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

April 20, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Apr-20 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 20 April 2004 Mardi 20 avril 2004

VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AUTISM SERVICES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

WASTE DISPOSAL

GEORGE GROSS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

POULTRY PRODUCTS

VOLUNTEERS

RIGHTEOUS AMONG THE NATIONS AWARD

TAXATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DAY NURSERIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES GARDERIES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

TENANT PROTECTION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

TENANT PROTECTION

VISITORS

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

NUCLEAR ENERGY

WASTE DISPOSAL

ENERGY CONSERVATION

WATER QUALITY

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

BAUER NIKE HOCKEY

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADAMS MINE LAKE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE LAC DE LA MINE ADAMS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Before we start, we have with us in the Speaker's gallery today John Turner, former Speaker of the House and

member of the provincial Parliament, representing the riding of Peterborough for many years, in the 29th, 31st, 32nd and 33rd Parliaments. Please join me in welcoming Mr Turner.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AUTISM SERVICES

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Our caucus believes that autistic children deserve to receive the best possible intervention services from

the government to enable them to reach their full potential. What saddens and angers their parents is that these children have been used as political footballs. The Premier has not kept his promise

to extend intensive behavioural intervention treatment beyond the age of six. This was a another cynical Liberal promise that was made in writing, during the election, directly to a parent who is

struggling to help her autistic child. The government had a chance to redeem itself with families with autistic children, and they missed it.

When our party was in government, we brought in the first intensive behavioural intervention program for children with autism and we made Ontario a national

leader in providing these services. We planned to continue to increase funding and expand the program, unlike this government that has broken a promise to hundreds of autistic children and their

families.

I want the minister to tell this House how services will be improved. How will they be provided in the future? What will she do to shorten the waiting list for

autistic children who need intervention services? Will she set an absolute maximum time between the date of assessment and the initiation of service? How long a wait is acceptable to her? Will she

introduce an efficient complaints process for parents who believe their children have been shortchanged? Will she give priority consideration to children who turned six while they were on the

waiting list?

Finally, what specific resources will she provide to parents? Will she produce an IBI manual for parents so they can reinforce and build upon the professional

treatment their children deserve and should receive?

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): This Thursday I will be attending the 26th annual justice dinner in my area, hosted by the Waterloo Region

Community Safety and Crime Prevention Council. I want to pay tribute today to this council, which brings together individuals, businesses, levels of government, educators, police, children's mental

health advocates and others to develop strategies aimed at eliminating the root causes of crime. Its solutions are built on raising awareness and bringing the community together. I have found the

council to be imaginative, forward-looking and ready to seek real solutions to community safety issues.

Recently, the government of Ontario recognized the work of the council as a best-practices example of collaboration and partnership in addressing the needs of

our community and its youth. As well as hearing a keynote address from the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, the dinner will honour unsung heroes who work behind the scenes to

make Waterloo region a safer community.

I would like to congratulate the members and supporters of the council, including Waterloo regional chair Ken Seiling, executive director Christiane Sadeler,

chair Barry McClinchey, vice-chair Irene O'Toole and past chair Peter Ringrose. The work of this council exemplifies one of its mottos: "A connected community is a safer community."

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This coming Thursday, April 22,we'll celebrate Earth Day in Ontario, a day that's been recognized in

many jurisdictions since 1970. It's a day to celebrate the environment and what we can do to protect it.

After 30 years it has come to this: The province of Ontario is shipping over a million tonnes of trash a year -- that's a 125 tractor-trailer loads a day -- out

of the province onto Michigan soil. Sadly, on this coming Earth Day there will still be no end in sight as to where the garbage would go should Michigan decide to close its borders to Ontario

trash. I would mention that Michigan's concerns over allowing Canadian garbage to emigrate to the Great Lakes state is well documented.

Over the last 30 years, since the inception of Earth Day, it's been the NDP and the PCs who have the track record of doing the heavy lifting with regard to

environmental legislation, while the Liberals busy themselves renaming open-pit mines as lakes. This is the same Liberal government that has taken on the mantle of environmental promise breakers.

Just witness the recent 60% waste diversion commitment by 2008, three years later than the 2005 date the minister told this House in December. On this Earth Day, I would ask the Minister of the

Environment to ensure that she has more to bring to the celebration than further empty promises.

GEORGE GROSS

Mrs Donna H. Cansfield (Etobicoke Centre): Canada and Ontario are very fortunate to have in our midst some of the best journalists in the world.

In fact, it's quite possible that Ernest Hemingway left town after serving as a reporter with the Toronto Star simply because he couldn't stand the competition. And our days have been enlivened by

some of the world's foremost sports writers and broadcasters.

It gives me great pleasure to congratulate one of the best, George Gross, who was awarded the Order of Ontario for his work as a sports writer, commentator and

other immigrants before and after him.

Mr Gross has enriched our society marvellously well. Not only has he brought life into action, competition and the emotion of sports through his writing for

several newspapers and radio stations; he has given considerable support to a number of charities and community events in Etobicoke.

As a member of the Etobicoke volunteer community, he exemplifies the attributes of a volunteer. They give their time, expertise, compassion and care --

volunteers such as those with the Dorothy Ley Hospice, who gave 22,000 hours in 2003 to their community, working with people in Ontario to make life better.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): On Friday, April 16, the board of the Northeast Mental Health Centre made its second round of cuts to services.

This time the board cut adult community-based programs and reduced services in the hospital.

The specific cuts include the closure of community-based mental health programs in Elliot Lake and Walden; reduction in services for the assertive community

treatment team and the intensive case management program in the city of Greater Sudbury; reduction in the occupancy rate at the Sudbury Algoma Hospital so that nine beds will be left empty by the

end of this fiscal year.

These cuts will have a dramatic impact on adults in northeastern Ontario who suffer from mental illness. Clients living in Elliot Lake will have to travel 160

kilometres one way to Sudbury to access counselling programs. The wait time for counselling and therapy intervention for clients across the Manitoulin and Sudbury districts will increase from the

current two months to one year, and some services won't be available at all. Seriously ill patients who need support from the ACT team will have to wait six to eight months. Seriously ill patients

needing individual or group rehabilitation will have to wait four months for help. Finally, nine acute care beds will be empty by the end of fiscal year 2004-05 in order to reduce the deficit on

the hospital side.

The Minister of Health has said he is working on priority funding for a number of mental health programs and that he'll make an announcement when this is ready.

But patients suffering from mental illness are fragile, and they can't wait. If the minister is going to do something for the Northeast Mental Health Centre, he should do it now, so that fragile

patients aren't put at even greater risk.

POULTRY PRODUCTS

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Tonight is game 7 of the battle of Ontario. My favourite team, the Maple Leafs, are going to be

facing off against the Ottawa Senators. The restaurants and pubs of this province are going to be full of hungry fans. Yesterday, I heard there was a threatened shortage of chicken wings. We all

know what a wonderful tradition chicken wings have become at playoff time.

I just want to assure everyone that they don't need to worry. The chicken farmers of Ontario have leapt into action. At our farm, we are doing our part to make

sure there will be wings, whether they're hot, suicide or just plain honey-garlic.

