that

earlier last week --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Thanks. Take your seat. Stop the clock for a quick moment. When that did happen, I saw the reactions of the

parents and the teachers, who smiled, so I would ask hopefully that --

Mr Conway: Let me apologize. Hydro and hydro rates cause me to get a little upset, but I do apologize to kids, parents and everybody else --

and Pickering A, our finest hour.

The Speaker: I thank the member. I would appreciate the comments --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We do have some young people in here. Let's settle down. They're still watching. We've had it. The question comes up.

Start the clock.

MFP FINANCIAL SERVICES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is for the Deputy Premier. On October 3, 2001, the Chair of Management Board told this House that he had

conducted an investigation into provincial government contracts with MFP and found that they were, and I quote, "above-board."

Minister, I have here in my hands confidential briefing notes that directly contradict these claims. The secret notes report, "MBS consultations with

ministries indicate that there have been a number of situations involving additional or disputed payments for leasing where the ministry has used MFP Financial Services Ltd." Specifically, we've

learned that there was an $18-million discrepancy between COMSOC and MFP because the government didn't fully understand the questions and the contract it signed. There was another million-dollar

discrepancy with economic development, and internal auditors at justice raised concerns.

Deputy Premier, can you tell me why the government would say their contracts were "above-board" when clearly this was not the case?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): What I can tell the member opposite is that certainly the government's goal

always in everything we do is to ensure that we make the best use of the taxpayer dollars while obviously making sure that we obtain the tools we need to deliver top-quality public services to the

people in this province.

I know that the government has acted on the recommendations in the Provincial Auditor's 2000 annual report, and certainly the government has undertaken a new

competitive process for lease financing services. That process was completed, as you know, in February 2002, and that process was fair, open and transparent.

So the government is now taking action to ensure that there is consistency in leasing practices and asset management.

Mr Crozier: According to these notes, that's clearly not the case. I would have hoped that the Deputy Premier would have been better briefed

on this, when you consider the problems in her own riding as well as those in Windsor and Toronto.

The government told us they'd been investigated, and they said everything was above-board. Now we have confidential notes that dispute that claim.

The notes say that taxpayers were left holding the bag for things written in MFP contracts such as additional

refinancing charges after leases were extended and consolidated, and the inclusion of costs related to installation and support services.

Even more frightening, Deputy Premier: the notes also reveal examples of gross mismanagement and incompetence such as contract terms not well documented; the

government actually relying on MFP for its information, if you can believe it, and expertise on the contracts; and decisions being made in the short term for fiscal demands that reflect the

ineffective leases that they have with management.

Deputy, we're told that everything was above-board, and clearly that is not the case. Instead of coming clean and admitting your incompetence and your

mismanagement, the government tried to hide it. Why did they do that?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I understand that the member opposite from Essex was actually offered a briefing on some of these contracts in October 2001

and May of this year in order that he could better understand the contracts. I understand that he didn't accept either one of those offers.

I can tell you that the company has complied with all the mandatory terms of the RFP and the master contract set out by MBS. I think it's very important to

remember that the contract was written by MBS, not the vendors. So I would again say to the member opposite that there's been an opportunity for you to receive a briefing on the contracts, and I

know that offer is still on the table.

Mr Crozier: Minister, a briefing when they have the contracts and I don't isn't worth the paper it's written on. We want to see the

contracts.

Ninety-five per cent of the computers the government has are leased. MFP manages over half of these assets, worth millions of dollars. Despite evidence to the

contrary, we're told the contracts were investigated, and we're told they are above-board. But let's get a little more specific.

These confidential briefing notes also show that the Ministry of Natural Resources leased 3,750 desktop computers from MFP; not laptops, not servers, just

desktop computers. You know something? You can go to Future Shop and buy any one of these for less than a quarter of that.

Minister, do you think taxpayers would be happy to learn that MFP was paid $5,333.33 a year to lease a computer? If not, if you don't think the taxpayers will

believe that, will you release the half-billion dollars' worth of contracts the provincial government --

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

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just repeat the offer that was made to the member from Essex. I would indicate that up until now, the contracts

haven't been disclosed because they didn't ask for them. The briefing still stands that you're able to have them.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): A question for the Minister of Energy. Minister, it seems that killing Kyoto wasn't the only thing

that Ralph Klein and Ernie Eves talked about this past week. In Alberta, Ralph Klein used over $2 billion in taxpayers' money to try to hide his hydro deregulation and privatization mess from the

people of Alberta by mailing out rebate cheques just before the election. Now it looks like your government wants to try the same strategy. Is your government really going to try to bribe people

with their own money just before an election?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): No.

Mr Hampton: Maybe you should talk to your Premier, because his utterances of the weekend sure make it sound that way.

I want to give you some advice. Isn't it better to not make the mistake of hydro privatization and deregulation in the first place? Isn't it better, rather

than trying to spread money around in May or June of next year, to ensure that people don't have to go through the pain of sky-high privatized electricity rates? Wouldn't it be better to

acknowledge that right now, as a number of American states have -- California, Montana, New Mexico -- all of which are abandoning hydro privatization and deregulation there? Wouldn't it be better

to stop now and stop the pain of Ontario consumers? Wouldn't it be better to do it that way, rather than trying to bribe people with their own money eight or nine months from now?

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite raises the issue that the high electricity rates in the months of the summer and September had some

substantial effect. A lot of families and small businesses in this province are tremendously concerned about this issue, and so is their provincial government. That's why, as part of the design of

the market, to protect consumers from the market power of Ontario Power Generation, there is a process to provide a rebate. He's exactly correct -- what the Premier has asked us to look at.

What would have been done in the past when this member sat on the executive council was that when the heat went up and and demand went up and there was

pressure upwards on prices, this member opposite and his gang would simply take out the old Ontario Hydro credit card and amass debt to the tune of $38 billion, a tax on our children and their

children. When the member opposite sat on the executive council, the Ontario Hydro debt went up by $3 billion in just five years. My generation and the next generation are going to have to pay for

that waste and that mismanagement. That's why this government is making some fundamental changes to support families and to support the Ontario economy.

Mr Hampton: Well, Mr Pickering, you've got a lot of nerve talking about debt, because under your watch you are adding to the nuclear debt. I

might want to remind you that it was Conservative governments that started to build Darlington nuclear plant. It was supposed to cost $5 billion, but it turned out to cost $15 billion --

Conservative government. You're doing the same thing now: ploughing more and more money into nuclear plants, not putting any money into renewables, not looking at the capacity of wind energy,

re-creating the whole nuclear debt debacle again.

But the issue is this: what's happening to consumers who have to pay for these double-digit increases in their hydro bills? What's happening to seniors on

fixed incomes? Are you going to make them wait until next May and send them a $100 cheque and say, "Vote for us," or are you going to do the right thing now: cancel hydro privatization and

deregulation like other jurisdictions in North America?

Hon Mr Baird: It will come as no surprise to the member opposite that I don't see eye to eye with him on these issues. The member opposite has

at least been consistent in his view with respect to reforming the electricity system in Ontario.

We simply believe on this side of the House that it's irresponsible to continue to amass debt to the tune of $38 billion.

The old Ontario Hydro monopoly was pulling our economy down and was putting an albatross around the necks of future generations. The member opposite wants to

talk about a government that was elected when I was two years old and somehow suggests that that is the reason.

I do know that with respect to Pickering A, it's emission-free electricity and it's still a commercially viable project.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-term Care. This summer, while you were

busy hiking long-term-care fees for seniors living on fixed incomes, you tried to justify it by saying, "There will be more nurses and better nursing care in homes for the aged and long-term-care

facilities."

We showed you two weeks ago that nursing homes in the Durham region were not hiring more nurses. There wasn't better nursing care. They were using the money

for things like diapers and to cover their operating budget shortfall. Last week we told you about Rainycrest in Fort Frances not hiring any new nurses, using virtually all the money to cover the

budget shortfall, because you're not funding long-term-care facilities adequately. Now we find out about North Centennial Manor in Kapuskasing, which is using their so-called "new nursing money" to

cover WSIB deficits and long-term disability benefits: they're not hiring any nurses either.

