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

May 7, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-May-07 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 7 May 2003 Mercredi 7 mai 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 7

COMMENTS OF LIBERAL MEMBERS

OLD FORT WILLIAM

HISTORICAL PARK

NURSING WEEK

LONG-TERM CARE

MEAT INSPECTORS

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

COMMUNITY LIVING MISSISSAUGA

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

ON SCHOOL BUSES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS

DANS LES AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES

INSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIAN

STUDIES ACT, 2003

SMART TRANSPORTATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR UN SYSTÈME

INTELLIGENT DE TRANSPORT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ

ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

TRAFALGAR MORAINE

PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA MORAINE DE TRAFALGAR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TRANSPORTATION

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

WEST NILE VIRUS

ADAMS MINE

HYDRO DEREGULATION

WEST NILE VIRUS

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FUNDING

DON JAIL

RURAL EDUCATION FUNDING

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

HYDRO GENERATION

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

TRANSPORTATION

VISITORS

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

OHIP SERVICES

GOLF COURSE ASSESSMENT

ALUMINUM SMELTER

PROTECTION OF TEMAGAMI

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

LONG-TERM CARE

MEDICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

GOLF COURSE ASSESSMENT

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

CHILD CARE

VISITORS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Wednesday 7 May 2003 Mercredi 7 mai 2003

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 7

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Yesterday I asked this House for unanimous consent to give second and third reading to Bill 7. Bill 7

is a short, one-page bill. The bill simply includes the customers of Great Lakes Power in the rural rate assistance program that applies to Hydro One customers and a number of other local

distribution companies.

This bill would have the immediate effect of bringing the outrageous distribution charges in the Great Lakes Power area in line with other electricity

distribution companies. This bill will help the people of Wawa, Dubreuilville, Hawk Junction, Laird, Desbarats, St Joseph Island, Searchmont, Goulais, Havilland Bay, Batchawana, Echo Bay and other

communities within the service area. It would make the bills in Bruce Mines the same as the ones in Wharncliffe, who are customers of Hydro One.

Even though Howard Hampton and the NDP are blocking this bill, the government can move. It can include Great Lakes Power customers in rural rate assistance by

regulation. It can address the problems with the rates by regulation. It can move now and it can move swiftly. Next Wednesday, the cabinet should approve regulations addressing these issues. Great

Lakes customers should not be discriminated against.

COMMENTS OF LIBERAL MEMBERS

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Today I seek clarification about comments made by Mr McGuinty in my riding of

Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale on Monday. During his visit to the Pearson Airport taxi and limo compounds, Mr McGuinty told many of my constituents in attendance that he favours compensation for

those who have been economically affected by SARS. What I would like to know is, how much is he willing to provide for compensation for all those affected economically by SARS? When pressed by the

media about a dollar amount, the Liberal leader did what he does best and avoided giving an answer.

I also find it interesting that Mr McGuinty suddenly took an interest in my scoopers bill only after it passed second reading.

The playing-both-sides strategy of the opposition could be seen later on the same day, when the member for St Paul's criticized Premier Eves for having other

government caucus members and candidates at the police funding announcement in Toronto. Is the member for St Paul's aware that his own leader brought his Peel region candidates to his photo op at

Pearson in my riding that morning? Is the member also aware that Mr McGuinty held a similar photo op at Peel Regional Police headquarters one month ago?

These Liberal inconsistencies are clear. My scoopers bill is substantive in getting results for my constituents while keeping the public safe. The Premier's

police announcement is also substantive and provides results to Ontarians. The members for Ottawa South and St Paul's evidently don't share the substantive and results-oriented policies that define

this side of the Legislature.

OLD FORT WILLIAM

HISTORICAL PARK

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): On Easter Monday, a devastating flash flood hit Old Fort William Historical Park. The damage is

extensive; the repairs will be costly. Nevertheless, the repairs must be made and must be made quickly.

For those who may be unaware, Old Fort William Historical Park is a reconstruction of the fur trading headquarters of the Northwest Fur Trading Co. Fort William

was in every sense central to the history of this country. It was the site every year of the Great Rendezvous, when the company partners from Montreal and the wintering partners from the distant

northwest came together to do the company business. It was of course the business of the fur trade that provided both the incentive and the resources to open up the country. The great explorers

David Thompson, Alexander Mackenzie and Simon Fraser were Northwest Co partners.

Fort William was our country's first great meeting place of east and west. From its earliest days it was a microcosm of the multicultural realities of our

Great Rendezvous.

This is to be a particularly important season at Fort William, both economically and historically. It is a double-celebration year, celebrating 30 years since

the reconstruction of the fort and, more importantly, celebrating the 200th anniversary of the first Great Rendezvous on this site. It is essential that the fort be restored in time for the special

events of this summer to go ahead.

The staff at Old Fort William have been working non-stop to clean up, to save what's salvageable. I trust the government will do its crucial part, that this will

be addressed as an emergency situation and that funds for repair will flow as quickly as possible.

NURSING WEEK

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House in recognition of Nursing Week, May 12 to 18, to express my thanks to the hard-working members of

the nursing profession. I'm referring to dedicated people like Kim Cearns, a constituent of my riding of Durham and political action officer of the RNAO

chapter in Durham-Northumberland. She

organized the Take Your MPP to Work Day in Durham. I'm pleased to inform the House that the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, has taken

part in this program in the

past two years by accompanying RNAO executive members Shirlee Sharkey, Adeline Falk-Rafael and Doris Grinspun on tours.

The dedicated men and women in nursing play a critical role in Ontario's battle against SARS. Throughout this emergency, nurses like those at Lakeridge Health in

Durham demonstrated professionalism and compassion. The Ernie Eves government appreciates the sacrifices made by many in the nursing profession during this emergency, which is why we are providing

compensation for lost wages because of SARS and quarantine.

We also recognize the crucial role nurses play in the delivery of health care in this province. This is why we are creating 12,000 new nursing positions. These

nurses will provide high-quality care in hospitals, long-term-care facilities and doctors' offices. We are funding over 360 nurse practitioner positions to help provide primary care in

underserviced areas. I am a strong proponent of nurse practitioners and have been lobbying for full funding to be allocated for NPs in Scugog and Clarington in my riding.

In the recent throne speech, we announced our intention to provide free tuition for nursing students in underserviced communities throughout the province.

Despite investing more money in our health care system than ever before, the Ernie Eves team understands that it's really the dedicated men and women who work in the health care sector who make it

all that it is today and all that we need for tomorrow.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Within the last month MPPs on all sides of the House have received thousands upon thousands of

postcards signed by residents and their families of our long-term-care homes. What are they asking for? They say, "Ontario still funds the lowest level of long-term care of any of the 11 other

jurisdictions in the government-funded level of service study.

"Ontario residents still get 45 minutes less care daily than residents in Saskatchewan got in 1999. This is simply not enough when: nine out of 10 require help

to get dressed and eat; eight out of 10 require help to move around; and six out of 10 suffer from dementia and related disorders."

What has been the government's response? The "government's only commitment is that residents" -- not the government but residents -- "will pay $2 more per day in

2003 and another $2 in 2004."

Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals have a plan to make sure that those frail and elderly citizens are looked after in the way they surely need to be looked

after. We will build a seniors' strategy that guarantees our seniors will be treated with dignity and respect. We will guarantee that during the first term of our mandate, the level of care that

the residents will get will be at least that of the residents in Saskatchewan. We will make sure that our senior citizens are treated with dignity and respect.

MEAT INSPECTORS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This Conservative government's gutting of our public service here in the province of Ontario continues to put

increasing numbers of people at risk.

Meat inspectors are vital to food safety here in the province. They're a key part of Ontario's public service and they help our economy to flourish safely and

responsibly. Yet we have fewer than 10 full-time meat inspectors in Ontario. Some 120 part-time contract meat inspectors, who have to pay their own travel expenses, who have to absorb their own

travel time and rarely make adequate incomes on the basis of their part-time contract consulting meat inspection, constitute the balance. It's no wonder that there's a 32% turnover among these

inspectors.

I tell you, that means that more and more inexperienced meat inspectors are being required to do invaluable meat inspection. That means that we are constantly

being put at risk. That means that this government exposes us in yet one more fashion to serious public health risk.

This government should respond promptly and restore full-time meat inspectors as part of the public service, as members of the OPSEU bargaining unit, ensure that

they are adequately trained, ensure that they are adequately paid, and ensure that the public of Ontario can count on its meat inspectors to ensure their -- the public's -- safety.

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I rise in the House today to support the efforts of the Grey Bruce Eat and Learn program. Bev Gateman,

program coordinator, along with numerous volunteers, ensures that every student who attends one of Hanover's four schools will have the opportunity to eat breakfast before going to class.

Grey Bruce Eat and Learn is a non-profit organization which is solely dedicated to supporting child nutrition programs in Grey and Bruce county schools. Research

tells us that kids who eat well perform better in school. Breakfast programs help children get the nutrition they need to succeed.

Grey Bruce Eat and Learn builds on the strengths of community to help develop nutrition programs that are ideally suited to their specific needs. They presently

support 55 child school nourishment programs, serving over 50,000 breakfasts, lunches and snacks every school year.

John and Cheryl Grant, owners of Grant's Independent Grocer in Hanover, were featured in the May 2003 issue of Canadian Living magazine. Since 2001, the Grants

have donated over $12,000 worth of food vouchers for the program. The money was generated through numerous fundraisers, including barbeques, golf tournaments and staff events. We are all grateful

for their ongoing efforts.

Grey Bruce Eat and Learn doesn't just feed kids; it nourishes communities. I encourage everyone to get involved: students, parents, teachers, local businesses

and everyone else who wishes to see our children well-nourished and successful.

I congratulate all the volunteers involved in this program, and the donors who contribute funds to help cover the cost of food.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): This is a government that is out of steam, out of ideas, out for themselves and out for their friends.

Their idea of an original idea is to have a budget at an auto parts plant. What insanity. Desperate for policies, what did Ernie Eves and the Tories do? They turned to Dalton McGuinty's plan and

said, "Me too."

Ernie Eves saw Rick Bartolucci's bill to crack down on drunk drivers, and what did he say? He said, "Me too."

Ernie Eves looked at Mike Colle's bill on mandatory retirement, and what did he say? "Me too."