Regardless of whether the Senators or the Leafs go forward, we can be sure that the residents and fans of Ontario are going to have lots of chicken wings, thanks

to the chicken farmers of Ontario.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I stand today in celebration of National Volunteer Week and to recognize some of the brilliant

contributions volunteers are making throughout my beautiful riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.

For instance, last week students at Gravenhurst High School were presented a certificate of thanks from the Salvation Army for making a contribution of a full

truckload of food to the Easter food drive.

During the month of February, students at Victory Public School in Parry Sound took

part in a fundraising campaign entitled Hoops for the Hospital. With the

generous support of parents and community members, the students were able to raise just over $3,000 in support of the West Parry Sound Health Centre.

Meanwhile, in Bracebridge, 11-year-old Martha Wood has for the past year volunteered her time by sewing blankets and sending them to babies in Guatemala. Now

Martha is on to another project: She's sewing fabric bags and filling them with pencils, erasers, notepads and books for children in Africa.

These are just a few examples of the thousands of volunteers throughout my riding who put in countless hours of service. They are a vital part of our

communities, and their value cannot be underestimated. They not only help those they directly serve, but they strengthen the fabric that holds our communities together. For this, I would like to

recognize and thank all those volunteers throughout my riding and throughout Ontario who continue to give so much. May we all be inspired by their example and work to continue and strengthen this

great tradition of volunteering in our communities.

RIGHTEOUS AMONG THE NATIONS AWARD

Mrs Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I rise today to recognize an important honour which was bestowed upon a constituent of Brampton Centre.

This past weekend, Mr John Boeltjes accepted the Righteous Among the Nations honour on behalf of his parents, Johan and Johanna Hendrick, from Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes'

Remembrance Authority.

This medal is one of the highest honours of its kind. It recognizes the sacrifice and courage of his parents, who gave safe haven to Jews in their home in

Amsterdam during the Holocaust.

Past recipients of this award include Oscar Schindler and Raoul Wallenberg.

Unfortunately, the Hendrick family was betrayed and Johan was sent to a Nazi camp, where he died five days before the Allies liberated it.

In recent days, we have all witnessed the ugly spectre of anti-Semitism that has reared its head again. This honour reminds us of examples of courage, compassion

and moral fortitude. If we all care a little more about our fellow man, then maybe one day we can put an end to the hatred that has haunted this world for far too long.

Mr Boeltjes, who is sitting in the members' gallery here today, said it best: "True joy is not caring about you, but caring about others."

TAXATION

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise in the House today to congratulate Progressive Conservative caucus members for their tireless efforts

in working with the people of Ontario to stop the soup-and-sandwich tax.

By now, people have learned that the Dalton McGuinty Liberals have caved on this issue. They couldn't stand the heat from us, and they couldn't stand the heat

from the hard-working people across Ontario. So what did they do? They got out of the kitchen.

Recently, members of the PC caucus launched petitions calling for an end to the soup-and-sandwich tax, otherwise known as Dalton McGuinty's plan to increase the

PST from zero to 8% on meals under $4. We also relentlessly raised this issue in the House.

It soon became quite clear to us that the Premier was trying to fool Ontarians with the line that this was just part of the strategy to encourage people to eat

healthier. People were too smart to buy it, because they knew that meals under $4 include food items like soup, bagels, chicken wings, salads and even sandwiches.

The truth is, the soup-and-sandwich tax was just another one of Dalton McGuinty's trial balloons from the very beginning. It was right up there with restricting

the drug plan for seniors, retesting Ontario drivers, reinstating photo radar and selling government assets like the LCBO. But now these other trial balloons will fly alone, because Dalton

personally deflated the soup-and-sandwich-tax balloon by saying this morning that it's off the table.

Breathe a short sigh of relief and hold on to your wallets, because who knows what the McGuinty Liberals will go after next, and who knows what trial balloon

they will float next?

We in the PC caucus are very proud today that we acted as an effective opposition in helping to stop the soup-and-sandwich tax. While you can't count on the

Liberals to keep their promises, this experience shows that you can count on the PC caucus to be there for the people of Ontario to fight against a tax increase.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DAY NURSERIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES GARDERIES

Mr Lalonde moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 59,

An Act to amend the Day Nurseries Act to allow up to seven children to be cared for in rural areas without requiring a licence under the Act / Projet de

loi 59, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les garderies afin d'autoriser, dans les régions rurales, la garde de sept enfants au plus sans devoir obtenir un permis prévu par la Loi.

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

Mr Lalonde?

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): The purpose of the bill is to exempt day nurseries and private home daycare agencies that

receive or provide care for no more than seven children from the licence requirements of the act if the nurseries or agencies are located in a rural area or in a town or village with a population

of fewer than 3,500.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Hon David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): I'm very pleased to rise in the House today to announce that this government is taking steps

to further safeguard Ontario's natural heritage through the preservation and protection of a significant marshland in the Whitby area.

By increasing the amount of protected green space in the province, this government is acting on its commitment to provide the people of Ontario with a cleaner

natural environment and a quality of life that is second to none.

We know that natural areas contribute to cleaner air, cleaner water and a cleaner environment. We know they contribute to healthier and stronger communities. And

we know that a healthy environment and a strong economy go hand in hand.

Today I'm proud to announce that we're adding another 59 hectares to the area of the Lynde Marsh that is already under protection. The Lynde Marsh contains three

provincially significant wetlands -- Lynde Creek Marsh, Cranberry Marsh and part of Carruthers Creek -- and is one of the best examples of Lake Ontario's lakeshore marshes.

My ministry has worked with local partners to acquire the areas of the Lynde Marsh. These efforts have helped to preserve environmentally sensitive natural

features as well as add to the public enjoyment of the area by increasing access to undeveloped waterfront open space.

This important area supports rare plants, is home to 35 species of fish and is a breeding area for wetland birds. It is also a resting place for migratory birds

and a nesting place for shore birds.

The province contributed $1.5 million for the land acquisition that I'm announcing today, and the purchase was undertaken in partnership with the town of Whitby,

which contributed $450,000. The local Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority will hold title to the land and will be responsible for its future management and preservation for the benefit of

all Ontarians.

We will continue to work with our community partners to make sure the natural values and beauty of the Lynde Marsh will be here for the benefit and pleasure of

future generations.

The Lynde Marsh is located in the heart of one of the most populous and rapidly developing areas in Canada, a fact that adds some urgency to our efforts. This

government understands that urgency. It is one of the reasons we introduced the Greenbelt Protection Act last December. The greenbelt would be a permanent and sustainable legacy for future

generations by providing a continuous and connected system of open spaces across this landscape.

The Ministry of Natural Resources is proud to be a partner in protecting the Lynde Marsh and other important natural areas across this province. In doing so,

we are strengthening our communities, our environment, our lakes and rivers, our fish and wildlife habitat, and our air and water quality, now and for the future.

TENANT PROTECTION

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Today I would like to announce our intention

to introduce a legislative amendment to the Tenant Protection Act, 1997. More specifically, we intend to propose suspending the automatic 2% base portion of the annual rent increase guideline

formula of the Tenant Protection Act for rents in 2005. This proposed change is our government's first step toward creating a rental system that is fair to both tenants and landlords.