Minister, was your announcement this summer, when you drove up long-term-care fees, completely phony? If not, why aren't nurses being hired in long-term-care

facilities?

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): July 31 this year we made an announcement of $100 million toward nursing and

personal care services in all the long-term-care facilities across our province. That money is to fund those items that are under the nursing and personal care envelope. That includes things like

salaries and benefits for registered nurses, salaries and benefits for practical nurses, and salaries and benefits for health care aides.

The money in the nursing and personal care envelope also goes toward things like the cost of medical and nursing supplies, the cost of equipment and the cost

of education and training of staff. All of these things go toward providing better-quality care for all the residents at our long-term-care facilities: $100 million toward nursing and personal

care.

I might add that it was the Ontario Long Term Care Association that said that the $100 million could be used to hire an additional 2,300 full-time-equivalents

across the province. That continues to be true today.

Mr Hampton: Minister, this was your announcement last summer. You were the one who went out there and told seniors that you were going to hike

the fees by thousands of dollars for people who have to have a long-term-care bed, but you said they were going to get better nursing care. In nursing home after nursing home, home for the aged

after home for the aged, it's not happening. Lady Isabelle Nursing Home in Trout Creek won't be hiring any new nurses. Extendicare in Haliburton, Versacare in St Catharines and South Centennial

Manor in Iroquois Falls are using the so-called "new nursing dollars" to cover up the budget shortfall because the Conservative government won't adequately fund care for our seniors. It was your

announcement, Minister. You were the one who said in the House two weeks ago, "There's nothing else the money can be spent on. It must be spent on hiring additional nurses."

I accuse you of ripping off the senior citizens of this province and, worse, I accuse you of making a phony announcement, a completely phony announcement.

Stand up now and admit it: none of this money is being used to hire new nurses; it's being used to cover up the fact that your government won't adequately fund health care for seniors.

Hon Mr Newman: To the outrageous charges of the leader of the third party, I plead not guilty. When this member was a part of the NDP

government, let me tell you what they did when they had something to do with long-term care. They hiked the long-term-care fees in 1993 in this province by up to 38%. That's what their government

did.

This government is putting $100 million into nursing and personal care services. In fact, if you look at the Rainycrest home in the member's own riding of

Kenora, I can tell you that Rainycrest has used their additional dollars to maintain nursing and care staffing levels and is not aware that any nursing staff are going to be laid off. I can assure

the member opposite that the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care will continue to monitor and evaluate resident care as well as staffing ratios to ensure that a high quality of service is

maintained not only in that home but in each and every long-term-care facility across this great province.

MFP FINANCIAL SERVICES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is for the Deputy Premier. We have for months been trying to get information on the government's

dealings with MFP Financial. We've asked, we've paid for and we've gone through now some secret documents that we finally obtained on MFP Financial. You mentioned some sort of briefing on MFP

Financial. What we have simply asked for are the contracts. We can read the contracts for ourselves.

On December 11, 2001, my leader, Dalton McGuinty, said, "We think the responsible thing to do in the circumstances is to release the contracts.... Will you

agree to that, Minister?" My colleague Dwight Duncan from Windsor-St Clair on October 1, 2002, said, "Given these facts, will you release your government's contracts with MFP to this House

today?"

Today I ask that you release the contracts. Minister, will you simply do that? If you have nothing to hide, release the contracts.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I find it rather surprising that the member for Essex stands in the House and

makes these statements and claims at a time when he has twice been offered the opportunity to have a briefing on the contracts. The reality is, this has been handled in the same way as any FOI

request has been handled. You know that and I know that.

Mr Crozier: The thing is, Minister, you don't know any more than what's being sent in to you today. I've simply asked for these contracts to

be released. I want to be able to go to the people of Ontario and say, "Do you really think that you should pay $5,333 a year to lease a computer that you can buy for a third or a quarter of that

price?" I merely want to be able to go to the people of Ontario and say, "Look, they've got massive problems with MFP in Waterloo" -- in your own riding, Minister -- "they have massive problems

with MFP in Toronto and in Windsor and with the Union Water system." I want to be able to assure the people of Ontario that, because you haven't. So will you release the contracts?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I understand that the records to which the member opposite is referring have been released under the FOI. I understand that

the auditor has already commented on these and that we've acted on them.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question today is to the Minister of Labour. Our children have been back in school for

a few months now. I understand that the high school curriculum includes comprehensive health and safety education. I believe that this is based on teacher support materials developed by your

ministry.

Could you please tell my constituents in Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale how the government is ensuring that our children learn about health and safety on the

job, in the community and in their homes?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): I thank the member for the question. Our government is taking steps to educate young workers, much the

same age as the young people who are in our hallowed halls today, actually.

The honourable member refers to teacher support programs. The program is Live Safe! Work Smart! These materials give students critical health and safety

information. We're teaching these students their rights and responsibilities, how to identify what is hazardous in the workplace and the best way to protect themselves so that they don't become a

statistic, so that they're not injured in the workplace or, worse, killed.

We continue to take the lead on a number of initiatives aimed at improving occupational health and safety skills of students and young workers through the

development of young worker health and safety Web sites, through the young worker awareness program with the WSIB and through partnerships with the ministries of Education and Training, Colleges

and Universities, many unions and the Workplace Safety Insurance Board in providing Live Safe! Work Smart! material to teachers across the province.

Mr Gill: I want to thank the minister for his response. Minister, your ministry is responsible for workplace health and safety. What else is

your ministry doing to ensure that our young people are not injured on the job?

Hon Mr Clark: The ministry and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board are working with Paul Kells and Rob Ellis, who are fathers of two

teenaged boys who were killed on the job. Both have taken up the prevention challenge in very personal ways because it impacted on their families and their lives. Mr Kells has become an

internationally recognized health and safety advocate for his community prevention efforts. Mr Ellis shares his son's story with high schools and post-secondary students, business and labour

organizations with the aim of educating people so that tragedies that impacted his family will never impact another family.

Beginning this Friday, I'll be kicking off the Live Safe! Work Smart! tour, where I'll be speaking to high school students as well about the importance of work

safety in order to --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Clark: Perhaps you don't care that young workers are being injured on the job; we do.

I'll be going out speaking to high school students and bringing directly to them their rights and responsibilities and how they can ensure that they are safe

in the workplace so that they too can come home to their families every night.

ENERGY CONTRACTS

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. On a daily basis, consumers

across this province are being harangued by door-to-door hydro sales people. Here's the latest assault on a poor senior. A 77-year-old constituent of mine received a letter from Direct Energy

threatening that if she and her 84-year-old husband cancelled their contract, they would be charged a penalty of $750 with what they call an "early termination fee." They only tried to cancel this

contract because another door-to-door salesperson from another company convinced them to cancel. So when they tried to cancel, they got this letter from Direct Energy saying, "It's a $750 charge if

you cancel. But if you don't cancel, sign this and you get a cheque for 75 bucks."

Mr Minister, as consumer affairs protector, how are you going to stop this haranguing and harassment of poor, innocent people that's been going on in Ontario

for the last two years? What are you going to do to finally put an end to it?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): This question rests with the Minister of Energy.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): We took some substantial measures to further protect

consumers in Bill 58 this past spring. If the member opposite has some specific examples of practices that are unethical or illegal, I'd encourage him to immediately contact the Ontario Energy

Board where they can conduct an investigation and look at these practices.

It is something which we all take incredibly seriously. If the member opposite has specific information, I'd also be happy to pass it on to the OEB, because we

take these matters incredibly seriously.

Mr Colle: I'm surprised the minister of consumer affairs doesn't have the guts to stand up and say he's going to protect seniors. I'm

surprised.

This is about protecting people who are just trying to live their lives in their homes. This has gone on year after year. This is one of hundreds of examples

of door-to-door intimidation by these con artists. This senior was so afraid of paying $750, you know what they did? They went back with Direct Energy, not because they wanted to, but because

they're afraid of their very well-being. This senior has an 84-year-old husband with Alzheimer's.