He saw Dalton McGuinty's plans for public school choice, for energy conservation, and for a seamless GTA transportation system, and what did Ernie Eves say? He

said, "Me too."

The Harris-Eves government has had eight years to bring about these badly needed reforms, but instead they chose deliberately to go in precisely the opposite

direction. Now, after eight years and on the eve of an election, desperately low in the polls, they have to turn to Dalton McGuinty for real ideas and for real change.

There is only one way to bring about change in this province. That is to call an election now, and for the people of Ontario to choose Dalton McGuinty and the

Ontario Liberals to bring about real change for one and all in this province.

COMMUNITY LIVING MISSISSAUGA

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I am thrilled to advise this House that Community Living Mississauga, a non-profit organization

supporting over 1,300 persons with an intellectual disability, has become the first organization of its kind in Mississauga to be awarded the highest level of accreditation from Accreditation

Ontario.

Community Living Mississauga is one of just three organizations in Canada and 50 in the world to have received a three-year accreditation. Only organizations

that provide superior service and undergo a rigorous, four-day assessment process achieve this award.

The residents of Mississauga are very proud of the outstanding volunteers, staff and supporters of Community Living Mississauga who have made this incredible

achievement possible. While no one person is solely responsible for an organization's success, I would like to pay tribute to the dedication and hard work of Bonnie Yagar, the long-serving

volunteer president of the board of directors, who has provided visionary leadership.

We also owe our deep gratitude to generous donors like Didi and Iggy Kaneff, who have held the annual Kaneff Charity Golf Tournament for 32 years to raise funds

for Community Living Mississauga and Brampton.

I know that all members of this House join me in offering our heartfelt congratulations to the superb team at Community Living Mississauga. We wish you

continuing success as you provide the exceptional services that enable persons with an intellectual disability to live life to its fullest -- in the community.

VISITORS

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to welcome here today my son Joseph Di Cocco. By the way, he

was a great hockey player. With him is Mimmo Comande. I'd like to welcome them to the Legislature. We're all going to be on good behaviour so that we send off a great impression when they

leave.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the first report of the standing committee on government

agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 106(e), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

ON SCHOOL BUSES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS

DANS LES AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES

Mr Hoy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 24,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to protect children while on school buses / Projet de loi 24, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en vue de

protéger les enfants lorsqu'ils sont dans des autobus scolaires.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I've introduced a similar bill in this House six times. It has been supported by tens of thousands of people

across Ontario, and particularly by those families who have had children who have died as a result of people passing school buses when the red lights are flashing. We need to pass this bill in

order to have a strong deterrent and a conviction mechanism to protect the 810,000 children who ride 16,000 school buses in Ontario.

INSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIAN

STUDIES ACT, 2003

Mr Marchese moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the Institute for Christian Studies.

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

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

SMART TRANSPORTATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR UN SYSTÈME

INTELLIGENT DE TRANSPORT

Mr Klees moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 25,

An Act to enhance public transit and provide for a smart transportation system in Ontario / Projet de loi 25, Loi visant à rehausser la

qualité du transport en commun et prévoir un système intelligent de transport en Ontario.

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

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Transportation): I'll defer till ministers' statements.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ

ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Mr Agostino moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 26,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to increase the penalties for contraventions of the Act and regulations / Projet de loi 26, Loi

modifiant la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail en vue d'augmenter les peines en cas d'infraction aux dispositions de la Loi et des règlements.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): This is the second time I'm going to introduce this bill. On April 28, many of us attended ceremonies

remembering those killed or injured in the workplace in Ontario. Too many Ontarians are killed and injured every day simply for the reason of going to work. This bill would make violations of the

Occupational Health and Safety Act in Ontario the toughest in North America. It would raise the penalty, if an individual is convicted of a violation, to up to $100,000 and up to two years in jail.

For corporations, the fine would be increased to $1 million. For directors of these corporations, the fine would increase to $100,000 and up to two years' imprisonment. This bill would go a long

way toward ending the carnage that occurs in the workplace every day across the province of Ontario.

TRAFALGAR MORAINE

PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA MORAINE DE TRAFALGAR

Mr Colle moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to protect the Trafalgar Moraine / Projet de loi 27, Loi visant à protéger la moraine de Trafalgar.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): This is the second time I've introduced this bill. This bill would protect the lands in north Oakville

known as the Trafalgar moraine from being developed and sold off to developers by the province of Ontario, and would ensure that these sensitive environmental lands and this watershed are not given

up for unbridled sprawl that will not only choke the air in the Oakville area but also eliminate the last stretch of green space in the western GTA.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TRANSPORTATION

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Transportation): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to introduce a bill that, if passed, would advance our

government's vision of a balanced and integrated transportation system in the province of Ontario.

An Act to enhance public transit and provide for a smart transportation system in Ontario reflects

our commitment to a transportation system that is convenient, that reduces travel time and that moves people and goods safely and efficiently. It also reflects our commitment to our Smart Growth

objectives of a strong economy, strong communities and a clean and healthy environment.

We all know the importance of good, effective transportation to the continued strength and success of Ontario. Businesses must be able to get their products

and services where they have to be, when they have to be there. Consumers count on fast delivery of merchandise they've ordered. Employees need to get to work on time. At the end of the day they

also want to get home without delay to spend time with their friends and family. Yet every day, as we know, traffic congestion costs Ontarians many hours in lost time. It costs our economy an

estimated $2 billion, and unless we address this problem now, the unacceptable cost of gridlock will only escalate further in the future.

We as a province have to take action now to deal with this issue. Ontario is growing. New businesses and residents are coming to this province. The prosperity

that we have in this province is attracting them; it's a result of the strong economic foundation and high quality of life that we have here.

Right now, the greater Toronto area is experiencing the second-fastest growth rate in North America. Ontario needs to plan for the growth in population in

central Ontario by an estimated 3.5 million people over the next 30 years. While our government welcomes this growth, we also understand that it must be effectively managed. The smart

transportation bill provides new tools to advance the transportation solutions that Ontarians will require in the years to come.

The proposed legislation recognizes that transit is a key to alleviating congestion. It builds on the advice provided by the Central Ontario Smart Growth

Panel. As you're aware, this panel was set up last year under the leadership of Mississauga's Mayor Hazel McCallion. I'd like to commend Mayor McCallion for her efforts.

The panel was asked to advise our government on how best to manage both the economic and population growth that central Ontario will experience in the next 30

years. Following extensive consultation, it made strategic suggestions in key areas, including the development of an integrated transportation network. I'd like to join my colleague, Municipal

Affairs and Housing Minister David Young, and all of my colleagues in government in thanking the panel for its hard work and significant contribution.

Last summer our government received an interim report from the panel with recommendations to reduce traffic gridlock in the short term. We responded quickly

and announced immediate investments in transit services in Ontario, and today I'm pleased to announce that we're also moving forward quickly on longer-term recommendations from the panel's final

report. If passed, the smart transportation bill would tackle congestion and plan for Ontario's future transportation needs in three fundamental areas.

First, it would amend the Ontario Planning and Development Act to allow the government to develop plans for future infrastructure corridors and to protect them

from development. This is an important tool in the integration of land use and transportation planning, to support continued growth and to maintain options for the future. These corridors would be

used for future highways, transit and utilities as well as municipal services. Our goal in this regard is a modern, safe and efficient transportation system that links Ontario's diverse cities and

towns, relieves congestion and helps our regions to prosper further.

Second, the smart transportation bill would allow the creation of provincial agencies to coordinate the delivery of services such as a multi-system transit

fare card. Our goal is to enable transit riders to travel quickly across several regions while transferring easily between different modes of transportation.

The bill would provide the legislative framework to help deliver short-term, common sense projects such as bus bypass shoulders, carpool lots and

high-occupancy-vehicle lanes.

We must increase the capacity of the existing transportation system to encourage public transit use, alleviate congestion and help preserve and protect the

environment for future generations.

The smart transportation bill is one more step in our government's aggressive plan to develop a strong and efficient transportation system for the province of

Ontario.

As you're aware, we have taken significant action to date to ensure a balanced and integrated system where both highways and transit play an important

role.

So far the federal government has failed, unfortunately, to make a long-term commitment to fund transit. We welcome any federal transit investments, but what

is really needed is a long-term transit investment by the federal government. We suggest that they match our $3.25 billion over 10 years to make it truly a partnership in commitment to transit

investment in this province.

Meanwhile, our government has taken a lead role. We're planning ahead and we're taking the steps required for a system that is safe and efficient.

We're adding new lanes to provincial highways. We're making major improvements to highways and roads in our province.

We're investing in transit buses. We're investing in vehicle renewal, as well as in new GO Transit stations and parking facilities throughout the greater

Toronto area.

Several new inter-regional transportation corridors are in the planning stage, each with an eye to multi-modal solutions, including highways, transit and

rail.

An efficient, effective and integrated transportation system is absolutely crucial to Ontario's continued economic vitality. Our government understands its

importance to Ontario's economic growth, to the creation of new jobs, to the continued prosperity of our towns and cities, and to the quality of life for all Ontarians.

We also know that the congestion we face every day has been up over decades and so it will take time to effectively manage. But manage we will. Our government

is committed to addressing both our immediate and longer-term congestion and gridlock challenges.

The smart transportation bill is a key component in our strategy. We will continue to work hard to meet the transportation needs of the Golden Horseshoe area

and all of Ontario, both now and in the future.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): It's been eight years in the making that we've had gridlock in this province, and the Harris-Eves

government has done absolutely nothing about it. On the verge of an election and here we are today, another day, another election announcement by the Eves government.

But what's especially disappointing about today's announcement is that they're trying to claim real credit about action on gridlock in the greater Toronto

area. But the reality is that they've got a half-baked plan, no real plan, and a few ideas that have been lifted from the Dalton McGuinty Growing Strong Communities platform.

I want to take a close look at the announcement that the minister made earlier today. It's an obvious attempt to steal the policies of Dalton McGuinty,

announced months ago in our Growing Strong Communities plan. But even the government, even this Eves government, can't get it right. Instead of a seamless smart card system, they're making a

commitment to a smart card system that might work starting at Union Station but not within any of the area of the city of Toronto. Where is the TTC as a part of their announcement? They don't

understand that 95% of all public transit trips happen within the city of Toronto. Their announcement is hardly a triumph of good planning and the ability of government to deliver real relief from

the problems facing our transit system.