If the amendment is passed, the annual rent increase guideline formula for 2005 would be solely based on the rent control index. We believe the rent control

index is a more accurate indicator of rising operational costs for landlords than the current calculation.

We recognize that the current guideline has been an ongoing source of friction between tenants and landlords. Tenants complained that the current formula bears

no relation to landlords' operating costs. Landlords need to make a fair return on their properties.

We need time to look carefully at this issue before developing a long-term solution. That's why we intend to replace the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, with

legislation that actually does what the title professes to do: protect tenants.

The legislation we plan to introduce in the fall, if passed, would provide balanced protection for landlords and tenants and encourage the growth and proper

maintenance of rental housing across this great province of ours. It would include a solution to the annual rent increase guidelines and to other landlord-tenant issues. Issues like rent and

utility costs: Why should tenants continue to pay higher rents if utility costs decline? Issues like the level of rents charged to new tenants: Should there be a ceiling placed on what landlords

can charge to new tenants? Issues like interest paid on rent deposits: What interest rate should be applied to rent deposits? Is the current interest rate paid on rent deposits realistic, given the

current economic conditions? These are but some of the areas where our government believes balance needs to be put back in the legislation.

Before we draft this proposed legislation, our government will go out and talk with and listen to the people who are affected most by the current legislation.

We want to have open and frank discussions with groups and individuals about how to create a better piece of legislation. We intend to meet stakeholder groups, hold town hall meetings in

communities with large rental housing markets and gather views in a variety of ways: by phone, letter and through our Web site. The advice, ideas and opinions we hear will help us develop

legislation that will provide fair and balanced protection for tenants and landlords. We plan to introduce new legislation in the fall of this year's legislative session.

Clean, decent and affordable housing is fundamental to the well-being, vitality and strength of families and the communities in which they live. No tenant

should have to choose between paying the rent and paying for groceries. By strengthening the communities in which we live, we are providing Ontarians with a quality of life that is second to none.

We believe the strategy we have laid out here today is a strategy for real, positive change. Our government, the McGuinty government, is confident that with the help of Ontarians we can create a

rental system that better protects tenants and promotes a healthy private rental housing market for now and in the future.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): The last time that this Legislature, to my recollection, had a minister speaking with empathy for the working

poor and the costs of tenancy, and who was herself a landlord, was Zanana Akande. Now we have a second time that a minister who is a noted landlord is here professing his empathy for tenants.

My first question to the minister, and he may wish to answer this to the media later, is: Did the minister declare a conflict of interest and withdraw from

cabinet when this matter was before cabinet for consideration?

I think the most truthful statement made in the House today was the quote from the Toronto Star this morning that said, "The move is aimed at buying the

government time." That is essentially what this is about. The move earlier this morning to eliminate the food tax potential in the upcoming budget was aimed at buying votes in the Hamilton East

by-election. Frankly, we've got the most unusual situation, where we've got rent legislation that requires a public disclosure in August being announced in the House today, without legislation,

five months early, and yet Ontarians have been waiting for six months, and now they're going to wait almost seven months, to get their first budget from this government, which will be two months

late.

The truth of the matter is that Ontarians can recall in their not-too-distant past just how bad the Liberals' ill-fated promises of 1985 were and the actual

bitter pill of legislation in Bill 51 they had to swallow in 1987. With all due respect to the Speaker -- you were the minister at the time, and Zanana Akande was also the minister -- you will

recall that this legislation was so bad that it resulted in increases. In my riding of Burlington alone, we had an 85% increase under your legislation at 5170 Lakeshore Road, a 43% increase at 477

Elizabeth Street and the list goes on and on. The Residential Rent Regulation Act, if that's the model you're going to be following, will be bad news for tenants as well as bad news for

landlords.

The minister did make a reference to his fellow landlords when he said very clearly in his statement, "Landlords need to make a fair return on their

properties." Well, Minister, if that's what you're going to do -- try to reach a more balanced approach -- it raises the larger question of why your government's intervention for seniors and

low-income tenants is reduced to a mere 2%.

Here is your record to date: So far, your Treasurer cancelled income tax cuts last fall that put thousands more seniors and low-income Ontarians back on the

provincial tax rolls for the first time. Secondly, your Treasurer gave municipalities the right to increase the municipal tax levy that's allocated to multiple-residential units, and you

specifically went against past policies to help us reduce the associated costs that were passed directly through. So the 7% increase in our municipality could be a 12% or 15% increase for specific

tenants in my riding.

Your seniors' property tax credit had a cash value of about $475. Even at $1,000 a month, the most they will realize out of this is $240, and yet you

eliminated the tax credit for seniors that would have put $475 back into their pockets.

You broke your promise on hydro, and since electric heat is available in most apartment buildings in Ontario, you are going to find that those increases are

going to go up 28%. What a deal. Today you announced that maybe you are going to roll back more than 2%, and yet you are increasing their utilities 28%.

The bottom line is that you've done nothing, really, to help tenants; you have actually hurt them with your policies, and you are expecting tenants to stand up

and applaud for 2%.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): With respect to the MNR announcement of taxpayers' money to expand protection for the provincially

significant Lynde Marsh, it is surely a continuation of wetland protection programs of the previous PC government. The acquisition of land to add to the area of the marsh has been undertaken for

many years by the Ministry of Natural Resources in partnership with community partners. My colleagues and I certainly understand the urgency of continuing the programs of the previous government. I

will mention that in the year 2000, Minister John Snobelen made an announcement of $331,000, in part for this same piece of property.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Unlike the last couple of speakers, I stand up to actually applaud this government for reducing rents by

2% in the coming year. I believe that this is a good thing. I wish you had said this before, in the lead-up to the election, because your platform, quite frankly, said something different. You said

you would not do this if the vacancy rates in any particular municipality went above 3%, as is the case today in Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa.

Notwithstanding that, you have come to your senses, and I have to say that what you are saying today is a first step can only be applauded by the millions of

Ontarians who are renters. The proof will be, though, in the future. What is the future legislation going to say? The 2% today is a good down payment, but you are talking about consultation across

this entire province, consultation that you think is necessary to bring in new legislation. We already know, you already know and the Tories already know that thousands of families are being

dispossessed; they're being kicked out of their rental units every month by a system that doesn't work. We already know that thousands of families cannot afford the rent they are paying in Ontario

and through vacancy decontrols are being driven out of their homes.

We already know that there are 75,000 people in the city of Toronto alone who are on the waiting list for affordable housing -- 75,000 people who probably will

never see an affordable unit in their lives because the waiting list is just too long. It's the same in virtually every city in this province.

You are going out and embarking upon a whole series of consultations and you are asking questions that I believe you should already know the answers to. You

don't have to consult the landlords. You need to consult the millions of tenants in this province, and they will tell you the answers pretty fast. As to whether rents should be increased when there

is a vacancy: Of course the rent shouldn't be increased when there is a vacancy, as the Tenant Protection Act allowed. All that did was allow rents to increase much faster than the rate of

inflation. We know in this province that it has gone up 43% while inflation has only gone up 20% since the advent of this act.