This is what's going on, Mr Minister. What are you going to finally do to stop this mess at every door in Ontario that is taking advantage of poor people who

can't even afford to put food on the table? What are you going to do to stop this?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm sorry, I missed that. Order. The minister has the floor. Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Baird: If someone in Ontario is conducting illegal activities, things that are against the law, intimidating and harassing people, I

ask --

Mr Colle: This has been going on for five years.

Hon Mr Baird: Member opposite, if you don't want to listen to the answer -- you got up and asked a question; I'm taking the issue incredibly

seriously. If the member opposite has some allegations he wants to make, give them to me right now, right here. I'll forward them to the Ontario Energy Board immediately and we'll conduct an

investigation. If people are breaking the law and threatening and intimidating seniors --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. I'll take this, Minister.

One more and you're out. You can't yell. You've asked the question very forcefully. Now the minister gets a chance to respond. Sorry, Minister.

Hon Mr Baird: We all take these issues incredibly seriously. If there are people out there breaking the law, I want to know about it. It will

be forwarded to the authorities responsible, and an investigation and actions will follow.

As for your comments about the Minister of Consumer and Business Services, that's not a very classy thing to say.

DIAMOND MINE

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the dynamic and energetic Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As you know, there

must be a mining operation in Palmerston, a few miles from where I live, where my father operated a coal and fuel oil business for many years and indeed where I went to high school.

Interjections.

Mr Johnson: I don't insist that you listen to the question, but I do insist you shut up so I can address my comments to whomever --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Will the member take his seat for a second. With all due respect, it was your minister who was doing the

shouting, not more than three rows from you.

The member is trying to put a question. I know that after a very controversial question, the next question is difficult, but could we please give the member

quietness so he can place the question. I apologize to the member for Perth-Middlesex.

Mr Johnson: That's one, and the World Series is over, so I should get three.

I'm always interested in developments in the mining industry, as I am in the role the government plays in mineral investments in Ontario. Earlier this session,

the member from Timmins-James Bay asked the Deputy Premier a question regarding a potential diamond mine in Attawapiskat. Minister, can you update members of the Legislature on new developments

around this initiative?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank my colleague for the question and remind members that mining

activities in northern Ontario are important to the quality of life in all of Ontario and all sectors of our economy. After all, we can't produce the steel, we can't produce the goods and services,

unless we do the mining first, and we're the number one jurisdiction in the world for mineral exploration.

Last week there was exciting news around the proposed DeBeers development near Attawapiskat in Ontario's far north. This will be the first diamond mine in

Ontario. DeBeers and the Atawapiskat First Nation jointly announced that they had reached an agreement to proceed with a winter program at the Victor diamond mine. This agreement is very important

to the project. It is to allow for completion of a feasibility study. It will also allow for jobs and opportunities for residents of the Attawapiskat First Nation to continue throughout the

winter.

I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate both DeBeers and the First Nation. By working together, they are one step closer to making a prosperous and

productive diamond mine in Ontario. They are to be commended for this. We look forward to the continued quality of life and raising of the quality of life for northern Ontarians.

Mr Johnson: Thanks very much, Minister. There are two very important sources of industry and economics in the north. Minerals happen to be

one, and trees are the other.

Minister, as you mentioned, this project is only going forward thanks to the willingness of the parties to put aside their differences and work together. I

know that Ontario's far north is full of similar examples and opportunities. What information can you provide for us today on the opportunities that are available?

Hon Mr Wilson: The Ontario government is working on a number of fronts to work with First Nations to build strong, healthy, self-reliant

communities in Ontario's far north. I want to commend the Attorney General in particular and my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources for their very hard work with First Nations to help them

become self-reliant, help them improve their quality of life, help them with economic development and give them the same opportunity those of us in southern Ontario have: the opportunity for a job,

the opportunity to raise a family and to live in Ontario with dignity. The collaborative effort between Attawapiskat First Nation and De Beers should be commended, and I thank the honourable member

for doing that in his question. It's a first for Ontario, it's perhaps a model in the future and it's a terrific first step toward creating the jobs that are necessary for self-reliance and for a

greater dignity of life for our First Nation people in the far north.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have question for the Minister of Health. Leo and Sheri Walsh of Welland are in the gallery today. Their

son Cameron is autistic and needs IBI treatment. He was placed on a waiting list for government funding over two years ago, but now that he's turned six he no longer qualifies for funding. His

parents decided to pay for IBI treatment themselves because they're not prepared to give up on him. He's making tremendous progress but his parents have used up all of their savings, they have

maxed out their credit cards, and now they are seriously considering selling their home in order to buy a few more months of treatment.

Minister, no Ontario family should have to sell their home in order to pay for treatment for their child. Will you recognize IBI as medically necessary

treatment and pay for it for all children like Cameron who need it?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): This is a program of the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I would like to say, first of all, this government cares very much

about the needs of children and the families of children who are diagnosed with autism. We know the challenges are extremely difficult, and that's why we believe it's important to offer services to

the children and their families. Years ago, if a child was diagnosed with autism in the province of Ontario, it would indeed be extremely difficult to get services. That is why in 1999 we initiated

a program. We started with $5 million, and over these last three years we've increased it eightfold, to $39 million.

We've chosen to offer an intensive behaviour intervention program because research has told us that this is the program that is most effective. It's part of a

large number of programs that we offer to children with special needs, about $500 million overall, in a bigger budget of $2.2 billion. This is a challenging disorder -- we understand that -- both

for the children and for the families. Can we do more? Yes. Will we? I'm very confident that our government will.

Ms Martel: My supplementary is for the Minister of Health because this is a critical health issue. I've got Mary Turner of Bradford in the

gallery today as well. Her twins, Katie and Stephen, and a second son, Scott, all have autism. All three have been lucky enough to receive some government assistance for IBI treatment. Katie, who

is the most seriously affected, has just started to use clear language while she's communicating. Katie and her twin, Stephen, both turn six in mid-January, and the limited funding this family has

received is going to be cut off. I can tell you that this family cannot afford to pay for IBI treatment for three children. No family in this province should be forced into bankruptcy to pay for

treatment for their children.

I ask you again, will you recognize IBI as a medically necessary treatment, and will you provide it for all autistic children in Ontario who need it?

Hon Mrs Elliott: As I said, our government does understand that this is an extremely challenging disorder for the children and their families.

That is why we have consistently increased our investments to try and provide the services that are most appropriate. Specifically, we've directed our resources to the intervention program. Part of

that program is to provide service that will assist in transition to school age. In fact, we have also increased the resources in special education programs in the public school system to assist

those children and their families.

This is a challenging disorder. One of the problems we've been having here in Ontario is trying to find enough qualified individuals who will undertake the

kind of care and instruction that is required for children. As I said, can we do more? Yes. Will we? I am confident that we will.

HYDRO RATES

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, what will it take for you to understand the

depth of hardship that you have created for Ontario families?

A grandmother in Hamilton sent me an urgent e-mail. She sent you the same plea for help. Karen Baxmeier is a mother who is absolutely frightened for her

daughter and grandchildren. Her daughter, Kelly Bryce, a single mom, has been working incredibly hard to raise two children and complete a nursing degree at McMaster. Her youngest child, Jaiden, is

two years old and requires a Lifebreath ventilator that runs day and night.

Minister, she cannot pay her hydro bill because it has skyrocketed. The utility is now threatening to cut off her hydro this week. Jaiden's life depends on

electricity. What are you doing for Ontarians with disabilities whose lives depend on electricity?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I share the member opposite's concern for those on fixed

incomes, who are vulnerable, and the concerns that they have not just with respect to the bills that they're getting in their mail now from the hot months, the three months over the summer, but

also their concern of what it will look like in the future.