Dalton McGuinty has promised the establishment of a greater Toronto transit authority, long desired by GTA municipalities. But there's nothing on that here, of

course. It seems that they're plowing money into a smart card system without a comprehensive plan for both growth and integration of these transit systems. It's very much like putting the cart

before the horse. But we're getting used to seeing that from the government.

What I find most surprising is what's not a part of some of these announcements. How about the idea of making transit passes a non-taxable benefit? It's a

great idea. It's Dalton McGuinty's idea. So if this government is looking for more ideas, why don't you try to steal that one?

How about a commitment to double the amount of parking for GO Transit stations? It's another great idea. It's Dalton McGuinty's idea. And I wouldn't be

surprised to see the government try to lift that one as well.

How about dedicating two cents per litre of the provincial gas tax for transit funding? It's a great idea. You know municipalities want that; Hazel McCallion

herself called for that. You know that transit in the GTA is unsustainable unless stable and significant funding from the province is provided. It's another great idea. It's Dalton McGuinty's idea.

You can borrow that one as well to fill your empty plan.

Your government has spent eight years gutting public education in the province of Ontario, especially in the GTA. In 1998, then-Finance Minister Ernie Eves

cancelled all funding for public transit. Now, amazingly enough, Premier Ernie Eves wants the public to believe that they've changed their minds. But the leopard can't change its spots. I think the

people of Ontario know that they can get the real thing. The people of Ontario have a clear choice: they can vote for a pale pink imitation of the Ontario Liberal strong community plan or they can

vote for the real deal: they can vote for Dalton McGuinty, a man with the plan, a man with the vision and the willingness to do whatever it takes to battle gridlock and win.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): As a former chair of the Toronto Transit Commission, this idea of a smart card is, I think, about 15 years

old. I remember that this was introduced 15 years ago. The Tories were in power even then, and since the Tories came to power all they've done is cut transit operating costs to zero. You give no

provincial funding for the operating of transit. You're the only jurisdiction in the world that does that. What good is a smart card if you don't have any buses or service on the road? What good is

this card if you can't catch a bus in Oakville, Vaughn or Brampton? You, Mike Harris and Ernie Eves have taken away all of the bus service, so now they're going to stand on the corner for a

half-hour waiting with this card for no bus.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It is always a pleasure to stand in this House and especially to commend my good friend and former

colleague Mayor Hazel --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We'll allow the member to start again, in fairness.

Mr Prue: Thank you very much, Speaker, for bringing some decorum to the House.

It is always a pleasure, of course, to commend my good friend and former colleague Mayor Hazel McCallion, because when Mayor Hazel McCallion speaks, it seems

that members opposite start to listen. She has come full circle from a formerly suburban mayor to one who now recognizes the needs of a growing and expanding region. She has made some valuable

recommendations which I am pleased that the members opposite are starting to listen to. There are some good recommendations in this report. Before I get to the bad ones, I want to say what the good

ones are, because there are, of course, always some good recommendations contained in any bill.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): I'll remember that.

Mr Prue: Yes, always.

What is in there that I think should be commended by members of all parties are the infrastructure corridors. This is a good idea to protect future citizens

and future municipalities along the roads to make sure that the roads and railways can be built, and that other infrastructure that needs to built can be brought to bear, without having to buy them

back after they've been given away. It is a good idea for the bypass shoulders to allows buses and other vehicles that are transit-oriented to pass gridlock, as it surely will continue to develop.

It is a good idea for the car lots, and I commend the minister for the idea for the car lots that are contained, and also for the HOV lanes, which are used everywhere in the city of Toronto and

allow people on the transit and buses to have an opportunity to travel at least as fast as the private cars.

It is the fifth provision with which we have difficulty. That is the provision for the multi-system transit fare card, because it goes around Toronto and not

through Toronto, and that is the difficulty. It has been arranged, ignoring that 80% to 90% of the people who use the transit system in the GTA use it in Toronto. We have to question why this has

happened. Why has it happened? Has Toronto walked away from the table? If so, why did they walk away from the table? Or were they not invited in the first place? The TTC has most of the transit

riders; it has 90% of the vehicles. In fact, in the whole municipality of Peel there are fewer buses on the road than the yellow buses that the TTC has for repairs. There are fewer people being

transferred on the bus in Mississauga than on any of the streetcar lines in Toronto. Quite frankly, this city has suffered. It receives virtually no subsidy from the province of Ontario. In all the

world it is probably the only city that receives no subsidy, and for sure in North America it is the case.

I would tell you that what has been proposed here is a recipe for disaster. The gridlock, if it occurs, most assuredly will concentrate in the downtown core.

We need to make sure the capital dollars are being spent in Toronto, I would say, even before it is spent in the areas outside of Toronto. Although we would welcome Peel, Durham, York and Halton

getting such monies, it cannot come at the expense of the people of the city of Toronto. It cannot come -- and I can see this now: the transit authority that you're talking about, they're going to

split the money. What is going to happen? Will Toronto get 50-50, when it has 80% to 90% of the transit riders? This is, as I said, a recipe for disaster.

There are other things that can be done and should be done. This government should be looking at a seamless pass throughout all of the GTA, including Toronto.

They should be looking at monies that go and are apportioned to the municipalities throughout all of the GTA, especially in Toronto. The GO buses end up here; the GO trains end up here; the subway

will end up here. The subway, if it ever extends beyond Steeles Avenue, will start at Union Station. If it ever extends beyond Scarborough Town Centre and beyond Etobicoke it will start at Yonge

Street and needs to be included.

Although we welcome the minister taking the initiative at long last, he has left out the most important component. I would hope, before this bill is debated,

that Toronto is brought into the picture and that Toronto can be included.

VISITOR

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know that all members in the House would like to recognize my

guest in the members' gallery, Mr Bill Furlong, who supported the Trillium Health Centre in a silent auction to have lunch with his member. He is a family person living in my riding, a very

successful, dynamic young man of the future. I am very grateful that he supported a great cause and I appreciate his presence in the House today.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill 7, An

Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: We'll let them settle down first.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's a wonder I can hear any noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WEST NILE VIRUS

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I have a serious question for the Minister of Health. Minister, I have a string of e-mails that show how

poorly you've handled the response to the West Nile virus in Ontario. In August 2001, when the first infected bird was found in Ontario, Dr Lo was assigned to create a test called the ELISA test,

which is to detect West Nile. You remember Dr Lo, because he's the one you fired when you fired the five scientists out of the public lab. According to these e-mails, Dr Lo was told the project was

being put on hold in order to deal with something else. As we heard yesterday, the association of public health units acknowledged that there are not sufficient resources in public health to do

their job. What Dr Lo said in one of his e-mails was, "Thank you for providing me the opportunity to work on this important public health problem of West Nile." Finally, of course, it never

happened.

Can you explain to those affected by West Nile why you would have delayed the development of a test for West Nile as early as the summer of 2001 when you knew

it had already arrived in Ontario?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): This is fiction. It is absolute fiction to say that the individuals in question were

going to at one point fight West Nile virus, and at another point claim that they were in the forefront against bioterrorism and now that they're in the forefront of the fight against SARS. These

people were not involved in research. These people were not medical biologists or microbiologists. They were doing inventory searches and library searches to build up their case. When we have

eminent, world-class scientists in our teaching hospitals and in our universities who deserve support and do get our support in research, frankly, I think that's reprehensible.

Ms Pupatello: Let me suggest to the minister that this e-mail is from a medical microbiologist, virology immunodiagnostics, perinatal and

vaccine preventable diseases, laboratories branch, Ontario Ministry of Health. This is what she said: "...I just wanted to confirm that we will be putting the project on hold" -- that is, the

development of ELISA for West Nile. "At this point there is no urgency to get the ELISA set up but hopefully we will be able to resume the project to have it ready in time for next West Nile

season," which would have been last season. Last season we had 17 people die from West Nile disease; a thousand other people infected, but 17 actually lost their lives in this province.

What I am suggesting to you, Minister, is that you have shown a complete lack of leadership in the development of safety for the public on this file. You've

had the proof and your specialist told you. You knew what to do. Their lack of funding meant they couldn't do their jobs. Today you stand in your place and you suggest for us -- you apologize to

the people for your lack of leadership --

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

Hon Mr Clement: I reiterate for this House and for the public that the individuals in question were not involved in research, that the

individuals in question were not medical scientists or medical microbiologists. We do fund research. We fund research on a whole range of issues. They are called researchers and scientists, in our

laboratories, teaching hospitals and universities. That is where our efforts have been.

When it comes to our own laboratories, we are putting the money where it counts, which is making sure we have the tests in place to deal with the issues of

public health that are important to Ontarians. That is our commitment, and we have in fact increased our funding year after year in that regard.

Ms Pupatello: Let me read you yet another e-mail from our medical microbiologist with your Ministry of Health. "We are in the process of

setting up ELISA" -- this is back in August 2001. "ELISAs can be tricky to set up and someone reminded me that Ching Lo has a lot of experience doing this. Would it be possible to borrow him for

the next couple of months while we work through the kinks?"

Your own people knew he was the expert. Your own people knew they were going to use him to develop that test. A month and a half later, he was taken off the

file because they had other priorities, even though they knew West Nile would be back the following season. They hoped it could be developed by the next season, but it never was. We went through

the entire season last year fighting for results of tests that had to be sent as far away as Winnipeg.

Minister, that is a lack of leadership on your part. That is a lack of use of proper resources to fund public health. I insist that you stand in your place

today and admit that you have bungled this badly. We have said so from the beginning. You have not shown the leadership required on the West Nile virus, and we have the proof in our hands to show

it.

Hon Mr Clement: Let me put some facts on the table. We currently have 129 staff with science degrees employed in our Ontario public health

laboratories. Of these, 23 have post-graduate and graduate degrees, and we still have two who are medical microbiologists. We have them on staff right now. The individuals to whom she is referring

were not researchers, were not medical microbiologists. They were not involved in research. They were not involved in the research that she suggests. They are not the people to whom she refers. The

people to whom she refers were not involved in the activities that she has mentioned.