You're asking whether or not the province should keep a list of former rents. Of course the province should keep a list of the former rents. The landlord is

not going to tell people, and obviously new tenants aren't going to be able, in every case or even in the majority of cases, to find out who the previous tenant was in order to find out what rent

was paid. So you already know the answer.

You're asking whether increases should be based on the costs the building actually has incurred. We know what has happened here in the past under the previous

legislation put in by the Tories. When natural gas spiked in cost, every tenant in the province paid increased rents. When natural gas bottomed out, as it did a few weeks or months after that, not

one cent was given back to the tenants in repayment. You already know that happened -- the costs no longer borne.

The above-guideline increases are absolutely impossible if maintenance is to be increased. You already know that many of the buildings in the last four or five

years have been improved. You already know the tenants have paid for that, and you don't have to pay for it again.

You have asked the question about dispute resolution. If ever there was an unfair example of the previous legislation it is there, where tenants are kicked out

changed.

I am asking you to do the right thing. I am asking you to pass the legislation. I am asking you to introduce it and then take it out to the field. Take it out

for improvements in what you're going to do. Don't do it the way you're doing it now.

I'm going to ask you about demolition and conversion. You know that demolition and conversion provisions need to be given to the cities. You know that this

needs to be done. Just give it to them. Don't go out and ask that question. You have the opportunity to be a true friend to tenants. Be that friend; be it today.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): In the members' gallery we have a visitor, Mike Bradley, the mayor of Sarnia, and city manager Ann Tulpin.

May we all welcome them to the assembly?

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent for a

member from each party to speak for approximately five minutes in recognition of Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I rise today to recognize Yom Hashoah Ve Hagevurah, Holocaust

Memorial Day, marking one of the worst crimes in history. This past Sunday, April 18, was designated for Holocaust remembrances in communities around the world. This is the sixth year that the

Ontario Legislature has observed Holocaust Memorial Day. This practice was started with the passage of Bill 66 on December 10, 1998. I'm proud to say that Ontario was the first jurisdiction outside

the state of Israel to officially recognize Holocaust Memorial Day.

On this day, Jews and non-Jews around the world come together to light candles and remember the six million Jews who were killed in the Holocaust and honour

those who survived. We also remember the many others who were targeted by the Nazis for their race, religion, politics, disabilities and sexual orientation. It's important to set aside time to

remember the victims whose lives were destroyed in Europe during the Nazi era between 1933 to 1945, and remember that we bear witness to what these men, women and children endured.

Tragically, other genocides have followed since World War II in Cambodia, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Therefore, it is evident that we must continue our

struggle to keep alive the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved by the United Nations 56 years ago in the shadow of the Holocaust. The declaration recognized the inherent

dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace throughout the world. It called on the world to protect human rights

by the rule of law.

It's been said so many times, and it bears repeating, that we are so fortunate to live in a country like Canada. But we must guard our democratic institutions

and democratic freedoms, and we must appreciate, nurture and protect them. We must constantly remind ourselves how easy it is to lose them. Ontario is a unique society where people from all parts

of the world are joined together to build a strong and prosperous province. We are working together to build a province where each and every one of us enjoys freedom from tyranny and fear. And we

must be prepared to defend this freedom swiftly and with all the resources at our command.

Recently, there has been an upsurge in anti-Semitic acts across Canada and in Ontario. B'nai Brith Canada's League for Human Rights found that in the 21 years

this group has been monitoring the problem, 2003 was a time when the highest number of anti-Semitic incidents occurred. During a two-week period starting in mid-March this year, the Jewish

communities of Toronto and Vaughan experienced acts of vandalism involving swastikas painted on homes, schools and community signs, the breaking of stained-glass windows in a synagogue and the

toppling of headstones in a cemetery. The recent firebombing of a Jewish school in Montreal is a further abominable reminder of the scourge of anti-Semitism. Once again, anti-Semitism has reared

its ugly head. This time, however, we know what has to be done.

I am proud that in Ontario we have responded with swift and clear condemnation from all sectors of society. As Premier McGuinty told a Toronto rally on the

evening of Wednesday, March 24, "Here we practice tolerance with one notable exception: Here there is zero tolerance for hate and those who would spread it." We must treat anti-Semitism and any

form of hate as a cancer that must be eradicated.

In Ontario, we are proud of a collection of many ancestries, religions, histories, languages and cultures. People have come here from diverse parts of the

world to create a better life for themselves and their families. Many Holocaust survivors are among those who now call Ontario home. This morning at a ceremony in the Legislature, Premier McGuinty

and Ontario's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration awarded special certificates to 11 of these elderly Jewish Holocaust survivors who now reside in Ontario. These 11 individuals are present in

the visitors' gallery today, and I'm delighted to welcome them here.

Our society has benefited immensely from their contributions and, most important of all, from their strong passion for life. They provide inspiration for all

of us. But with the passage of time, there remain fewer and fewer survivors of the Holocaust. Without their presence among us, it might become very easy to forget the horrors they faced. We must

commit ourselves to never forget what happened to six million Jews who were murdered, simply because of their religion. We must strengthen the hope that no community will ever again experience such

horrible acts. We must also continue our vigil against tyranny and those who inflict such atrocities on a group because of their race, religion, customs, politics or place of origin.

"Never again" is the pledge that must be inscribed in the hearts of Canadians and passed on to every succeeding generation. We must always remember, so that

the world will never forget.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): It's a privilege to be able to join all members of this House in recognizing Yom Hashoah, Holocaust

Memorial Day.

It's always difficult to speak after the honourable minister has just spoken so eloquently. You need to know that each year you touch each one of us greatly,

and we thank you for your sincere comments.

Holocaust Memorial Day is a day that commemorates the Holocaust and honours the six million Jews who were murdered during World War II, as well as those who

survived, many of whom, we know, settled in Ontario.

On December 10, 1989, this Legislature passed Bill 66, in the name of my colleague the member for Halton. The bill proclaimed that we in Ontario would

recognize Holocaust Memorial Day. We were the first jurisdiction outside the state of Israel to do so. This bill provided us with a further opportunity to reflect on the enduring lessons of the

Holocaust and the enhancement of anti-discrimination education.

The acts of vandalism in a Jewish cemetery in my community of Kitchener earlier this month and the swastikas spray-painted in a Waterloo neighbourhood this

past weekend, as well as similar anti-Semitic acts of violence and vandalism in our province in recent months, indicate that there remains a great need for anti-discrimination education. We do not

know what motivated these cowardly actions, but what we do know is that they have caused tremendous pain, hurt and anger. As the Kitchener-Waterloo Record stated in today's edition, "The cruel

ignorance that lies behind such vandalism begs for the enlightenment that can only come with education."

As a child of Dutch immigrants, I learned very early in life about World War II and the Holocaust and the atrocities that had been committed. As a former

history teacher, I personally believed I had a responsibility to teach my students about the Holocaust and all that had happened during World War II. Through the study of the Holocaust, my

students, and students today, are able to realize that their silence and their indifference to the suffering of others or the infringement of civil rights in any society can, however unintentional,

serve to perpetuate the problems.

That is why it was so important that in response to the recent anti-Semitic acts of vandalism that people throughout this province and in my own community of

Kitchener-Waterloo spoke out with a loud, united voice to denounce and condemn these acts and to offer their support to their Jewish neighbours and friends.