I also share the concern the member opposite has with the disabled. If there are children with special needs, if there are people on social assistance, there

are some measures to provide a measure of support on behalf of taxpayers. Those have been areas where we have put additional funds to support those with disabilities. In the recent budget, we saw a

substantial increase. There was more than $197 million announced with respect to people with developmental disabilities. A substantial amount of that was to provide agency revitalization to help

them better serve the people they work for.

Mrs Bountrogianni: We need much more than your concern. Kelly's family has exhausted all of the avenues to help her daughter. You really don't

have any idea of how hard it is. This young mother told me about other people in her neighbourhood who are not eating in order to pay the electricity bill.

Kelly Bryce is doing all the right things: she's struggling on OSAP to complete her nursing degree, she's raising two small children on her own and she was

looking forward to becoming a contributor to our health care system and economy in a few short weeks when she's supposed to graduate. Everything is now in jeopardy. Most importantly, there's a

little boy who could die if his electricity is shut off.

I'm asking you again, Minister: what are you prepared to do today to help Kelly Bryce and her children?

Hon Mr Baird: With respect to those young people who are medically fragile and require assistance, we put substantial resources in recent

years of more than $17 million of additional support. I believe that there's --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite asked a very legitimate question. I'm trying to take a moment to answer it, but she doesn't want to hear

it.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. There's little doubt that promoting public

transit, I think we all know in this House, helps to alleviate traffic congestion, reduce traffic volumes on our highways and also improve the quality of life for the people of the province by

reducing commuting times and improving our air quality.

Today, there are more than 12 million people across this country who actually use transit. Those who use public transit make about 1.5 billion trips and travel

about 15.5 billion passenger kilometres each year.

Minister, could you please tell this House what this government is doing to assist public transit authorities throughout Ontario to maintain transit systems

that are safe and efficient?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Transportation): Our government certainly recognizes the need for a balance in integrated transportation

systems. I can tell you that this government is doing its part to promote public transit in this province. In fact, we've made a clear commitment -- something that no previous government has ever

made -- of $3.25 billion over 10 years for renewing and enhancing our public transit system.

For example, we gave $12.8 million to the city of Ottawa to buy 79 new buses to replace some of their older fleet. We gave up to $912,000 to the city of London

to fund projects, including expanded bus services to newly amalgamated areas, and up to $250,000 to the city of Cornwall to implement an electronic fare collection system. The city of Toronto will

receive $126 million in 2002 to renew TTC infrastructure and improve service.

We are there. We are supporting public transit --

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

Ms Mushinski: Thank you, Minister. That's important information for my constituents in Scarborough Centre to know.

Despite the additional $565 million annually in property taxes that the city of Toronto received as a part of local services realignment, as well as hundreds

of millions of dollars this government has invested in the TTC since 1995, we know that the TTC is expecting yet another $78-million shortfall this year. A fare increase may have a detrimental

effect on ridership at a time when the public concern is growing about an increase in traffic throughout the GTA. Minister, what other solutions exist to keep fares down and the infrastructure up

to date in the future?

Hon Mr Sterling: There are a number of things municipalities can look at. One is to increase the density of their residential population close

to the subway, bus transit stations and those kinds of things, something the city of Toronto has not done in the past in terms of some of their planning.

We also encourage the use of innovative partnerships that can deliver high-quality service at a lower cost to taxpayers. As Golden Horseshoe communities put

forward projects for the extension of GO Transit services, partnerships with the private sector are encouraged wherever beneficial to the public. In fact, GO Transit currently contracts out all of

their rail operations and maintenance and has achieved a higher level of cost recovery than the TTC.

Many other cities have done the same and have shown better results than the TTC. Stockholm, Copenhagen --

The Speaker: I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

RACCOON RABIES

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, you're responsible for both managing

wildlife and treating citizens with dignity. On September 12, your ministry raided the Ottawa-Carleton Wildlife Centre, a world-recognized facility. Unbelievably, they had let a squirrel go more

than one kilometre from where it was found, and they had raccoons in their possession.

You got a court order to seize them, although your staff didn't have the courtesy to show the court order. They tricked their way into the facility. Twenty

police officers put a perimeter around it to keep the media away and 25 of your conservation officers in bulletproof vests managed to overpower the three female employees in it. You seized 34

healthy young raccoons and one skunk, all from within Ottawa, which has no rabies. Read the local media about it.

Minister, will you apologize to the staff for the brutal treatment they experienced from your staff and will you return the animals to the centre, because you

cannot prove that they have rabies?

Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member opposite for the question. As we know, a lot of profile has been

brought to this issue.

Very specifically, we are concerned with the safety of individuals in that area. Raccoon rabies is a new strain of rabies coming into Ontario and we are doing

everything we can. When it comes to the safety of the people in that part of the province, we are going to ensure they are safe. We are also monitoring and keeping track of those raccoons to ensure

they are well taken care of.

Mr Parsons: You have a full-service ministry: you're bad to both animals and humans. In fact, your ministry is the worst enemy of raccoons in

this province. Your own data -- and you know it -- show that rabies is moving away from Ottawa, yet your staff have killed 7,000 raccoons and found only 14 that possibly have rabies.

Killing every raccoon to save them is not smart. How far are you going to go? Wipe out every animal in Ontario until rabies is finished? Wildlife rescue

centres are your allies; they're not your enemies.

I ask you again, will you apologize for the brutal way your staff took over that animal wildlife centre, will you return the animals and will you meet with the

rescue centres and work with them co-operatively instead of the confrontation and bully tactics you have used?

Hon Mr Ouellette: Clearly, what the member opposite has asked us to do is to direct police forces and law enforcement agencies. This ministry

and our government do not in any way, shape or form direct enforcement officers on how they are going to react and deal with situations.

We will ensure that the best interests and the safety of the people of Ontario are looked into and taken care of.

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

WILDLANDS PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is also for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, I think I speak for everyone in the

Legislature when I say that having Queen Elizabeth II visit our province recently was a tremendous honour. As we know, it was her Golden Jubilee. This government decided to memorialize this special

occasion in a truly unique way.

Could you please explain to us here today how the government --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Member from Ottawa Centre, come to order, please. Sorry, member.

Mr Miller: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for getting control of things.

Minister, could you please explain to us here today how the government has decided to remember this very special time when Queen Elizabeth II visited

Ontario?

Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka. It truly was exciting for the province of

Ontario to have Her Majesty celebrate part of her Golden Jubilee here in the province. That's why we are proud, as part of the government, to announce the Queen Elizabeth II Wildlands Provincial

Park, the largest park established to date under Ontario's Living Legacy. It's very special for the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka as well, as a major portion of that park is found in his

riding.

Queen Elizabeth II Wildlands Provincial Park will link Ontario's priceless natural legacy with the living legacy of the monarchy.

Mr Miller: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I would like to agree with the minister and say that this truly is a wonderful way to

commemorate the occasion of Queen Elizabeth II visiting Ontario. I'm also happy to note that part of this new park is in the beautiful riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Minister, could you explain to us here today how this park came to be and what features of this park make this park so special?

Hon Mr Ouellette: Queen Elizabeth II Wildlands Provincial Park is approximately 335 square kilometres and is approximately 100 to 150

kilometres north-northeast of here. The park was originally regulated as Dalton Digby Wildlands Provincial Park, which were two of the five townships the park was located in. There are dozens of

lakes and rivers, including the well-known Victoria Falls, which is a series of waterfalls on the Black River. The park also contains other biologically significant areas such as the Sadowa and the

Lewisham wetlands. Also, Ontario's only lizard, the five-lined skink, is found in this very majestic park named after Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, I want to talk about the importance of

I want to tell you, I came to Toronto from Italy in 1962. I was supposed to be in grade 4, but they put me into grade 3. That very first day, the teacher asked

me a question in mathematics which I didn't understand, and immediately I was put into grade 2. I didn't have the benefit of ESL.