So from my perspective, we did invest in the right kind of researchers in the right places and ensure that our laboratories were concentrating on what they do

best, which is testing the people of Ontario to ensure that the people of Ontario are safe from a public health perspective. That is our commitment, and it has been our commitment from day one.

ADAMS MINE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): My question is to the Deputy Premier. A couple of weeks ago, I got wind of your government's scheme to

quietly sell over 2,000 acres of crown land to the numbered company that now owns the Adams mine. I learned that you were about to sign the deal at bargain basement prices despite having never

publicly marketed the property. After I called Minister Ouellette's office to complain, he immediately put the sale on ice and promised a 60-day review.

Deputy Premier, today I've learned exactly who is behind the numbered company you wanted sell this land to. I now know who the new owners of the Adams mine

land are. It's the Cortelluci group of companies. Minister, why were you planning to sell crown land to the largest donators to the PC Party without any public notice and at below market

prices?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): First of all, I think the member needs to understand that there are various and

many requests for crown land received on a daily basis and there is consideration given to many of them. I understand that the piece of property that the member is referring to, this particular

piece of crown land, has been under review. I would also indicate to you that the minister is not here today, but certainly full details of that review are expected shortly.

Mr Ramsay: Deputy Premier, the Cortelluci group of companies has donated over $1 million to the Ontario PC Party. In the leadership alone,

they gave Ernie Eves $44,600. In total, the five leadership candidates received over $185,000, and you yourself received $40,000 from them.

They now own the Adams mine. This crown land is important, because without it they cannot legally accept garbage at the Adams mine. If you sell them the land,

they stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars.

Minister, do you really expect us to believe that it is just coincidence that the largest donator to the Ontario PC Party was involved in a secret deal to buy

crown land at $22 an acre?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think there are a lot of allegations that are being made, and I think it's important that we set the record straight.

According to the information that I have received from the Minister of Natural Resources, Jerry Ouellette, I have been assured that it underwent a full

environmental assessment that was approved by the Ministry of the Environment in 1998. I also understand that it was the subject of an independent appraisal by an accredited land appraiser through

the ORC.

I would repeat again to you that as far as this particular sale is concerned, I understand that full details of the review are going to be shared shortly by

the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr Ramsay: Deputy Premier, I have a letter sent to the Minister of Natural Resources by the vice-chief of the Timiskaming First Nation. He

says your sale to the Corteluccis "appears to contravene a number of fundamental principles upon which the sale of crown land is to be disposed of in the province of Ontario." He goes on to say,

"The ministry has a legal obligation to consult with affected First Nations over the disposal of crown land."

Despite your ministry's rules and treaty rights, that consultation never happened. You weren't just planning to practically give this land away; you were

literally bending over backwards for the PC Party's richest donors, ignoring your government's own rules and trampling on treaty rights of our First Nations. It was all supposed to be done in

secret.

Minister, why shouldn't I believe that the only reason your government tried rushing this deal through was because you wanted to help a friend before calling

the election?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's really important that we take a look at all of the facts. As I said at the outset, I understand that the proposed

sale of this particular crown land has been reviewed. I would just remind the member opposite that the full details of that review are expected to be released by the minister in the very near

future.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, today Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, your

government's soulmate, your best political buddy, admitted that hydro deregulation isn't working in Alberta. He has admitted that they need to conduct an independent review because so many people

are angry over soaring hydro rates.

You used to point to Alberta all the time; you used to say it was the promised land in terms of deregulation. Now, even Ralph Klein admits it's not working.

Will you admit it's not working in Ontario either?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): I have never compared Ontario to Alberta. In fact --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Baird: I never have. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Ralph Klein, for his energy minister Murray Smith and for the government

of Alberta.

We did have a chat in my office with my counterpart's office in Alberta, and I think the member's characterization of Mr Klein's comments is unfair and is

wrong.

Mr Hampton: I'm only repeating what is reported in the press.

You and your illustrious predecessors, Mr Stockwell and Mr Wilson, used to refer to California as the promised land of deregulation, until the lights went out.

Then you referred to Great Britain, until they had to reregulate and bail out some of the private companies -- British Energy. Then you referred to Alberta. Now even Ralph says it's not working

there.

Minister, when you have to inflict dirty diesel generators on people in Guelph, Kitchener, Burlington, Etobicoke, Toronto, London and Ottawa, it is clearly not

working here either. Will you stop your dirty diesel generation scheme and admit none of this is working for Ontario consumers?

Hon Mr Baird: This may come as a great surprise to the leader of the third party: he shouldn't believe everything he reads in the

newspaper.

Interjection: He blew his budget on his bus.

Hon Mr Baird: Or don't believe everything you hear coming out of a bus.

The facts on the issue which the member opposite comments on have been distorted, exaggerated, twisted. The facts are this: we can reduce our reliance on

high-cost imported power by bringing clean-burning natural gas generators into the province. I think that would be good for the Ontario electricity supply and for people in the province of

Ontario.

With respect to diesel generators, which could be used as standby generators only, as the RFP says, in what I would say are emergency circumstances -- after

all, we'll have 3,300 megawatts of new, clean electricity that we didn't have available last summer.

Let me be quite clear. Let's end his fearmongering and be quite clear. There will not be new diesel generators in any of the cities which he has spoken of.

Mr Hampton: According to the Ontario Minister of Energy, the lights didn't go out in California and Ralph Klein didn't bring forward an

independent review of deregulation in Alberta today.

But Minister, you're caught in your own contradictions. You say, and the Premier said yesterday, that you have -- well, he said 2,500 megawatts of new power

available this summer; now you say 3,300 megawatts of new power available. Minister, if you have this new power available, why do you need to inflict dirty diesel generators on people in Guelph, in

London, in Kitchener, in Burlington, in Toronto and in Ottawa? And if you've got all this new, clean power available, why do you have to inflict these dirty diesel generators without even holding

an Environmental Assessment Act hearing so that people can find out what it's all about and propose alternatives?

Minister, if you've got the new power, you shouldn't need these dirty diesel generators. If you've got the new hydro, you shouldn't need to force it on people

without going through an environmental assessment hearing. Which is it? Which story are you trying to tell people today?

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

Hon Mr Baird: The good news in Ontario is that we have 800 megawatts of new power, that wasn't available last summer, already up on-line at

Bruce. We have 500 megawatts of power up on-line in Sarnia. We'll have 1,500 megawatts of new, clean generation coming out of the Bruce for the summer.

We saw just this week that the Canadian nuclear safety agency gave the go-ahead for the first reactor at Pickering to come on-line. That's 3,300 megawatts of

new, clean electricity. The member opposite looks like he's almost disappointed.

To address very clearly his point, let the fearmongering end. There's not going to be diesel generators in Guelph, London, Kitchener, Toronto, Ottawa or

Burlington. He may want to stand in his place and tell the House why, when he was in government, there were more than 500 new diesel generators that got environmental certificates of approval.

Would he do that?

WEST NILE VIRUS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. I want to ask the Minister of Health this question about

West Nile.

Minister, you've tried to say --

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to give the leader

of the third party unanimous consent for another sup on his first question.

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

The member on the second question?

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, you've tried to say to people across Ontario that you now take the West Nile

virus seriously. But we find that you're only going to provide the public health units, who are already stretched, who are already having difficulty doing their job, with 50% of the money.

Now, we know, Minister, that West Nile affected far more people than you were willing to admit last summer; 17 died and over 400 became sick. Do you still

believe that it is adequate protection for the people of Ontario from the West Nile virus to provide public health units with only 50% of the money they need to protect the people of Ontario?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Quite frankly, I think that there will have to be more done, that there will have to

be more done across this province. For the health units that have already embarked upon larviciding, that is perfectly according to our seven-point action plan. We expect other medical officers of

health to make the same decision to protect the public, and if they don't, we'll make it for them.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you know, and I think the people out there across Ontario know, that if you're going to protect people, it's not

sufficient to do what you did last summer. At the end of the summer, after more than 400 were infected and 17 people died, then you came forward with some funding -- too little, too late.

The latest research published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal says that West Nile is far more serious than your government was willing to let on,

far more serious than was first suspected. But here you are, hard-pressed health units, and you're only going to give them 50% of the money they need to do their job.

Minister, in your view, is that properly and adequately protecting the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Clement: Firstly, the funding was always there, and it is there this year as well, and in fact it has been considerably enhanced.

Secondly, is the honourable member honestly trying to suggest that there is a Canadian Medical Association Journal that is accusing the provincial government

of having knowledge, information and belief about West Nile virus in defiance of every leading scientist in the world and that we hid it from the public? If he is suggesting that, I suggest he say

it straight out and then we can deal with that kind of allegation. The fact of the matter is that we are all learning together. We all know how serious the problem is, and quite frankly, your

flights of rhetorical flourish are not helpful.

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Premier Eves plans to sell about $2 billion worth of

essential public assets to balance the books this year. We've seen this movie before. On May 5, 1999, the day the provincial election was called, the 407 was sold and the 407 users have been ripped

off ever since. We are afraid that exactly the same thing is going to happen as you sell, once again, $2 billion worth of assets to balance your books.

I want to know the answer to this question: what exactly are you planning to sell and what assurances can you give the public that they won't be ripped off

like the 407 users have been ripped off?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): First of all, the honourable member's assertion is not correct. This government, as it always has, has

put out its revenue and expenditure forecast every year. We will continue to meet the commitments we've made to the province of Ontario. For eight years we have been following an economic plan that

has produced five balanced budgets, $5 billion in debt repayment, over a million new jobs in this province and growth that is rivalling our trading partners. That's the plan that is right for

Ontario; that is the economic plan we will continue to follow.

Mr Phillips: Listen, you haven't told anybody what you're selling. That's the problem. We got ripped off with the 407 deal, without question.

You broke all your promises on that. We want to know what you're selling in this fire sale. The Dominion Bond Rating Service has said they're not even going to include that in their revenue

estimates. The chief economist at TD bank said the assets have not been identified.