We must never, ever weaken our resolve to express our outrage at these expressions of hate, because we must remember that many individuals, such as our Jewish

friends and colleagues, my own family who immigrated here and millions of others from around this world, have come to this province and to this country because we know it to be a land of love,

acceptance, tolerance and respect for one another. It is extremely important that we continue to speak out, because as time passes there remain fewer and fewer survivors, and without their presence

it sometimes becomes easy to forget the horrors that these individuals have faced. We must not, and cannot ever, forget. We need to continue the vigil that we have undertaken. We need to ensure

that there will never be another person or people who will have the power to inflict such unspeakable horrors and suffering on any group of human beings regardless of their race, their religion,

their way of life or where they live.

By standing together today and every day in solidarity with our Jewish friends and neighbours, you and I can ensure a better tomorrow for all generations to

come, not only in this province and this country, but our influence can be felt and is being felt throughout this world.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): The names of Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz, Dachau and other Nazi concentration camps have been seared into

our memories because of the unimaginable horror they represent. Between 1933 and 1945, over six million Jewish men, women and children were systematically murdered. Entire communities, villages,

indeed entire generations of families were exterminated in the most brutal fashion, and this state-sponsored and -organized genocide also killed millions of others because of their race, their

religion, their sexual orientation or the fact that they may have had a physical or mental handicap.

The suffering was terrible and the loss to society, the damage to human dignity, cannot be measured. That is why we must never forget what happened. That is

why we must not allow ourselves to forget that the early warning signs of the persecution of Jews existed in 1935, 1936, 1937, but much of the world did nothing to oppose the persecution, and while

tens of thousands of Jewish families tried to flee Nazi Germany, many countries closed their borders. Indeed, Canada essentially closed its borders.

History must serve as a reminder that we must always be on guard, that this cannot happen again and, sadly, the events that we've seen -- Rwanda, Cambodia,

Armenia -- tell us that this can happen again if we are not on guard, that we must always speak out against anti-Semitism, against hate, against racism of any kind. It's why we must act decisively

when the ugly realities of hate crimes and neo-Nazism resurface in present-day Ontario.

We must stand with Jewish Canadians and all victims of genocide against the hate-mongers and take swift action to put a stop to their racist actions, just as

we finally did 60 years ago, when it became impossible for the world to ignore what was happening, when Canadian soldiers and fliers helped to free the survivors of concentration camps and

witnessed personally the destruction and the cruelty that happened there. Many of the Holocaust survivors who were freed from those concentration camps came to Canada, settled here in Ontario and

have become wonderful members of society who have made incredible contributions to our community.

As I said, we must remember this and we must never forget how this happened. We must reflect on mankind's capacity for cruelty and terror, and we must also

reflect on our capacity to triumph over it, to find the courage to be clear, to be firm. And we must reflect on the capacity that has been demonstrated in Ontario for people to build new lives and

to help build a province and a country where all cultures, all religions and the rights of all people are respected and honoured.

This is an important day for all of us to reflect upon and for all of us to rededicate our efforts.

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Speaker, pursuant to standing order 21, I wish to raise a point of privilege.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I want to thank the member for Erie-Lincoln, who has provided me with written notice of his intention to

raise this point of privilege. I am prepared to hear the member's point of privilege, but I first want to be very clear about this. The member for Erie-Lincoln will know that it is not appropriate

for there to be any type of criticism of the Chair.

The member wants to make the argument that his privilege has been breached as the result of some sort of activity or event that has occurred. As I say, I am

prepared to let him begin making his point; however, I fully expect the member to very directly indicate which of his privileges have been breached and how, and to ensure that his remarks do not

stray into territory where the Chair is being questioned or criticized.

Mr Hudak: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your points. Nothing in my remarks should be perceived as any kind of criticism of the Chair or

decisions made from the chair. They are intended for the actions of a member not sitting in the chair.

Earlier today, pursuant to standing order 21, I submitted to the Speaker a point of privilege regarding what I believe to have been and to be a grave contempt

against myself as a member and, more broadly, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario itself. Speaker, I beg your indulgence to make my submission to you and to members of the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario. I appreciate this opportunity to bring it to your attention as soon as possible.

Let me summarize my point of privilege. I felt that my rights as a member of the Legislative Assembly, as conferred by the standing orders and by parliamentary

precedent, were threatened and indeed violated, which I will explain in some detail in a moment, on the action of Wednesday, April 14, immediately after adjournment of the House, at 1805 of the

clock according to Hansard. The incident of which I speak is a serious one, all the more serious considering the member in question also serves in another capacity as an officer of the House.

The member for Essex and Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I submit, conducted himself in a manner which was wholly inappropriate and,

more importantly, in violation of basic rights we all enjoy as members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. A direct threat and an attempt to intimidate were made by the member from Essex to me

as a member immediately after he vacated the Speaker's chair at the conclusion of daily business. Upon retiring from the chamber floor, the member made gestures to me from behind and to the east of

the chair, which I submit violate my basic rights as a member. To further the validity of my point, several members of the Legislature witnessed the member's threat and attempt to intimidate and

may wish to similarly speak to this point. Furthermore, the threat and attempt to intimidate were recorded and broadcast to the public by the Legislative Assembly broadcast and recording

service.

Let me be clear: Upon adjourning the assembly, vacating the chair and departing from the floor of the chamber, the member for Essex turned about two metres

from the door to the Speaker's office, he faced the opposition benches and looked at me directly. He took two steps toward me and then began to make angry and highly agitated gestures directed at

me, pointing at the floor behind the chair.

The meaning of these gestures is perfectly clear to me and will likely be very clear to other members of the assembly. The member for Essex was, as the

expression goes, calling me out.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I need to hear the member's point of privilege without any interruption. I ask the member from Nepean-Carleton to come to

order. I want to hear the member from Erie-Lincoln's point of privilege without any interruptions.

Mr Hudak: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To repeat, the member of Essex was, as the expression goes, calling me out. It was clear, by his angry and

animated gestures and by his facial expression, that the member for Essex either wanted to get in a heated confrontation with me behind the Chair or, worse yet, engage in a physical altercation.

After the member for Essex repeated the gestures a second time, the Sergeant at Arms captured his attention, spoke with him and escorted him into the Speaker's office.

A physical altercation with another member of the assembly, particularly one still wearing the robes of the Deputy Speaker, obviously is not something in which

I was interested. Nonetheless, the member for Essex's intent was obvious. He was threatening me and attempting to intimidate me as a member of the assembly.

There are a number of arguments that I intend to make. First, I intend to show that my rights as a member of the assembly were violated by the threat and

attempt to intimidate by the member for Essex.

Second, I will seek a ruling on whether the member from Essex violated the rights enjoyed by all members of the assembly, therefore forfeiting his right to sit

in judgment of the actions of members in this House or in his role as Deputy Speaker. I will submit to you that a prima facie case of contempt exists and that therefore the House consider the

removal of the member for Essex from his position as Deputy Speaker as a result of what I allege to be his misconduct as an ordinary member of the assembly; that a proper election be held for the

position of Deputy Speaker as per standing order 4(a).