Many new Canadians today are not getting the ESL help they need. The number of ESL programs and ESL teachers has dropped in the last five years. There are more

and more new Canadians and fewer and fewer ESL programs. Why would you let that happen?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I'm not sure that all of the facts he has enunciated are exactly as he has

represented them, because I can tell the member opposite that funding for ESL has increased every year since we introduced student-focused funding in 1998-99. In fact, this year, 2002-03, it is

projected to be approximately $168.5 million. That is a 50% increase, as compared to 1998-99.

Mr Marchese: I'm not quite sure why the minister would boast about kids not succeeding very well. I'm not sure why you boast that you put so

much money into ESL. In the survey that People for Education have done, one third of the schools no longer offer ESL and we have one third less ESL teachers. These kids don't have academic

Hon Mrs Witmer: All the initiatives that our government has introduced have been introduced with the intention of helping students achieve

success.

I would just say to the member opposite, as far as the survey he refers to is concerned, that we have to question the methodology because it only deals with

schools that have actually reported, and so the numbers certainly are not terribly accurate.

I would just refer you to a quote from the Honourable David Cooke, Minister of Education and Training, a member of your party. When asked about ESL, he said,

"There's no doubt it's important. We're doing the best we can. We can't spend as much money as we would like to spend because we all have financial constraints." Then he went on to say, "Do you

know what? It's obviously a need. Maybe we need to call upon the federal government to help us."

PETITIONS

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas average tuition fees in Ontario are the second-highest in Canada; and

"Whereas average undergraduate tuition fees in Ontario have more than doubled in the past 10 years; and

"Whereas tuition fees for deregulated programs have, in certain cases, doubled and tripled; and

"Whereas Statistics Canada has documented a link between increasing tuition fees and diminishing access to post-secondary education; and

"Whereas four other provincial governments have taken a leadership role by freezing and reducing tuition fees;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

"Freeze tuition fees for all programs at their current levels, and

"Take steps to reduce the tuition fees of all graduate programs, post-diploma programs and professional programs for which tuition fees have been deregulated

since 1998."

This is signed by literally hundreds of concerned constituents in my riding. I affix my signature in full agreement with their concerns.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

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

effective August 1, 2002; and

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

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

"Whereas the increase in the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day;

and

"Whereas according to the government's own funded study, Ontario ranks last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a resident for

nursing and personal care; and

"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need;

and

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I will affix my signature and give it to Matthew to bring it forward to the desk.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system

operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totalling approximately $150 million; and

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

"Whereas this retroactive charge will affect all customers who receive Union Gas, including new homeowners and new customers to Union Gas;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we the undersigned demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board

Act disallowing the retroactive rate hike granted to Union Gas; and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes that

will protect consumers from further retroactive rate increases."

This petition is signed by a number of residents of Chatham, Pain Court, Grande Pointe and Wallaceburg, and I too have signed this petition.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Further petitions?

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I also have a petition regarding Union Gas, signed by over 1,000 of my constituents.

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system

operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01; and

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

"Whereas this retroactive charge will affect all customers who receive Union Gas, including new homeowners;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy

Board Act disallowing the retroactive hike granted to Union Gas, and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes that

will protect consumers from further retroactive increases."

I'm in full agreement and have affixed my signature to the petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): This deals with the long-term-care situation. The petition has been signed by people from

Gloucester, Picton, Mississauga, Fenwick, Wainfleet, Caledon, Cobham, Thorold, North York and Newmarket. It reads as follows.

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid by seniors, the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities, by 15% over three years, or $3.02

per diem in the first year and $2 in the second year and $2 in the third year, effective September 1, 2002; and

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

"Whereas this increase is above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario for the year 2002; and

"Whereas, according to the government's own funded study, Ontario will still rank last among comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a

resident for nursing and personal care; and

"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need;

and

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

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

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

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

"Demand that Premier Eves reduce the 15% increase over three years in accommodation costs to no more than the cost-of-living increase annually and that the

provincial government provide adequate funding for nursing and personal care to a level that is at least at the average standard for nursing and personal care in those 10 jurisdictions included in

the government's own funded study."

As I mentioned before, this has been signed by literally hundreds of individuals from all over the province. I agree with it and have signed it accordingly.

I'm handing it now to Hin-Hey.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): The petition is related to Union Gas. Retroactive delivery charges continue to come in, and

we're still hoping that they will back off and not collect the $120 charge.

The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system

operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01 totalling approximately $150 million;

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

"Whereas this retroactive charge will affect all customers who receive Union Gas, including new homeowners and new customers to Union Gas;

"Therefore we demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act disallowing the retroactive

rate hike granted to Union Gas, and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes that will protect consumers from

further retroactive rate increases."

I am absolutely in support of this petition, and I am very happy to add my signature to it.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We have some more, do we? Petitions? Who hasn't been up? The member for Prince Edward-Hastings.

WILDLIFE REHABILITATORS

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"The unreasonable and inhumane restrictions that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is placing on wildlife rehabilitators with respect to the release of

orphaned animals will eliminate their ability to help wildlife; and

"Whereas wildlife rehabilitators provide an essential public service for many thousands of people seeking help on behalf of orphaned and injured wildlife in

Ontario; and

"Whereas the unreasonable release restrictions imposed on wildlife rehabilitators by the OMNR will prevent responsible wildlife rehabilitation, not only

compromising wildlife and frustrating the public but forcing it underground and jeopardizing public safety; and

"Whereas this will incur significant new costs for local governments with respect to bylaw and public health and safety interventions while creating an

emotional and volatile climate because the majority of people in Ontario are simply unwilling to see healthy young animals euthanized;

"We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that the release restrictions imposed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources will eliminate the provision of

responsible wildlife services in our community; and

"We petition the government of Ontario to work with wildlife rehabilitators to ensure that progressive, humane and responsible regulations with respect to

release criteria for rehabilitated orphaned wildlife are put in place in Ontario."

I am pleased to add my signature to over 200 signatures from Ottawa, Acton, Guelph, Rockwood, Stoney Creek, Toronto, Mississauga and Belleville.

HYDRO RATES

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

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

service; and

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

"Whereas consumers have been advised to expect power shortages in spite of higher costs; and

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

their hydro invoices;

"Therefore

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

order to inform and protect the public interest."

I'm in full agreement and have signed this petition.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the people of Chatham-Kent and Essex county in Ontario, need a program and health care system where every person who wishes to receive chiropractic

services has full coverage, as they would at a visit to the doctor's office.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario: that chiropractic services be covered through OHIP."

It's signed by a number of residents from Blenheim and Chatham, and I have signed this petition.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Children's mental health services are in great crisis in Thunder Bay. I've got a petition to

read to fight for more funding from the province.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the children and families with the Lakehead Regional Family Centre deserve to have quality and timely children's mental health services; and

"Whereas for the first time Lakehead Regional Family Centre has a deficit budget of $200,000 due to the lack of adequate funding from the provincial government

and the sharp increase in the demands for children's mental health services in the city of Thunder Bay; and

"Whereas referrals to Lakehead Regional Family Centre have increased 150% since 1995, and no additional permanent funding has been received to help meet the

needs of our community; and

"Whereas since 1993, the government's investment in core funding for children's mental health services has declined by 8%, and salaries for staff are up to 30%

lower than in hospitals and other government services; and

"Whereas according to the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 18% of children and youth in Ontario have a diagnosable mental health disorder, and yet Ontario only

treats one in six of these children; and

"Whereas without immediate additional permanent funding, children's mental health services could be severely restricted to those children and families who need

it the most;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario and residents of the city of Thunder Bay, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"For the provincial government to provide an immediate infusion of additional permanent funding to the Lakehead Regional Family Centre to help fight the crisis

situation facing children's mental health services in the city of Thunder Bay."

I support this strongly and am happy to add my name to the petition.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I have a petition signed by 18 of my constituents who are members or adherents of the Elora United

Church. It demands that the provincial government immediately call a public inquiry into the 1996 killing of Dudley George.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): More petitions concerning Union Gas:

"Whereas the Ontario Energy Board has consented to allow Union Gas to retroactively charge $40 per month for a three-month period to recover additional system

operation costs that occurred during the winter of 2000-01; and

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

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive disallowing the retroactive rate hike

granted to Union Gas, and demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes that will protect consumers from further retroactive rate

increases."