I want a very clear answer on this. You're expecting us to buy $2 billion before the next election. The 407 users have been ripped off because of your promises

last election. I want to know today how you are going to raise this $2 billion and, specifically, the guarantees that you're going to protect the people who are using those assets you're selling

off. Give me the answer and give the public the answer to those two questions, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, we've been very clear that every year we review the public assets we manage on behalf on taxpayers. We review

them to make sure that taxpayers are getting the best value for them and that they're being managed in the best way possible. We will continue to do that. For example, last year we reviewed Hydro

One. It is to remain in public hands as the Premier has made very clear. However, for the Province of Ontario Savings Office, it made much more economic sense for taxpayers, and consumer sense, to

divest ourselves and get out of the banking business. Every year we did that; every year will continue to do that.

The honourable member likes to quote the Dominion Bond Rating Service, which actually, if he reads the press release very closely, has some very positive

things to say about the strength of the Ontario economy, about the Common Sense Revolution strategy as being the right one for economic growth. On the other hand, maybe he would like to remember

the March 18, 1988, DBRS press release talking about the Liberal government's budget where they put it on a rating alert with downward implications.

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FUNDING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, there was great news last week for

Ontario students, especially those graduating from secondary schools this spring. On Friday, Ontario universities confirmed for our government that there would be enough spaces to accommodate the

double cohort, and I want to congratulate you for great leadership and confidence in our colleges and universities.

Many of my constituents have already received their offers of admission from universities and are looking forward to a high quality educational experience next

year. I'm also pleased that many will have the opportunity to study close to home at Ontario's newest university, the Ontario Institute of Technology in my riding of Durham. Ministers Flaherty and

Ecker will enjoy that as well.

Can you tell the House how many spaces have been created in Ontario's universities, and what this means for students planning to go on to post-secondary

education this September?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): Thank you to my colleague

from Durham.

Yes, it is a fact. Last Friday was a day of some celebration for the colleges and the universities, but on that day especially the universities. It is a time

that the students are receiving their offers, and the presidents of all of the universities across the province confirmed that there would in fact be 70,000 quality spaces in our universities to

accept these young people next September. That of course was our goal, and we have been working together for a number of years.

I was quite pleased to hear Dr Mordechai Rozanski, the chair of the Council of Ontario Universities, say it best: "The government is ensuring that the

resources are available to continue to accommodate all willing and qualified students. The province's universities, in turn, are delivering the increased spaces. To do this, given the dramatic

increase in numbers, is an extraordinary achievement."

Mr O'Toole: It is indeed an extraordinary achievement, and I want to repeat what you've been saying from the beginning: every willing and

qualified student would have a place. Thank you for that.

Locally, Gary Polonsky, who is the president of Durham College, has been assuring my constituents with a personal guarantee that they would have a place. Many

times he's mentioned that it's thanks to the $24-million expansion fund that our government has provided. It's important to note that the unprecedented expansion of our colleges and universities

will yield benefits for years to come with new faculty, new student spaces and student aid put in place, not just for the double cohort but for future generations.

But I am still troubled with the Liberal-like naysayers who are now raising concerns with the incoming classes and the issue of quality. We now have these

students and we have the spaces. That's been confirmed. What steps is the government taking to ensure that students --

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

Hon Mrs Cunningham : It's true that our government has funded an unprecedented expansion of our universities and colleges, one that has not

been seen since the late 1960s or early 1970s in this province. That's the right thing to do, because young people are choosing post-secondary education right across this country more than ever

before, and it will continue on.

The question of quality is one that we are all supportive of, quality which signifies and, I think, labels our colleges and universities as second to none in

Canada and in North America. We did create, over and above buildings, research, student aid, increased operating, a quality assurance fund.

Once again, I'd like to quote the Council of Ontario Universities, as they express confidence: "The government's historic SuperBuild program has enabled

universities to make significant improvements to the quality of the physical facilities, just as the new quality assurance fund will enable them to hire more professors -- "

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

DON JAIL

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): My question is for the Minister of Public Safety and Security. I had the opportunity yesterday to visit the Don Jail.

Let me tell you that the conditions are nothing to write home about. Notwithstanding the exemplary job that the administration, particularly the correctional officers, do to make their bad

situation a little better, inmates are being given three for one for time served in the Toronto jail. As a result, dangerous people are being let out on to the street after a far shorter period of

time. These offenders are spending less time behind bars. That's not tough on crime, Minister.

Correctional officers cannot do their jobs properly when the staffing levels are not up to the required complement. Right now they are 18 COs short at the Don.

You have major health and safety complaints regarding working conditions of your employees. I would ask that you stop blaming the judiciary and the federal government for the conditions of the Don

Jail, and fix it.

Minister, will you commit today to building the regional detention centre that Toronto needs to house those inmates?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): The member opposite is keeping the well-entrenched Liberal tradition of

putting prisoners' rights ahead of everyone else's rights. If the Liberals had their way, we would see golf courses, riding stables, pool tables and video games, like we saw during the bad old

Liberal days of 1985 to 1990. The reality is that this government has committed close to half a billion dollars for infrastructure renewal in our system. We have unprecedented pressures, there's no

question about that, but we are addressing them, unlike the Liberal Party, who released an election platform a month ago without one reference to the correctional system.

Mr Levac: I want to make this perfectly clear: this minister made it very clear that he does not care about his correctional officers in his

jails. The working conditions are putting your members in jeopardy. They have health and safety issues that you're not resolving. They have been attacked more than in any other place in the

province of Ontario. You are not protecting your employees. That's the issue.

You have not corrected the situation at the Don Jail. Since 1996 it's been overcrowded. In the year 2000 and all the way through, you're 40% over capacity,

jeopardizing the safety of your correctional officers and the administrative staff.

Stand in your place and say you've got a plan to build that regional detention centre in the area of Toronto that needs it, to keep those employees safe and to

keep those prisoners in jail, where they belong.

Hon Mr Runciman: This is a member who talks about law and order and clearly aspires to be a justice minister in a future government. Yesterday

his staff called the Don Jail and said that he would like to tour the jail with two staff. He showed up with a reporter from the Toronto Star. As the critic --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, please. As the critic --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Runciman: I think I should have a right to respond to this, Mr Speaker. This is very important.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Come to order, in fairness to the minister. It was your side yelling as well. It was both sides.

Interjection: No.

The Speaker: It was so. Both sides were yelling, and you were chanting, as a matter of fact. So, to be fair, the minister does need to have

some quiet. He has it now.

Minister, continue, please.

Hon Mr Runciman: The member should know that for operational reasons of security and privacy, without a security clearance we do not allow

reporters to tour our correctional facilities. This member has abused his privileges as a member by deceiving the correctional staff of the Don Jail. It was a fraud perpetrated on the staff of the

correctional system of this province by the member opposite, who says that he believes in law and order, believes in the maintenance of the law, and wants to be a minister of justice in this

province. It is beyond belief that he engaged in this kind of activity.

Mr Levac: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: To set the record straight, I was reading from the standing orders under "Rules of Debate, matters

out of order in debate:

"23. In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she:

"(

h) Makes allegations against another member....

"(

j) Charges another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood."

I would ask that the minister withdraw those comments.

The Speaker: There isn't a point of order. New question.

RURAL EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is for the Minister of Education. In my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, over the

past four years one high school has been closed by the Grand Erie District School Board and four other high schools have been threatened with closure, the latest being Delhi District Secondary

School. The schools that have been targeted are efficient, effective, high-quality schools that just happen to be in small towns. These schools are essentially the hub of the community. The bottom

line is that local high schools, in addition to their educational function, are vital to the well-being and survival of the rural communities on so many levels: social, economic and cultural. What

is our government doing to deal with issues of rural and small schools, and the special circumstances, like increased costs, that such schools face?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I do appreciate the question. Certainly, the issue of small, remote and northern

schools is such that we, as a government, have always recognized that they have very special and unique needs. That's why when we introduced the student-focused funding, we introduced a special

grant, the geographic circumstance grant. I'm very pleased to say that that grant has increased since 1998 by more than $64 million, or 45%, to $207 million in 2003-04. Moreover, in recognition of

the fact that these small schools don't always operate at 100% capacity, we have what's called a top-up fund. This, again, is for schools in remote, rural and northern Ontario. I'm very pleased to

say that for this year, 2003-04, it is going to be available to the tune of $157 million to help these schools in ridings such as Mr Barrett's.

Mr Barrett: The issue of high school closures is obviously a large concern of mine. I will mention a sincere concern for those MPPs who sit on

rural caucus. I can't speak for the Liberals; they don't seem to have a plan for small schools. One of the problems in my riding, and in many others, is that schools threatened with closure are

indeed rural, however they are part of an urban school board and in some cases the rural schools do not qualify for rural or remote funding. What is being done to fix this issue?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I recognize the unique needs that individuals such as Mr Barrett have in their ridings, when you do have these small, rural

schools within an urban community. In response to Dr Rozanski's recommendations, we are making available $50 million in order to flow that money to small, rural and northern schools. We have asked

Dr Downey, a well-renowned individual, former university president, co-chair of New Brunswick's Commission on Excellence in Education, to take a look at how we can best flow the money to those

rural and northern schools in single communities. We recognize there are additional costs; we're going to support those schools. I can tell you that we are already providing a 200% increase in the

declining enrolment grant, which is going to help boards this year, and we're going to make sure --

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

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): In the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources, I have a question for the Minister of Northern

Development and Mines. We've had a chance to review the cave-in that your government is scheming with respect to the US softwood lumber barons. Not only will it kill jobs in sawmills in northern

and central Ontario, but it will also negatively affect the pulp and paper industry. Pulp and paper mills that are already struggling because your scheme of hydro privatization has substantially

increased their costs of power now also face the prospect of having to pay much more for their timber supply. Hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in forest industry communities are being put at

risk by your government.

Minister, before you cave in to the US lumber barons, before you go any further down this road, will you hold public hearings in forest industry communities

that will be affected by this cave-in?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): For a government that's created over one million net new jobs, the member's

question is nonsensical. Why would we do anything to jeopardize jobs in northern Ontario when our track record for the last eight years -- unlike the loss of 10,000 jobs after five years when he

was in office. When he was on the cabinet benches representing northern Ontario, after five years there were net 10,000 fewer jobs. We've created 1.1 million more jobs and we're doing nothing on

the softwood lumber issue except to protect and enhance jobs in the province of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you know the US lumber baron position. You know that position, when it's gone before international tribunals, has never

held up. Yet your government, as we speak, is down in Washington, in a back room, secretly negotiating to give up control over our crown forests. You'd think that you would at least hold public

hearings. But it seems the best that people can do -- if they want to talk to the Minister of Natural Resources about this, forest industry companies today in Thunder Bay have to pay $2,000 to the

Conservative Party in order to get 15 minutes of the Minister of Natural Resources's time.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): That's a shakedown.