Many relevant authorities currently exist which pertain to the question of parliamentary privilege as it applies to members and their conduct in the

Legislative Assembly. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition, 1989, uses Sir Erskine May's definition of privilege as follows: "The privileges of Parliament are rights which are

`absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.' They are enjoyed by individual members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its

members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of it's own authority and dignity."

Furthermore, Beauchesne makes references on page 12 to Speaker Lamoureux's 1971 ruling in the House of Commons whereby he defines parliamentary privilege as

follows: "Privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a member to discharge his duties in the House as a member of the House of Commons."

More specifically, Ontario's Legislative Assembly Act, which guides all aspects of the House in Ontario, speaks to the issue of jurisdiction of the assembly to

determine and rule on issues of contempt. Paragraph 2 of subsection 46(1) of the act deals with the issue of threats against members, specifically saying:

"The assembly has all the rights and privileges of a court of record for the purposes of summarily inquiring into and punishing, as breaches of privilege or as

contempts ... the acts, matters and things following:

"Obstructing, threatening or attempting to force or intimidate a member of the assembly."

Further, Erskine May, 22nd edition, 1997, remarks specifically on the validity of a concern related on the obstruction of members and their discharge of duty

as members. I refer you to page 121 of that text, where it says, "It is a contempt to molest a member of either House while attending the House, or coming to or going from it." Erskine May

continues, "Members and others have been punished for such molestation occurring within the precincts of the House, whether by assault or insulting or abusive language, or outside the

precincts."

Page 123 of Erskine May speaks specifically to the point I raise: "To attempt to intimidate a member in his parliamentary conduct by threats is also a

contempt." Further, page 25 of Beauchesne's speaks to the point of intimidation where he says, "It is generally accepted that any threat, or attempt to influence the vote of, or actions of a

member, is a breach of privilege."

It is from these passages that we, as members of the Legislative Assembly in the British parliamentary tradition, derive the convention of what our privileges

are as it relates to the freedom we are assured in performing our duties as representatives of the people. I submit as vigorously as I can that the threat by the member from Essex, if not a

challenge to engage in a physical altercation, was indeed at the very least

an act of intimidation, which stands in violation of my privilege as a member of this House, and that further the House

has a duty to rule on this serious charge.

Perhaps more fundamental to this argument is the question of whether the member from Essex, through his actions as an ordinary member, violated a basic

condition of his role as Deputy Speaker. His role as Deputy Speaker is referenced in the standing orders. Standing order 13(

a) states that "the Speaker shall preserve order and decorum."

Furthermore, Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice states that, "The Speaker of the House of Commons is the representative of the House itself in its powers,

proceedings and dignity. The Speaker's functions fall into two main categories. On the one hand the Speaker is the spokesman or representative of the House in its relations with the crown ... and

other authorities.... On the other hand the Speaker presides over the debates of the House of Commons and enforces the observance of all rules for preserving order in its proceedings."

I would argue that the actions of the member from Essex on Wednesday afternoon violated the standing orders in this place and stood against the generally

accepted notion subscribed to in our parliamentary system that the Speaker is to be the enforcer of rules and order in the assembly. Certainly members must be able to reasonably expect the Deputy

Speaker to exercise his or her duties in accordance with long-standing rules of the House. I submit that the member from Essex himself, as an ordinary member, acted in contempt of the privileges

that all members enjoy, and has therefore forfeited his right to stand in judgment of both the proceedings of the assembly and the actions of its members in his role as Deputy Speaker.

We all know that an important role of the Speaker is to ensure that the rights of members are protected, particularly the rights of opposition members. Because

of the threat and intimidation visited upon me in his capacity as an individual member while he was still wearing the robes of Deputy Speaker, I have great concern about his ability to respect and

protect my rights in his capacity as Deputy Speaker.

I want to be clear on this point: I am in no way reflecting on the character or the impartiality of the member from Essex in his role as Deputy Speaker or his

decisions from the chair. The point of privilege refers to the actions taken by the member as an ordinary member of the assembly against me personally after he had vacated the chair and the House

was adjourned. I do, however, feel that a prima facie case of contempt exists concerning the member from Essex's conduct toward me in the House, and that because of his actions he is unfit to sit

in judgment of the members of the assembly.

More broadly, Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, offers a definition of contempt in the Canadian parliamentary tradition:

"Contempt is more aptly described as an offence against the authority and the dignity of the House." That's on page 225.

I submit to you that the dignity of the House has been violated by the actions of the member from Essex last Wednesday afternoon. I can attest that I have laid

before you all of the relevant information and facts as I understand them. I would ask that you rule that a prima facie case of contempt exists in this case. Further, I submit a motion in the House

seeking the removal of the member from Essex from his position as Deputy Speaker due to his contemptible threats and intimidation toward me, and that an election for the position of Deputy Speaker

take place accordingly.

As a supplementary point on the timing of bringing forward the motion, Beauchesne states that "A question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the

House at the first possible opportunity." Even a gap of a few days may invalidate the claim for precedence in the House. I think you're well aware of that, Mr Speaker.

The reason for bringing it forward today is that I had my staff request from Broadcast and Recording Service a copy of the videotape of the daily proceedings

from Wednesday, April 14. My office received a copy and reviewed that copy over the weekend. Over the course of the business day on Monday and today, I had a chance to consult with other members of

the assembly and other parties with respect to the incident -- hence the short delay in bringing this motion to your attention. I'd be pleased to present as well a copy of the videotape for your

personal review.

I thank you very much for your attention to this, Mr Speaker.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Mr Speaker, further to this point of privilege, I'd like to address the conduct of the member for

Essex, the Deputy Speaker, on the evening of April 14.

I was in the Legislature that evening and witnessed the incident in question. I sit near the chair, as you know, and it was clear to me, as he left the chair,

that he was intimidating and appeared to be trying to start an altercation with the member for Erie-Lincoln.

From time to time in this Legislature, discussions do get heated. However, most members know where to draw the line. Calling on another to engage outside the

House or behind the chair not only crosses the line, as we indicated today, but contravenes the rules of the Legislature. I believe my colleague from Erie-Lincoln has outlined the specific rules

that have been breached here.

To put it in the most plain language, the Deputy Speaker, regardless of who that may be or what party they serve in, should be an impartial referee. If

discussions become too heated, the Deputy Speaker should be stern but, with a calm voice, return order to this Legislature, or to a standing committee for that matter. I've chaired standing

committees for eight and a half years, and a standing committee Chair or a Speaker should not add fuel to the fire or allow political affiliation to drive their actions.

Like all referees, at times the Speaker's decisions will not be appreciated by those involved. Like a referee, the Speaker has the ability to reprimand those

who unjustifiably question his rulings. I will note that this did not occur on the evening of April 14. The fact is that the member from Essex, the Deputy Speaker, instead chose to instigate what

appeared to be a confrontation, and the actions taken by the member from Essex were caught on tape. These are unacceptable actions, unbecoming of a member of the Legislature, and crossed the line,

and I hope that this type of action will not be condoned in this House.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mindful of the time, I'm also mindful of the points which have been raised already. I do, however, want to

address a few matters in this regard.