I am in full agreement and will sign my name to this petition.

HYDRO RATES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas electricity bills have skyrocketed under the Harris-Eves government's flawed electricity plan; and

"Whereas some consumers have signed higher fixed-rate contracts with retailers without adequate consumer protection; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has failed to address electricity supply shortages in Ontario, forcing the purchase of American power at premium prices,

driving up prices still further; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government appointed a board of directors for Hydro One that has been paying themselves extravagant salaries, compensation packages

and severances for senior executives; and

"Whereas Hydro One bought 90 municipal utilities, serving about 240,000 people across Ontario, at premium prices and with borrowed funds. These purchases with

borrowed funds have increased Ontario's debt burden; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has added additional fees and taxes on to local electricity distribution companies. These charges have also been passed

along to consumers;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris-Eves government take immediate action to ensure that Ontarians have fair and

reasonable prices for the necessary commodity of electricity in Ontario and that the Harris-Eves government and its leader, Ernie Eves, call a general election on the instability of the energy

market so that Ontarians may have a voice on this issue."

I affix my signature. I am in complete agreement.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing

order or special order of the House relating to Bill 179,

An Act to promote government efficiency and to improve services to taxpayers by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting one new

Act, when Bill 179 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and

at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy; and

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

That the standing committee on justice and social policy shall be authorized to meet for one day at its next scheduled meeting time for the purpose of

consideration of the bill; and

That, no later than 4 pm on that day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall

interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. The committee

shall be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment until completion of clause-by-clause consideration. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been

put and taken in succession, with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the

completion of clause-by-clause consideration. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be

reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the standing committee on justice and social policy, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report

forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called on that same day; and

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

amendment; and

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

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

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Hudak has moved government motion 47. Debate? No. OK, then we go across the floor.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Once again, we're seeing debate limited. This government has chosen to do time allocation on any

bill that may have any substance at all. Again, the voice of the citizens in Ontario is being stifled. I can understand why they want to stifle it on this bill, because this is so all-encompassing.

It's called an omnibus bill. It is 247 pages. I don't know how well it shows on a TV camera but it is a massive document that affects almost every aspect of life in Ontario. The government doesn't

want to debate it. The government wants to get it over with because it is better that people not know what legislation is being passed.

That is terribly sad for democracy. This government has slowly chipped away, slowly taken the powers of this Legislature and concentrated them in the Premier's

office. There's a sadness in my heart when I think of what people have done to preserve democracy, when we think of various other countries in the world where people are prepared to die to get

democracy, and we ram things through.

The member for Beaches-East York went through last week and read every act that is amended by this. I compliment him on it, because it took quite some time to

do the reading.

I'd like to talk briefly about the act and why we're opposed to it simply being rammed through without full public debate. There are a multitude of reasons in

here, but we can start with the independent health facilities. We have these all over Ontario and you can go and get your X-rays or sonograms done at them.

At one time, when they were going to be sold, there was preference given to another Canadian operator. That's gone. That was gone before this Bill 179 was ever

put before the House. There was no interest in preserving our medical system in the hands of Canadians. The most likely candidate to purchase, other than a Canadian, is someone from the United

States, and their experience with health care should cause a shudder to go through all of us, with their costs.

They've now changed it in this Bill 179. There used to be a cap on it. You took whatever billings the clinic had billed over the previous year and they were

allowed to settle for not over 104% of those billings. There's no cap now. It's up to the minister. This is just begging for for-profit corporations to come into Ontario and exploit -- and I'll use

the word "exploit" -- the citizens of this province. We're moving very steadily toward two-tier medicine.

It happens a little bit at a time. This government says, "Nothing changes. This bill makes a couple of little minor amendments." We get a whole bunch of little

minor amendments and pretty soon health care is totally different than it was. I would suggest that health care now is totally different than it was in 1995. In 1995 we didn't have the waiting

rooms, we didn't have people without doctors and we didn't have people with money moving to the front of the line. This is one of the steps in enabling that to happen. That's very sad.

This bill also changes some appointments from being made by the Lieutenant Governor to being made by the minister. The

difference is that it removes the right of the people of Ontario to find out what's going on using freedom of information.

We need only look at Hydro One. Hydro One was structured so that the citizens of Ontario would get an absolute minimum amount of material. That philosophy

continues today. It's only through marketing offerings that we found out that the president of Ontario Hydro was making $2.2 million and that we were helping to drive the president's children to

school in a limousine each day. At the same time, that limousine would be passing people who were living on the sidewalks, with no home and no food. What a contrast. This bill moves more toward

concealing the information that should be available to the public, but, again, it is being barred.

There is some absolutely silly stuff in here that I can't understand the government's lawyers wanting to work on. If someone now wants to know the number of

vacation days they have, they're allowed to ask that only once a year. We've got bigger issues than putting through legislation to restrict that. You've already put through legislation that bars

someone from having the right to have two weeks off continuously. Now they can only ask once a year. Surely we have something more.

Domestic violence: this is something that perplexes me. A government that purports to oppose domestic violence and in fact has spent some very good money on

very good programs is now saying it will be phased in. The things necessary to get a restraining order and having 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week access to a restraining order are going to be

phased in. That wasn't mentioned at the press conference. We're talking about people's lives. There's money for cabinet ministers' expenses; surely there would be money for stopping domestic

violence, or as much as can be stopped, now, not in a few years. That's not very efficient. That's a long way from efficient and yet they call it

An Act to promote government efficiency. I guess a

reduction in service may, in some ways, be construed as improving efficiency because you don't have to spend money to do what you have to do. But in this case, I want you to spend the money to save

people's lives.

The 407: this government continues to have a love relationship with the corporation that owns the 407. In a secret deal to sell it to them, they in turn have

provided absolutely terrible service, even in my rural riding, Prince Edward-Hastings. I have people getting bills from the 407 corporation, and yet they've never been in this area or driven on the

407. Now, when they go to contact 407 the phone is not answered. The light may be on but nobody's home. Now we're seeing that if a cheque to the 407 is bounced, for whatever reason -- we certainly

don't condone cheques to bounce -- this government uses all of its weight as a collection agency for this business.

There's no other business that you do that for. Why are you doing it for the 407 that you would take away the driver's licence if a cheque bounces? I have

small grocery stores in my community who take cheques, and if it bounces, they're in trouble. They're often in deep financial trouble and they may have trouble recovering the money and it is a cash

flow problem for them. This government says, "You're on your own." But, the 407 and the 407 only, this bill will remove the driver's licence if someone issues a bad cheque. I guess it pays to be a

friend of the Conservative Party because they very clearly look after their friends with this 407 bill.

Longer trucks: I had the pleasure last Friday of speaking to the sheep marketing agency annual meeting in Guelph. I drove back from Guelph to my home in the

riding on a dark night in the rain. One of the challenges of driving in a rainstorm is passing trucks and the amount of mist that comes up from them. A dark night, and the traffic lines are not

well-painted. They used to be before 1995, but the traffic lines are faded heavily in some areas. When you get into where the 401 is four or five lanes wide, it's difficult to see where the line

is. These trucks put up a huge amount of mist that makes it very difficult to pass a truck that's going in the same direction. This bill will allow the Minister of Transportation to extend the

lengths of trucks that are allowed. Already they're a problem; this will only extend it. I would suggest that is not an efficiency -- efficiency might actually be putting those trucks on railway

cars and moving them from one city to another. But certainly extending it is rather scary, and we're going to hand the minister that power.

It's interesting when we look at this efficiency bill at what's not in the bill. I've always been amazed, since 1995, when this government pointed out just how

inefficient school boards are. They were going to take money out of the administration and put it in the classroom and they were going to make school boards more efficient -- even though school

boards spend in the area of 1% to 2% on administration, which is as good as any industry could match. When this government took over school boards, when they are actually responsible for the

decisions, if we look at Ottawa, and they said, "There's money being wasted here," did they cut administration? No. They cut classroom teachers -- appallingly, classroom teachers for special

education students and educational assistants for special education students.