Mr Hampton: It's a shakedown. You refuse to hold public hearings, but if companies that are going to be affected, companies that may have to

lay off workers, want to talk to the Minister of Natural Resources today in Thunder Bay, they have to pay $2,000 for 15 minutes of his time. Is that what you call looking after the jobs and the

interests of northern Ontario communities, that you have to pay $2,000 just to get 15 minutes of the minister's time?

Hon Mr Wilson: For this honourable member there is a conspiracy under every log.

No government has consulted with northerners more than we have, particularly in the last year. My colleague Janet Ecker lead discussions, along with many of

our other colleagues and myself, on pre-budget consultations, throne speech consultations. Constantly our members are in the north, constantly we're talking to those companies involved with

softwood lumber, forestry and the lumber industry. We are having discussions, but in no way in those discussions are we jeopardizing jobs. Why would we? Your question doesn't make any sense coming

from an MPP from northern Ontario. It's just the craziest question I think I've heard you ask yet. How would anyone advocate a loss of jobs when that has not been the track record of this

government in the past and it certainly won't be in the future?

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, last year David Tilson stepped aside to

give Ernie Eves a safe seat in this Legislature, and at that time Ernie Eves emphatically promised that there would be no patronage appointment for Mr Tilson. He said, "I don't know why everybody

assumes that somebody will get something for doing what they consider to be the right thing." Well, Mr Tilson sure got something. Last month our party discovered that Mr Tilson had been secretly

appointed to a $111,000-a-year job at the Ontario Municipal Board. He joins 53 other past Tory candidates in an Eves trough of Tory patronage appointments. Ernie Eves is out for his friends on his

way out the door. Minister, why did Ernie Eves break his promise and add Mr Tilson to the Eves trough of Tory patronage?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): Perhaps the member opposite would like to take a look at how the appointments

and reappointments have been made by our government since 1995. Of the reappointments, approximately 37% of them were of people initially appointed by the NDP and the Liberals. If we take a look at

the former MPPs appointed by Premier Eves, we have Frank Miclash, former Liberal; Len Wood, former NDP; Marion Boyd, former NDP; Ross McClellan, former NDP; Murray Elston, Liberal MPP; Bob Rae,

Hydro One, former Premier; Bernard Grandmaître, former Liberal, member of the Assessment Review Board; David Peterson, former Liberal Premier, University of Toronto governing council. How

ridiculous. Obviously, you are going to appoint the best person for every job.

Mr Smitherman: Well, madam Deputy Premier, I've got something for you. It's a number, and the number is 53; 53 past Tory MPPs or candidates

appointed. Just this morning at the patronage meeting here at the Legislature Linda Franklin received her call to the trough. She was an EA to Ernie Eves and a strategist in his leadership

campaign.

But Mr Tilson's case stands out as the worst of Tory patronage. There was no press release on David Tilson's appointment, so your pride notwithstanding, madam

minister, was missing. Had his appointment been for just one day longer, Mr Tilson would have been forced to appear before the scrutiny of a legislative committee. But your government instead

purposely kept the appointment quiet to disguise the fact that the Premier was breaking his promise.

Deputy Premier, if your government thinks that David Tilson was such a good appointment, why did you keep it so quiet when it happened and why did you make his

appointment only for one year so there was no legislative scrutiny?

Hon Mrs Witmer: To be fair, Mr Tilson is eminently qualified to be the vice-chair of the Ontario Municipal Board. He is a lawyer. He has been

involved in municipal politics. But, you know, if you want to go further, we have always believed in appointing the best person to each job. Let's go back to your time. Did you never appoint

Liberals? Here's who you appointed when you were in office: Claudette Miller, Liberal candidate, member of the Ontario Municipal Board; Jim Breithaupt, chairman of the Commercial Registration

Appeal Tribunal and chairman, Ontario Law Reform Commission; Patti Starr -- now, she wasn't an MPP; she was a Liberal fundraiser -- she was appointed to Ontario Place board of directors and Metro

Toronto Housing Authority; Jane Scott --

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

HYDRO GENERATION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, we've all heard a great deal of concern

expressed about the province's electricity supply. People are particularly interested in cleaner sources of energy being used to meet the province's needs. Minister, I wonder if you can tell me

what the government is doing to ensure that we have a supply of energy or a supply of electricity from cleaner, alternative sources?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): In this regard I say to my colleague from Scarborough

Centre that we need to have more electricity in the province of Ontario, and those of us on this side of the House want that to be clean or green power. We're satisfied that we've done a lot. We're

satisfied that we have come a long way, but we believe much more work remains to be done. We're pleased that there will be more than 1,500 megawatts of new electricity coming on the grid from the

great riding of Helen Johns in Bruce. We're pleased that the first commercial wind farm in Ontario opened, again, in the great riding of my colleague Helen Johns, the member for Bruce. We're

pleased that 500 megawatts of new power from natural gas came on-line in Sarnia. We're pleased that 800 megawatts that wasn't available last summer will be up and running. We're pleased that more

non-emission power will come on-line with enhancements at other facilities, that Pickering A got approval for the guaranteed shutdown lifted. That clears the way for 500 megawatts of new power.

We believe we can do a lot more, and we will.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that response, Minister. Clearly, this government is taking steps to promote the construction of new generation

projects from clean and alternative sources. In fact, as you know, I have a good friend in Kempenfelt Bay who is a farmer and has invested thousands of dollars of his own money to invest in turbine

power.

Minister, I need to know if these incentives are working. I need to know that there will be a new supply from these sources for Ontarians to rely on. I'm

wondering if you could assure the people watching today that the incentives will be working.

Hon Mr Baird: We did announce in the great community of Niagara Falls with my colleague Bart Maves a number of incentives for clean generation

and green generation. They include a 10-year corporate tax holiday, a 10-year property tax holiday and an immediate 100% corporate income tax write-off, in addition to a capital tax exemption and a

retail sales tax rebate because we don't want to tax clean and green power.

My colleague Steve Gilchrist, the Commissioner of Alternative Energy, has been working hard on a renewable portfolio standard. We did also see some $200

million of water generation in the province, as well as through the budget the Minister of Finance extended that tax treatment to cogeneration.

I would still like to know why Howard Hampton hasn't stood in his place and explained to this House why he and his government signed not one, not two, but 500

diesel-powered generators when he was in office. I wish he would stand in his place and tell the House that.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): The question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, your government makes claims that you're good

fiscal managers. How do you explain the fact then that your Cabinet Office costs have more than doubled since 1995, last year you spent $662 million in consulting fees, and since 1995 you have

increased the provincial debt by 23%? That means that each and every day Ontarians pay about $5 million more in interest because of that increase. You have spent over $250 million on partisan

advertising. You have allowed billions of dollars in corporate taxes to go uncollected. There is at least $125 million of uncollected fines under the Provincial Offences Act. According to chief

economist --

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

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): Actually, I like the first sentence in the member's question much better. She said that we claim to be

good fiscal managers. Yes, we do, but it's not just us who says that. That may not be grammatically correct.

Why don't I quote somebody else the Liberals like to quote: DBRS? "The Common Sense Revolution, whose principles were set out in 1995, has allowed the province

to strengthen its financial profile markedly while providing substantial tax relief to individuals and corporations."

Or perhaps she would prefer this quote: "Strengthened fiscal discipline and strong economic growth have led to notable improvements in the province's financial

flexibility and debt-to-GDP ratio."

Yes, we may claim that, but so do others. The record: five balanced budgets, $5 billion in debt repayment, over a million new jobs --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

Ms Di Cocco: The minister obviously doesn't want to answer the points I've raised.

Minister, I'd like you to know what the people in my riding have reaped because of your mismanagement. We have doctor shortages; we have school closures; we

have inadequate hospital facilities. We do not have enough beds to meet the needs of our community, according to our physicians. We do not have enough nurses and health care professionals to manage

the patients. We have 45 severely handicapped people in crisis, nowhere to go, and we have children's mental health programs being cut. Of course, we have our lax environmental rules such that

Ontario is the only place on this continent that allows landfilling and incinerating of untreated waste. These are the results of your fiscal mismanagement.

Minister, how do you explain those situations when you have been governing since 1995 during the best economic era in this province?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Let me take another quote she might be interested in about the Liberal government record. When the DBRS came out in 1988, it

talked about their "high rate of expenditure through the peak of an economic cycle." It put their rating alert on a downward implication, gave them a rating alert on a downward implication.

They racked up the debt by 33%. We have paid down the debt by $5 billion, as we promised. Do you know what? The tax-and-spend Liberals and the tax-and-spend

NDP left the voters, left the taxpayers in this province with a legacy of $1 million more an hour of debt being added to our children's and our grandchildren's future. They were part of that. We

have --

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

TRANSPORTATION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. We have heard today that the opposition parties

only care about public transit if it's in Toronto. But I'm almost certain that our smart transportation plan can't possibly be ignoring Toronto, can it?

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Transportation): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to clarify some of the misinformation that was thrown about

this place earlier today. The fact of the matter is that not only are we not ignoring Toronto --

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister used the term "misinformation." I seek your guidance as to

whether or not -- it was used in the context of information that was provided on the floor of the House. I wonder if that is a parliamentary term.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I think as he talked he didn't accuse any member. He said "misinformation"; he didn't say who. He was talking

about it. I appreciate that clarification.

The Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Klees: As I was saying, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that not only are we not ignoring Toronto, but we are very much working

with them. In fact, with regard to the smart transportation system and the smart card we were discussing, one of the priorities will be Union Station and other key connections with the TTC to

ensure that people who are using transit across the GTA will effectively connect in an efficient, effective and seamless way with the TTC.

Having said that, let me say to the member for Don Valley East that the next time he has a family conference, he may want to speak to a certain federal member

and bring them to the table with some $3.25 billion of transit funding so that the TTC can be supported the way it should be by both levels of government.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that response, Minister. I think you've mentioned some great initiatives for transit in Toronto.