I've read Maingot -- in fact the reference is at page 253 -- I have no intention of being disparaging of the Speaker, nor of referring to any impartiality on

the part of the Speaker during the course of these comments. I understand the law, if you will, in that regard.

The first question, of course, is: Can a Speaker, can an officer of the court, be in contempt of the Parliament? I was here. I was present on the afternoon of

April 14, and present during the period of time immediately before the adjournment of the House and immediately after the adjournment of the House, when the conduct complained of occurred. I found

it remarkable and also interesting, as I say, from the point of view of, first, can a Speaker be in contempt?

Taking a look at Erskine May, you find that Erskine May, at page 121 -- and I'm referring to the 21st edition -- very specifically speaks of misconduct by

officers: the Sergeant at Arms, according to Erskine May, has been found in contempt of legislatures, among others; an officer of the House of Lords; the Hansard personnel. I looked in Griffith and

Ryle and indeed found that a Speaker may be in contempt of the Parliament.

While it is not a common occurrence, I refer to the House of Commons Journal of 1694 in Britain and found that their Speaker, Sir John Trevor, having received

a gratuity of 10,000 guineas from the city of London after passing the orphans bill, was expelled from the House.

So I put it to you that although the law may not have been applied frequently, the law is very clear, first, that a Speaker can be found in contempt of the

Legislature, of the Parliament. That, I believe, addresses that first consideration.

The second one goes to privileges. Look, we know that privileges are exhaustive. We know that, effectively, the list of privileges is complete. It's finite.

However, when you take a look at, among others, Maingot, you discover that privileges blur with the issue of contempt. We find, among other things, that contempt is whatever a House finds as

contempt -- in itself, a simplistic observation, but nonetheless an accurate reflection of the state of the law. I'm referring to Maingot at page 229.

Specifically, the author writes that another category "relates to matters of contempt that are not a breach of any enumerated right." That's what I spoke to

when I spoke of the exhaustive list of privileges: an enumerated right. It furthermore speaks of any act or omission. It's clear that a contempt doesn't have to be words. It's clear that a contempt

can be conduct. In fact, the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of the Queen and Kopyto, which many in this Legislature will recall, made it very clear in determining contempt in terms of a judicial

context. It spoke very clearly about contempt being not just words but actions as well.

Amongst the things that Maingot says can constitute contempt, because they are a violation of the entitlements, at the very least, of members, is that "Members

are entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed. The assaulting, menacing and insulting of any member on the floor of the House, or while he is coming or going to or from the

House, or on account of his behaviour" -- I want you to pay special attention to this -- "during a proceeding in Parliament, is a violation of the rights of Parliament."

What happened on this afternoon is that the Conservative caucus, and I think it was as obvious as could be, made a political gesture in the course of engaging

in the vote on the non-confidence motion that had been filed by them. Whether or not their conduct was out of order had not been ruled upon. I have no doubt that there was conduct, because it was

conduct that attracted the attention of myself, of every member of this caucus and, I suspect, might even have attracted some of the attention of the press gallery and clearly attracted the

attention of the Speaker. But Maingot makes it clear that menacing behaviour that is a response to conduct is, in and of itself, a contempt.

Go further and look at Erskine May. You've heard reference from the member for Erie-Lincoln. At page 126, Erskine May very clearly speaks of "the molestation

of members on account of their conduct in Parliament is also a contempt." That appears to be specific and complete.

Take a look at Marleau and Montpetit, in particular at page 67: "There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may

not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges." This goes back to my first comment about how the list of privileges is exhaustive. "The House ... claims the right to punish, as a

contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the

House in the discharge of their duties" -- and this is the imperative and compelling part of this statement -- "or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience

of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its members, or its officers."

Contempt, as opposed to privileges, cannot be enumerated or categorized. As Speaker Sauvé explained, "While our privileges are defined, contempt of the

House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred."

Words or acts can be committed -- that is to say, a contempt can be committed -- by an officer of the assembly, including a Speaker. But I ask the court to

also take into consideration

section 31 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This is not a trivial matter. In fact, the intimidation of a Legislature or a Parliament is a serious criminal offence. And I

don't suggest that here we have a violation of criminal law. I raise

section 31 of the Criminal Code to point out to you how seriously the authorities consider the intimidation of a Parliament and

that it doesn't require on a de facto intimidation but on the act itself.

In closing, I go to Griffith and Ryle and some observations about the role of the Speaker. I put to you that the conduct complained of here -- and at this

point, I want to confirm the statement made by the member for Erie-Lincoln and his colleague as to what the conduct consisted of. Clearly, the Speaker was angry. When he made his brief comments to

the House prior to the adjournment of the House, the tape will show you a person who is livid, who is shaking with anger. Look, I've seen Speakers tested before. I have probably tested a few

myself. I understand a Speaker being --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Kormos: I understand a Speaker being displeased with the conduct of members of the assembly. I also know that we place in the hands of our

Speakers a great deal of responsibility; that is, this place is a clearly partisan place where people are going to engage in partisan activity and partisan thrust and parry, and people are going to

be attempting to express their displeasure in any number of ways that they consider creative from time to time. I recall one incident where a member of the then-opposition held the business of this

House up at least overnight, and well into 24 hours. The cameras and the spotlights, while the House was brought to silence, focused on that member as he obstructed the ongoing activities of the

House. It may not have been in order and it was a parliamentary ruse that may have displeased the Speaker, but it did not draw anger.

I put to you that the comments in Griffith and Ryle about the Speaker are most revealing. On page 213, "Behind the scenes the Speaker can exercise considerable

informal influence." Amongst other things, "The Speaker can also seek to cool passions." That's what we call upon the Speaker to do.

I refer to that fascinating and valuable text by Rod Lewis, The House Was My Home, and these are my final comments:

"Probably the most important requirement for a good Speaker is a sense of humour. A Speaker with this asset will often be able to defuse a tense situation by a

quip that brings a laugh to the House. This lightens the mood of the House and enables the Speaker to keep better control. A Speaker who lacks this attribute and perhaps takes himself too seriously

will always run into difficulties."

Sir, I observed a Speaker lose his temper, and demonstrate his anger, I observed a Speaker in his address to the Legislature prior to adjourning literally

shake with anger and then I saw that Speaker, after leaving the chair, turn when he was to your right, sir, to the member for Erie-Lincoln and, in a gesture that I am, oh, too familiar with, going

back to the very earliest of school days, saw the Speaker angrily gesture toward the ground in front of him with the clear body language that communicates, "Over here, pal. I'll take you on right

here and now."

I say to you, that behaviour on the part of a member is contemptuous and that behaviour on the part of a Speaker warrants a finding of prima facie contempt and

the opportunity for this House to determine whether or not, in fact, it constitutes a contempt.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I'm pleased to have the have the opportunity to respond to the point of

privilege that was raised by the member for Erie-Lincoln. I think, as I begin my response, I want to reflect on the definition of privilege for you, relate that privilege to what allegedly occurred

in the House and then review the alleged behaviour in the context, not only of the rules of privilege, but the rules of the House. I think it is a serious matter for your consideration.

First of all, with respect to privilege, I want to be sure that we look at the different types of privileges that can be impinged upon. I should also note that

the member stood initially on a point of privilege and then moved into contempt of the House, and they are two different things. I'll talk about that as I deal with these issues at greater length

moving on.