When the government took over Hamilton, did they cut administration costs? No, there wasn't fat there, in spite of what they've said. They cut special

education. I would suggest to you that special education students are not inefficient. They are a good moral and financial investment, and a responsibility for us.

In Toronto, are we seeing admin cut? No, we're seeing a tax on special ed and swimming pools. Swimming pools may be viewed as a luxury for most of rural

Ontario school boards, but in Toronto, it is the only access students have to that type of physical activity.

You want to talk about efficiencies that should be addressed in this bill: the Family Responsibility Office. I challenge every member on the government side to

do some calculations and find out how many hours a day your staff spend dealing with family responsibility issues that the Family Responsibility Office is not handling. It's not that they don't

want to handle them well. The trouble is that you cut staff so very heavily there that three quarters of the accounts are in arrears. When we say three quarters of the accounts are in arrears, we

mean that three quarters of the children who rely on payments through the Family Responsibility Office are not receiving the money they need for shelter, clothing and food. Your savings are costing

thousands and thousands of children --

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Two hundred thousand.

Mr Parsons: Two hundred thousand children are being shortchanged by your trying to save some money. But again, there seems to be no cap on

expense claims.

Farms: how are you making farms more efficient? Well, you closed all the agricultural officers in southern Ontario. That was efficient because it reduced the

money you had to spend, but it greatly increased the challenge. I will throw another challenge at you that needs to be addressed: where are the young farmers in Ontario? They're receiving no

support from this government; they have a mammoth task. There is a day coming very shortly in Ontario when we will have a problem, when we do not have young farmers to replace the existing farmers

we have.

Indeed, not only are you not helping young farmers, but when this Legislature passed the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act, and it was a good act, you didn't

move on from there and say, "What else has to happen? What do we have to deal with?" We are seeing some of the prime land in Ontario, A1 agricultural land, being used for development. That causes

prices such that a young farmer can't even consider getting into the business. If you want to do something with an efficiency act, do something that keeps food on the table here in Ontario and that

keeps our farmers at work.

Water: we're hearing lots of rhetoric about your actions to improve the quality of water, although you didn't even want to hold the inquiry initially. I

suggest that you would invest money wisely to look at the whole issue of the disposal of our garbage. Don't let it go in the ground and pollute the groundwater. Instead of spending money on getting

the bad stuff out of the water, why don't you spend a little money and do a whole environmental assessment on every possible source of pollution, every garbage dump, and make sure we're not

contributing to the problem in future years? There should be no more groundwater pollution. And when your government shortcuts the environmental impact study, when they remove a lot of the

questions so we can fast-track and get this garbage in place, that is not very efficient. That is a disservice to the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I am glad to be able to participate in this debate. This is time allocation -- what's the number now?

I've got to look across the way; somebody for sure is going to tell me.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): The third one.

Mr Bisson: Oh, yes, the third time allocation motion -- in your dreams.

We're now time-allocating the Government Efficiency Act. It's become a matter of course around here that we have three days of debate at second reading and

then we have a time allocation motion on the fourth day. I just think that's rather sad. It says something to the point that democracy within this province and within this Legislature has gone, has

kind of slipped away. It says something about the kinds of changes we have to make in our Legislature to make it work properly.

Some people back home are going to say, "What difference does it make if you time-allocate something? I really don't care. I don't really pay any attention to

this. I don't watch it very closely." I just say to people, "There is a process in Parliament, at both the federal and provincial levels, that says you're supposed to have a proper amount of time

to look at bills, to reflect on where they're strong and where they're weak, and, where they are weak, hopefully to have an opportunity to bring them into committee and have some further discussion

with the public, where they get to come and present before us, and we, as legislators, sit back and think about what they've said and then try to strengthen the bills, so that at the end of the day

the bills that are passed by our Legislature are stronger bills."

Unfortunately, that's not the case. What we've been doing around here, especially since the Conservatives have taken office -- in fairness, some of this was

done by all governments. The Liberals brought the idea of time allocation into this Legislature, we in the New Democratic Party certainly used it when we were in office, and the Tories have become

masters at it. By and large, every bill that comes through this House is time-allocated. At least before, it was just the odd bill. When we were in government, it was sort of the government

initiative bills that would go by time allocation motion. The rest would go by way of regular debate. The Liberals before that, as I said, had the opportunity to time-allocate a number of things,

including some rule changes they made.

I just say it's rather sad, because here's a really good example of a bill that should be allowed to go to committee in order to make some amendments. There

are certain things in this Government Efficiency Act that I can support as a member in the opposition. There's some stuff in here that I think is not a bad idea. But lumped within this particular

bill are a number of problematic issues that I think don't belong in this bill and don't belong on a legislative agenda. Because of the process that the government has undertaken -- three days of

debate at second reading, time allocation, and boom, you're in third reading and it's gone -- here we are with a bill that says a number of things that are problematic, and I just want to go

through a couple of them.

One of them is under the Employment Standards Act. The government is making a change. They're saying that if you're in a non-unionized environment -- I'll just

use this as a scenario -- and you have, let's say, four weeks of holidays, under the old Employment Standards Act if you wanted to ask your employer, "Listen, I've got four weeks of holidays. I

want to take three of my four weeks to go fishing this summer," or "My wife and I are taking a trip somewhere in the fall," you had the ability to do that. Under changes that this government made

prior, it gives the employer the opportunity to say, "No, no, you can't take three weeks straight. You have to unbundle your holidays and you're going to take three days here and four days there

and three days here," so that people can't take their continuous holidays in one consecutive session.

I say that's rather unfortunate, because the whole idea of holidays is not only to give people a break from work so they can go out and refresh themselves and

come back to their employers with all kinds of energy to perform better; it's also about supporting the tourism industry here in Canada.

If you take a look at the experience in France, they have a system that on day one, when you walk into an employer, the state provides you, by legislation,

five weeks' or four weeks' holidays in the first year. As a consequence, France has built the largest tourism industry in all the world. There are more people who holiday and travel in France than

in any other country in the world. A lot of people don't recognize that. The reason for that is not only that France is a nice place to visit for those of us who come from abroad, and I've been

there a number of times, but people living in France travel. That's the stat that is really interesting. It says that as a percentage, if you were to work out the ratios, there are more French

people travelling within France, in their own country, than there are Canadians travelling in Canada or Americans travelling in the United States etc. One of the reasons for that is that the French

have encouraged people to take holidays.

This government, by way of a previous amendment to the Employment Standards Act, has said, "You're allowed to take your holidays continuously for those four

weeks," if you have four weeks, "but the employer reserves the right to limit that." So if the employer decides that you're only taking three days here and four days there, there's nothing you can

do about it as an employee, provided that you get your total four weeks within a calendar year.

Now the government comes with an amendment to what I think was already a bad decision. This is one of the reasons I would like this bill to go to committee.

One of the things they say under the Employment Standards Act is that they are going to make it a law that the employer only has to tell the employee -- get a load of this -- once in a calendar

year how many holidays he or she has coming. So figure this one out. I go to my employer on January 1 and I say, "Hey, this year I get four weeks of holidays. Mr Boss, Mrs Boss, I get four weeks,

right?" "Yes, no problem, Gilles, you've got four weeks." "OK, cool. I want to book three weeks in April. My wife and I want to go to Florida." "Oh, no, you can't do that. Under the old legislation

I'm allowed to say now that you can only have three days there and another week over there." "Oh, I can't take my holiday. Well, thank you very much, Mr Boss, Mrs Boss. I'm going to go out and make

my arrangements."

You go out and you take your first week's holiday in April and then you come back and say, "Honey, springtime is in the air. The cottage needs opening up.