There are some members here today, especially across the way, who said that you've put the cart before the horse. I know that this is probably a fitting quip

for the Liberals, since they have 18th-century vision for transportation, but could you please tell us, in the days of engines and automobiles, what is so important about the fare card that makes

it a priority in our transit vision for this century.

Hon Mr Klees: I'm pleased to respond to that question as well. The fact of the matter is that the member who posed this question knows full

well that it takes convenience for riders to be encouraged. In fact, the TTC issued a plan that talks about how we encourage people to use the TTC. One way you do it is to make it convenient to use

the TTC. With regard to the suggestion that the province doesn't support the TTC, let me remind honourable members that this government supported the TTC to the tune of $113 million in 2003;

another $126 million in 2002; we have just transferred $64 million to the city to reimburse money invested in the TTC for safety improvements; and let's not forget the $879 million that this

province committed to the Sheppard subway, all under the TTC.

So there is nothing about this government ignoring the TTC. We're saying let's work together in the best interests of the commuting public in this

province.

The Speaker: Before we do petitions, the member for Burlington has a point of order.

VISITORS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I'm sure that all members of the House would like to know that in the House today are some special guests,

not only the page from Burlington, Matthew Fabbricino, but also his mother, Catherine, his father, Luigi, and his beautiful sister, Briana. Please welcome them to the Legislature.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): "Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid by seniors and the most vulnerable living

in long-term-care facilities by 15% ... effective August 1, 2002; and

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

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

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned" 1,250 individuals "petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

I'm in full agreement and have affixed my signature hereto.

OHIP SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that has been sent to me by the Canadian Hearing Society from Kingston and reads as

follows:

"Whereas the Harris government's decision to delist hearing aid evaluation and re-evaluation from OHIP coverage will lead to untreated hearing loss; and

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests, especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

"Whereas OHIP will no longer cover the cost of miscellaneous therapeutic procedures, including physical therapy and therapeutic exercise; and

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magnetotherapy,

nerve therapy stimulation and biofeedback; and

"Whereas one of the few publicly covered alternatives includes hospital outpatient clinics where waiting lists for such services are up to six months long;

and

"Whereas delisting these services will have a detrimental effect on the health of all Ontarians, especially seniors, children, hearing-impaired people and

industrial workers; and

"Whereas the government has already delisted $100 million worth of OHIP services,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately restore OHIP coverage for these delisted services."

I agree with the petitioners.

GOLF COURSE ASSESSMENT

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a number of signatures on a petition collected this spring at various golf courses across my

riding. It's titled, "Help Keep Green Fees at a Reasonable Price." People were asking for a review of the method the Municipal Property Assessment Corp, MPAC, has chosen to unfairly increase golf

course assessments, and it is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Municipal Property Assessment Corp (MPAC) has chosen an assessment process for golf courses not relative to property assessment, that increases

golf course property taxes unfairly;

"We, the undersigned, request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold assessment values at last year's levels until a fairer method of assessment can be

developed and implemented, or a reclassification of golf course properties can be made."

I have worked with a number of these golf courses. I hereby affix my signature to this petition.

ALUMINUM SMELTER

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is a petition to clean up the abandoned aluminum smelter in Georgina township.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the abandoned aluminum smelter located on Warden Avenue in the town of Georgina has been deemed to have heavy metals exceeding the Ministry of the

Environment guidelines; and

"Whereas the site is adjacent to a wetland that leads into the Maskinonge River feeding into Lake Simcoe;

"The Ministry of the Environment should immediately conduct a full environmental assessment and cleanup of the site."

This is petitioned by the people who have signed this particular petition to the Legislative Assembly. I affix my signature; I'm in complete agreement.

PROTECTION OF TEMAGAMI

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): This petition is from a University of Guelph club, the Guelph Forest Defence collective. There are over

250 signatures on it. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas conservation reserves are a critical part of Ontario's protected area network; and

"Whereas 97% of Ontarians polled want the Temagami area protected; and

"Whereas the MOE is currently investigating the MNR and its past track record of allowing illegal massive clear-cuts throughout Ontario; and

"Whereas the MNR must hold the needs of the environment and the wishes of the Ontario public before those of industry; and

"Whereas the world's largest remaining intact red and white pine old-growth forests exist in Temagami and are threatened by logging in block 30 and block 46;

and

"Whereas any further damage from logging around these old-growth stands could be irreversible;

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

"

(1) A cancellation be placed on any present or planned logging in block 30 and block 46 of the Temagami wilderness;

"

(2) The government of Ontario set up well-defined interconnected protection zones around old-growth stands in Temagami;

"

(3) The government of Ontario guarantee that those protection zones would be off limits to logging and other industrial operations; and

"

(4) The government of Ontario support the community sustainable forestry initiative of the Bear Island First Nations and the town of Temagami."

I will affix my signature to this petition because I fully support it.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I have a petition here. As a matter of fact, I have a petition with a few thousand names collected from students

of Toronto, Ontario, with respect to high tuition fees, and it's addressed 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."

I will present this to the House and I will affix my signature to it.

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that has been sent to me by people who live in Oshawa. It reads as follows:

"Whereas one in five children in Ontario live in poverty;

"Whereas, as part of the national child tax benefit program, the federal government gives a supplement to low-income families across the country to begin to

address child poverty;

"Whereas that money, up to approximately $100 a month per child, is meant to give our poorest and most vulnerable children a better chance in life;

"Whereas in Ontario the Conservative government deducts the child benefit supplement dollar for dollar from those living on social assistance;

"Whereas this is leaving our province's neediest children without the extra money they desperately need to begin to climb out of poverty;

"Whereas all children are entitled to a fair chance at life;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on the provincial government of Ontario to stop the clawback of the national child tax benefit

supplement and ensure this federal money reaches all low-income families in Ontario."

I have signed my name to this petition. I agree with the petitioners entirely.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid 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 among comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a resident for

nursing and personal care; and

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

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 to this petition because I am in full agreement.

MEDICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): This petition has been sent to us by Dr Jerry Halik, from the Markham-Stouffville health centre. It reads as

follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the OHIP

schedule of benefits is often unclear about its

definitions of good medical practice, causing problems for patients and their physicians;

"Whereas the medical review committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons has been aggressively clawing back payments to hard-working, conscientious

doctors, thereby exacerbating physician shortages in the province;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on the Minister of Health to suspend further reviews by the medical review committee pending a

negotiated agreement of an unambiguous

schedule of benefits with representatives of affected practising physicians."

I agree with the petitioners and I sign my name to this.

GOLF COURSE ASSESSMENT

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I want to recognize the hard work that my colleague Toby Barrett, the member from

Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, is doing with regard to helping keep green fees at a reasonable rate on golf courses of the province of Ontario. I have a petition that reads as follows. It is addressed to

the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

"Whereas the Municipal Property Assessment Corp (MPAC) has chosen an assessment process for golf courses not relative to property assessment that increases

golf course property taxes unfairly," and I must point out this is an issue the government is dealing with and working on,

"We, the undersigned, request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold assessment values at last year's levels until a fairer method of assessment can be

developed and implemented, or a reclassification of golf course properties can be made."

This is signed by hundreds of people.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I've received tens of thousands of signatures in regard to this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

their warning lights activated;

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

"That the measures contained in private member's Bill ...

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

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

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

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

People have signed this from Aylmer, Ottawa and Nepean, among other areas of the province. I too have signed the petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "Whereas 70% of Ontario women with children under age 12 are in the paid workforce;

"Whereas high-quality, safe, affordable child care is critical to them and their families;

"Whereas the Early Years Study done for the Conservative government by Dr Fraser Mustard and the Honourable Margaret McCain concluded quality child care

enhances early childhood development;

"Whereas this government has cut funding for regulated child care instead of supporting Ontario families by investing in early learning and care;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Ontario government adopt the NDP's $10-a-day child care plan and begin implementation by reducing full child care fees to

$10 a day for children aged two to five currently enrolled in regulated child care by providing capital funds to expand existing child care centres and build new ones, by funding pay equity for

staff, and by creating new $10-a-day child care spaces in the province."

I agree with this petition and I sign my signature to it.

VISITORS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I know it's highly out of order, but Matthew Fabbricino is a page, as you know, from Burlington. His mom

and dad and his sister are in the visitors' gallery and I'm sure the people of Burlington and Matthew would appreciate us saying hello today.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 6, 2003, on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the

opening of the session.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We left off when the member for Trinity-Spadina had the floor. Our rules are that we go in rotation.

Ordinarily I would look to my right. I think I have a point of order. The chair recognizes the member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On Monday, May 5, 2003, there is a Hansard indicating Mr Bisson rising,

effectively on a point of order: "Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to stand down Mr Hampton's lead till Wednesday." ... "Wednesday. Is it agreed? Agreed."

I put to you therefore that it is appropriate for the New Democratic Party's one-hour lead to commence. I can indicate to you that Mr Hampton will be sharing

that lead with Ms Martel from Nickel Belt.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the consent motion was for Mr

Hampton to have his leadoff speech on Wednesday; I agree. But by the rules of the House, rotation goes. If Mr Hampton gets to do his speech right now, then the rotation would be that the NDP would

have more speakers than the other parties. That was never agreed to. So when the rotation comes, Mr Hampton can have his leadoff speech on Wednesday.

Mr Kormos: This is rather cute pettifoggery. We have a long-time history here of deferring leadoff speeches. In the context of response to the

throne speech, we know that the government has the first day, and upon the completion of their speaking to it, the House is adjourned without any further business being called. The leader of the

official opposition then follows the next day. There had been an agreement -- and we appreciate the co-operation, of course -- for Mr Hampton to have his leadoff deferred to today. It's not out of

line with other agreements and similar wording that has been done in years and in Parliaments gone by. Clearly, the agreement was as to Mr Hampton having his response to the throne speech today. It

has been indicated that he will share that with Ms Martel. Ms Martel will speak briefly until Mr Hampton gets here. Mr Hampton has been delayed for a few minutes outside because of the scrum that

follows question period.

I find it most regrettable that there are members here who would want to exploit the opportunity to deny what was clearly the intent of the agreement, and that

was that Hampton have his leadoff today. What does that mean -- that if Hampton doesn't get the floor until later today he's not to have his whole period for leadoff?

The Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, there are two questions. One is whether or not there could be a substitution of time. The debater

right now would ordinarily be to my right. It seems to me you're asking for a separate question. You're asking for substitution when that opportunity comes. I'm not sure that should come at this

point. It would seem to me that should come in the next rotation of your party. Other than that, there may be a different unanimous consent that you're seeking.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Welcome to the House, Mr Hampton. My dilemma is, in the absence of Mr Marchese, I'm looking to my right for a debater.

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With due respect, we know there is a protocol that follows the reading of the throne speech. The

protocol is that the throne speech is read and the House then adjourns for the day. The first bill of the session is introduced, as occurred last Wednesday. Thursday, of course, is the first day

following the throne speech. The government then speaks to the throne speech, as Mr Gill and one of his colleagues did, and I was present during that. The House is then adjourned, notwithstanding

that it's not 6 o'clock, to the next day.

On the next day, the leader of the official opposition, or his delegate, takes the floor at the beginning of orders of the day and commences his response. On

Monday, there had been unanimous consent sought because Tuesday was an opposition day. So it was impossible for Mr Hampton to speak to the throne speech on Tuesday.

I'll be quite candid with you. Clearly, the motive for seeking the agreement was so that Mr Hampton could, as did Conservative government members and as did Mr

McGuinty, address the House during the afternoon session rather than in the darkness, if you will, of the evening session. Unanimous consent was sought to stand down Mr Hampton's lead until

Wednesday. Today is Wednesday. There was agreement with respect to that. "Is it agreed? Agreed." Mr Hampton is here to commence his lead. This is the tradition in the House, quite frankly, I

suspect, as a convention, and I would ask that the Speaker give effect to the unanimous consent that was agreed to on Monday, May 5, 2003.

The Deputy Speaker: I shan't do that. What I will do is, if you have a request for a point of order that you want to ask the House for

unanimous consent for something, please ask it. Other than that, I am going to proceed in debate in rotation according to the custom of the House.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Point of order.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, if I am taking more points of order on the same subject, then I will take them in rotation.

Mr Bisson: My leader has gone through the details, but I was the one that moved the point of order on Monday night. I was very clear, very

explicit. There was an agreement by the Liberals and the Conservatives that our leader would do his leadoff speech on the throne speech on Wednesday. It reads as follows: "I believe we have

unanimous consent to stand down Mr Hampton's lead till Wednesday." I couldn't be any more clear. It was an agreement and it is agreed to on Hansard, so therefore I am waiting for Mr Hampton to do

his lead. That's what the agreement was.

I notice there's a little bit of a meeting going on here. Can I suggest maybe we just take a five-minute recess in order to work this out?

The Deputy Speaker: We will wait while the business of the House goes on, as I think it should.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I seek consent to allow Mr Hampton to do his leadoff speech for one hour and for the remaining time of the throne speech

debate to be shared between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

I will amend that. I will take the rest of the time and split it by rotation that it would normally have between the three parties. So nobody loses any time on

either side of this House.

Mr Kormos: I appreciate the proposition and I want to indicate that we agree in response to the point of order and the proposition made by Mr

Stockwell that we will calculate the impact of New Democrats having spoken and adjust it that so that it will reflect what in fact would have been the proper allocation of time, had the leadoff

been in order.

The Deputy Speaker: So that things are well understood, Mr Kormos rose on a point of order and asked for unanimous consent for the leadoff. He

has also added a whole lot of other things that I'm not even going to contemplate at this time. But on his point of order, on his request for unanimous consent, is there consensus? Agreed? It is

agreed.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I am pleased to take

part in this throne speech debate, and let me begin by saying that the amendment

to the motion be amended by striking out all the words after, "Whereas Ontarians" and substitute the following:

"Have felt the impact of bad Conservative privatization policies where it hurts -- in the pocketbook;

"Whereas the Conservatives ignore evidence from around the world that privatization of public necessities -- such as water, hydro, health, education -- doesn't

work and costs more;

"Whereas Ontarians are looking for practical solutions that would:

"Stop hydro privatization and deregulation and ensure clean, reliable public power at cost.

"Extend public home care, create 100 new community health centres and cut long-term-care user fees. Cancel plans for private MRI/CT clinics and privately built

hospitals and put funds back into public health care.

"Keep our drinking water public and protect water from source to tap.

"Ensure every student has the opportunity to excel, guaranteed by a dedicated education excellence fund that takes the politics out of education funding. No

public funds for private schools.

"Immediately increase the minimum wage to $8 an hour, prohibit scabs and treat injured workers fairly.

"Freeze rents for two years, build at least 32,000 units of affordable housing and increase shelter allowances.

"Cut tuition by 10% and ensure that no student is denied a quality education or training for financial reasons.

"Lower transit fares, shorten waits and reduce gridlock with a dedicated transportation trust fund.

"Reduce child care fees to $10 a day for 18-month to five-year-olds in non-profit, regulated child care, and create 20,000 new child care spaces.

"Protect your pension from inflation and let you take it with you from job to job.

"Therefore, this House endorses an agenda of public power."

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Hampton has moved an amendment to the amendment of the throne speech. I'd like to read it if I could have a copy of

it.

Mr Hampton has moved --

Mr Kormos: Dispense, please.

The Deputy Speaker: As I was saying before, if there are two of us up, if there are two of us talking, one of us is out of order, and it's not

me.

Mr Hampton has moved that the amendment to the motion be amended by striking out the words after "Whereas Ontarians" and substitute the following --

Mr Kormos: Dispense, please.

The Deputy Speaker: Dispense? Agreed.

Debate?

Mr Hampton: I believe anyone who watched the Conservative throne speech came away with the impression that this is a government that is either

suffering from amnesia itself or wants the citizens of Ontario to suffer from amnesia in respect of the last eight years. This is a government that wants the people of Ontario to forget that it is

the government that cut hospital budgets, it is the government that laid off 10,000 nurses and referred to nurses as out-of-date Hula Hoop workers.

This is a government that, according to their own education task force -- Dr Rozanski -- took $2 billion out of our elementary and secondary classrooms.

This is a government that substantially cut funding for our public universities and colleges such that Ontario now ranks second to last in Canada in terms of

per capita funding for our colleges and universities.

This is a government that wants people to forget that it downloaded the responsibilities and costs of protecting public health, protecting people from the SARS

virus or the West Nile virus, or protecting people from drinking water that is not safe and healthy. This is the government that downloaded all of those costs and responsibilities on to

municipalities.

Anyone who read the throne speech would have to come away with the overwhelming impression that this is a government that wants to pretend that through one

throne speech, somehow magically all of that damage that has been done by this government over eight years can be reversed like that, with a snap of the fingers.

We like to think of throne speeches as setting a vision or a strategy or a direction for the future. But I challenge anyone: read this throne speech and try to

find a vision for Ontario, try to find a direction, try to find anything that is coherent in terms of setting out a framework for Ontario. It is not there; it is simply not there.

I want to use the time that is available to me to set out what New Democrats believe must be the framework for Ontario, the direction ahead. Let me begin with

an issue that touches virtually every person, every business, every industry in this province, and that is the fact that all of us need an affordable supply, a reliable supply of electricity, of

electrical energy, and we need to have it in such a way that is environmentally responsible.

This is a government that has said that the energy policy for the province should be simply to privatize our hydroelectricity system, turn it over to private

corporations and then let them do whatever they want with it, despite the failures in California; despite the now even recognized failures in Alberta, as we found out from the Premier of Alberta

today, Ralph Klein; despite the failures in Great Britain; despite the failures in New Zealand; despite the fact that people in Montana and Nevada, in the state elections in the United States in

November, voted overwhelmingly to reject deregulation of their hydroelectricity systems. Notwithstanding that, the direction of this government in terms of energy policy is simply, "Let the private

sector do it."

Well, that is not good enough, because after eight years of hearing this government say, "Let the private sector do it," the sorry result is this: hydro rates

have skyrocketed to the point that the government has had to bring in temporary rate caps, at least for residential customers, to try to hide the financial pain from them. But hydro rates have

skyrocketed. For many industries in this province it's resulting in layoffs, it's resulting in curtailed production and, in some cases, companies literally saying, "We may be going out of

business."

Environmentally, it has resulted in dirtier and dirtier air. Why? First of all, because the private sector is not building any new supply, therefore the

existing coal plants we have in the province have been used more and more at levels approaching 100% operation. In other words, they are running virtually full out. When that is not enough to

provide us with all of the hydroelectricity we need, then the government, through its minions, imports hydroelectricity from places like Michigan, Ohio and Indiana where overwhelmingly that

hydroelectricity is produced by burning dirty coal. So the experience for people on the environmental side has been breathing dirtier and dirtier air.

Now, most recently, in order to try to cover up the severe failure of the private sector to build new supply, the Minister of Energy comes forward with a

strategy to start utilizing dirty diesel generation in residential neighbourhoods in Toronto, Burlington, Kitchener, Guelph, London and Ottawa.

Clearly, this has been a failure. It's been a failure financially, in terms of the skyrocketing hydro bills and in terms of the amount of debt that has mounted

because the government is trying to cover up some of the damage; it's been a failure in terms of the refusal of the private sector to build new supply; and it's been a failure in terms of the

environmental damage.

I want to say to people all across Ontario that Ontario should learn from the experience in Great Britain, New Zealand, California, Alberta, Nevada and

Montana. We must keep our hydroelectricity system in public hands and operate it on a not-for-profit basis, and we must implement a thoroughgoing energy efficiency strategy now in this

province.

Finally, we should be adopting some of the measures that have most recently been taken by Hydro-Québec, a not-for-profit publicly owned utility, and by

Manitoba Hydro in that province, where both of them have completed geographic analyses of their provinces. They now know where you can generate wind energy most cost-effectively and most

efficiently. They are at least eight years ahead of Ontario now in moving to set up sustainable systems of wind turbines to generate clean, renewable electricity in that fashion. We must do this

now, and the most cost-effective, most efficient and fairest way to do this is through a publicly owned, not-for-profit hydroelectricity system.

I also want to refer to some of the other measures I believe need to be taken. What we have seen from this government is also a reliance upon or a movement to

rely upon the private sector to provide clean, safe drinking water as