We've got a little bit of work to do there. I think I'm going to go to my employer and say, `Can I have my other week?'" So I go to my employer and say, "I'm not sure how many holidays I've got

coming to me. I've taken three days and two days there and another day over there because you didn't allow me to take my holidays continuously. How many holidays do I have, Mr Employer?" "I don't

have to tell you," says the employer. "What do you mean, you don't have to tell me?"

The law, according to the amendment made in this act, says that an employer is only required once in a calendar year to tell an employee how many holidays he

or she has coming. Isn't that silly, absolutely silly? I couldn't believe that when I read it in the legislation, but in this act there is a provision to amend the Employment Standards Act so that

employers are not required more than once per year to inform employees how many holidays they've got coming. What a silly, silly piece of legislation that I would say has nothing to do with common

sense. If this bill got to committee, I think most Conservative members would agree with me and we'd repeal that part of the legislation.

Another part of the legislation that I have great difficulty with deals with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. It goes as follows: The act

condition for the students to be eligible for loans.

That's completely the opposite of the direction we've got to go, I would argue as a social democrat. We are a knowledge-based economy. In other words, the more

people we have in our economy who are working that have high degrees of training and skills, the better our economy will do, because that's how we compete in this new modern economy. We can't

compete as Mexicans or as Puerto Ricans or as people in Thailand or Vietnam. They basically compete on their wage rate, the low standard of wages they pay their employees and employment standards

acts that are nothing like ours when it comes to working conditions. We have to have something that allows us to compete in our own way. How we compete, quite frankly, is by having people who are

well trained, well schooled in the colleges and universities with the skills he or she might get as they go through post-secondary education.

My argument is that this particular amendment is going to make it more difficult for students, after high school, to get

into college or university. We already know that students that decide to go to college or university, by and large, have to go into debt, significantly large debt, to be able to get that

post-secondary education.

What we're now saying is that we're going to add some conditions to make sure the government is able to collect on default loans, basically have students sign

promissory notes that are pretty severe. I can tell you, as a young person who was making a choice to go to college when I went way back when, it would have been very difficult to make that

decision to sign that kind of document knowing that the government could hold that hammer against me. If you're going into any kind of graduate studies, tuition in a graduate studies program is at

least -- it's gone up to about $7,000 to $10,000 a year, and you've got to go for a period of five years? Do the math. Students are going to be sitting back and saying, "This is kind of scary

stuff."

I would argue that we should be doing exactly the opposite. What we should be doing, what we've been suggesting as New Democrats here in Ontario, is to take a

look at some of the European models. Specifically, let's look at what Ireland has done. Ireland, the basket case of economies 20 years ago, basically a have-not economy in Europe, made some very

fundamental decisions. One of the key things they said was, "We will make the investments in education. Specifically, we will make the investments in post-secondary education." You know what they

did? They made tuition free. They said, "You don't have to pay to go to college or university. We want to encourage all young people in the free state of Ireland to go to college and go to

university and get the skills that are offered at those colleges and universities. Later on, there's going to be opportunity for you." As well, that government did some economic development

initiatives that attracted some investment into Ireland.

As a result, it's called the Celtic Tiger. They have had, over the past seven to 10 years, a huge, phenomenal response to foreign investment. Why? Because they

have the knowledge base within their economy. They got the young engineers, the young professionals who are there, capable, willing to work, who have the energy and, more importantly, have the

training.

How did they do that? The government made a policy decision. Rather than investing in a tax cut, as this government has done, they invested in education and

gave the young Irish people opportunity and hope by allowing them to go to college or university without a tuition cost.

I would argue that this bill, the Government Efficiency Act, basically -- as I said at the beginning, parts of it I can support. I can't support that

particular bill because of what I just read as part of this act. It goes completely in the opposite direction from what I believe as a social democrat.

So I say to the government, that's why we shouldn't be time-allocating bills. That's why these bills should have proper House time and proper committee time,

so people can come before us and talk to us about these initiatives and tell us how you deal with the issue of collection if the government is going to have an OSAP program in a way that we're not

going to scare students out of the school system.

Then they've got another amendment in this one. This one really takes the cake. I know my good friend Michael Prue has raised this with me a number of times,

and we've chatted about this. This is the 407 debacle. Here's the situation with Highway 407: you buy your transponder to run up on the 407 and you stick the transponder up on your windshield.

You're running down the road and you've been doing that for about a year, for two years or three years, in some cases, and every time you go through with that little sensor it says, "Here comes

Gilles Bisson's car. Send him another bill."

Now we've found out that they've got a problem: the little batteries die inside those transponders but there's no mechanism to let you know that the battery is

dead. There's no little warning light. There's no little beeping that comes to the unit. There's nothing to indicate your battery's dead, so you don't know. You just get on Highway 407 and you go

like you do every morning. All of a sudden, you start getting bills from 407 saying, "You got on this toll highway without a transponder, so we're going to charge you more." You say, "What do you

mean? I've got a transponder. Hang on, where's that 407 number? I'm going to call those guys and fix this up." "Beep, beep, beep," you can't get through, or, "Hello, you have reached Highway 407.

If you want help, ignore us, because you can press a button and go nowhere."

Laughter.

Mr Bisson: I'm telling you, it's serious. We've made the calls. You can't get through to them.

Here I am with a transponder I've purchased whose battery is dead. I'm being dinged every time I go through and am having to pay for things I shouldn't have to

pay for. Here I am calling the 407 corporation -- you know, the private sector does it best, eh? I know Mr Gilchrist will get up afterwards and talk on the virtues of the private sector. We all

know how good they are. Boy, do they know how to run that highway. Wow.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Is the transponder battery working in your plane?

Mr Bisson: The difference, my friend Steve -- you're a pilot as well. The transponder battery on my aircraft is checked every year and

certified, as you well know. The one inside the car is not.

Anyway, I just say that here we are in a situation where you're trying to call the 407 corporation to say, "Please, issue me another battery or another

transponder. I've got to get this fixed because I keep on getting dinged." You can't get through, so you say, "Not a problem; I'm going to go to the kiosk," because they've got the 407 kiosk where

you should be able to go and get this dealt with. You go to the kiosk and they say, "Sorry, can't help you. You've got to call the 407 corporation." "Well, I can't get a hold of them. That's why I

came over here." "Sorry, there's no way we can call them because there's no telephone at the kiosk." It's one great big vicious circle after another.

Here is where it gets even better. This is where it comes to this bill. Now I've been charged -- I don't know. If I travel every day, that means two trips per

day. I've been after 407 for a period of three or four weeks trying to get this straightened out. It hasn't been straightened out, so it means for 20 trips times two, for 40 charges now, I've been

charged as if I don't have a transponder. That all adds up to money.

Finally, I get my transponder problem fixed because I finally got a way of getting this fixed, but here's the fun part: I've been charged for this fee I

shouldn't have to pay because my battery was dead, so I decide not to pay it. I say, "Listen, it wasn't my fault that you guys never answered your phone. It wasn't my fault that there was no

indication to tell me the battery was dead. It wasn't my fault at all. I'm paying for what I've used and I'm not paying those extra charges." They're going to say, "Too bad. You've got to pay us."

"But it wasn't me," I say. Then they say --

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): They'll take your licence.

Mr Bisson: That's where I'm going, Mr Gill. That's exactly where I'm going. Basically, 407 is trying to collect all this money and I'm saying,

"No, I don't want to pay you because I shouldn't have to pay you." They say, "No, you've got to pay me," and I say, "No, I don't want to pay you." They say, "Well, it's OK. The government is giving

us some teeth. They're allowing us, in this legislation, to take your driver's licence away."

Mr Gilchrist: You're wrong.

Mr Bisson: There it goes. I want to hear my friend the pilot over there talk to me about it a little bit later.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Bisson: Hello, Speaker. Under this act, they're basically giving the 407 the ability to suspend somebody's licence on the basis of not

paying charges they were charged by the 407 corporation.

Certainly we don't want to allow a private sector corporation the ability to suspend somebody's driver's licence. That's a principled item. But most of all, do

we want those people to have the right to withdraw somebody's driver's licence on the basis of what I've just described? I don't think so.

I say to the