The classic definition of parliamentary privilege is found in Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usages of Parliament. Here is the

definition:

"Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively ... and by members of each House individually, without which they

could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from

the general law."

These peculiar rights can be broken down into two categories of rights: members individually and then members collectively. Members individually have the

privilege of freedom of speech, the freedom from arrest and civil actions, exemption from jury duty, exemption from attendance as a witness.

The rights and powers of a House as a collectivity can be categorized in the following ways: the power to discipline, that is the right to punish persons

guilty of breaches of privilege or contempts and the power to expel members guilty of disgraceful conduct; the regulation of its own internal affairs; the authority to maintain the attendance and

service of its members; the right to institute inquiries and to call witnesses and demand papers; the right to administer oaths to witnesses; the right to publish papers containing defamatory

material.

"The House has the authority to invoke privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions or where members have been obstructed

in the performance of their duties. It is only within this context that privilege can be considered an exemption from the general law. Members are not outside or above the law which governs all

citizens of Canada. The privileges of the Commons are designed to safeguard the rights of each and every elector."

We have before us a point that relates to whether or not the member was intimidated or impeded from performing his duties. Mr Speaker was not in the House on

the day the alleged incident occurred, and I would like to take a moment to review the Hansard from that particular afternoon. I'm looking at Hansard, page 1511, April 14, 2004. The Deputy Speaker

called a 10-minute bell at 5:50 in the afternoon. When the bell concluded, the Deputy Speaker then said, "All those in favour will stand one at a time and be recognized by the Chair." The Clerk of

the House declared that the motion had been lost. The Deputy Speaker then said, "I declare the motion lost," and went on to say:

"Before I adjourn the House, and after the vote, I want to express an opinion from the Chair. Something happened today that I haven't seen in 10 years in this

place. I don't know who led it, but Mr Runciman, it was your motion. You know from all of your experience that this should not have happened. Any of you sitting with these T-shirts on who has an

ounce of respect for this place wouldn't have worn them. The next time something like this happens," and then at that point, a member on the opposite side was called to order.

I should point out that the view of the members on this side is that a number of members were screaming quite loudly at the Deputy Speaker, including the

member who has raised the point. A number of us will testify to that in this House today. They were using strong, offensive language to the Speaker, foul language to Parliament, language that

should have been found out of order. Frankly, at that point in time, we were contemplating a point of order and chose not to because we didn't want to interfere with the right of members to

vote.

I think it has to be put into a further context. The members opposite came into the chamber for a vote sporting a T-shirt that had a political statement on it.

That raises the question of the behaviour of the members opposite and whether or not that showed contempt of Parliament or disrespect to the Speaker or to the Chair.

I'd like to take a moment to reflect on order and decorum in the House, and I'll refer you, Mr Speaker, as you contemplate your ruling, to page 503 of Marleau

and Montpetit, where we have a fairly good definition to begin with, speaking on the rules of order and decorum:

"One of the basic principles of parliamentary procedures is that proceedings in the House ... are conducted in terms of a free and civil discourse. In order

that debate on matters of public policy be held in a civil manner, the House has adopted rules of order and decorum for the conduct of members towards each other and towards the institution as a

whole." That's an important definition, and it's further refined with respect to the Speaker. It says, "The Speaker is charged with maintaining order in the chamber by ensuring that the House's

rules and practices are respected."

I would argue that the first contempt occurred that afternoon when the members, sporting T-shirts bearing a political message, attempted to obstruct the

operation of the House. That was clearly recorded in the media subsequent to the debate in the House.

Ultimately, "while it is the Speaker who is charged with maintaining the dignity and decorum of the House, members themselves must take responsibility for

their behaviour and conduct their business in an appropriate fashion."

What started with a little prank wearing T-shirts degenerated into the member for Erie-Lincoln's screaming at the Deputy Speaker. Again, a number of us on this

side of the House will testify to that. We will provide you written confirmation that the member's behaviour was contemptuous of this House and particularly of the Chair and the member ought to be

cited for that behaviour.

Let's talk about our relevant authority, because none of these folks have spoken about relevant authorities. I would like to refer you, Mr Speaker, to standing

order 13(a): "The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of privilege and points of order. In making a decision on a question of privilege or point of order or

explaining a practice, the Speaker may state the applicable standing order or authority."

The Speaker, in drawing the attention of members to the inappropriate behaviour, was fulfilling his obligation as Speaker. The member opposite was yelling at

him at the top of his voice, suggesting that he did not have an authority to cite. The Speaker did not recognize the yelling and adjourned the House, quite appropriately.

We've talked about the incident. There are further rulings on the display of props. This is important, because it is important for the Speaker to understand

the context of the House when the member from Erie-Lincoln verbally assaulted the Speaker. We on this side believe the Speaker's authority was threatened and challenged. The only member cited in

the actual Hansard was another member on that side. The behaviour was not only contemptuous, it was, in our view, positively juvenile, watching it happen, particularly in the context that the

Speaker had shown remarkable patience in allowing the members opposite to wear T-shirts into the House.

Mr Speaker, I will remind you that that very week -- in fact it may have been that very day -- the member who showed such peculiar behaviour and contempt of

the Speaker met with you in your chamber, where you very clearly defined what is and is not a prop. That act in and of itself was a contempt of the Chair, in my view. That meeting was set up at the

request of his House leader in order to clarify the issue around the use of props. Let us talk about what you cited. The Speaker defined a prop as anything that is considered flashy or calling to

the attention of the media. By the fact that members opposite marched into the Legislature together as the bell stopped ringing, it was clear that their intention was to use their T-shirts as a

prop -- very clear, and a very interesting tactic. The Speaker of the day, in my view, was offended and stood up to defend the institution and the rules which those members agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker, the member for Essex, in my view, showed an appropriate level of concern for the propriety of this institution and the intelligence of all

members, which was threatened by rather juvenile behaviour related to T-shirts.

The member from Erie-Lincoln neglected to review any of the decisions with respect to decorum during voting, and there is a long history of that because --

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Decorum during voting? Tell us about decorum during voting.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Duncan: There is terrible grief on the other side -- one can see that -- and they're still in the anger phase of their grief.

Mr Speaker, as you reflect on your ruling, let me remind you of the relevant authorities dealing with decorum during votes. During the taking of a vote, no

member is permitted to enter, walk out of or cross the House, or make any noise or disturbance from the time the Speaker begins to put the question until the results of the vote are announced.

"Members must be in their seats to vote, and must remain seated until the result of the vote is announced." That comes from the Journals of Debate, federal House, February 16, 1976.

Mr Baird: Tell us about Javex bottles.

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Speaking of juvenile.

Hon Mr Duncan: We are discussing juvenile behaviour in the House. The member for Nepean-Carleton, Mr Speaker, makes it difficult for me to

continue. I'm trying my best. I listened very carefully. I listened carefully and attentively --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could we get back to the point of privilege and allow the member to make his point? I'm getting shouting across the place

here, and I don't need to be warning people about this. It is rather surprising that we're talking about privileges and a lot of privileges are being violated right now, not allowing someone to

make their point. Thank you.

Hon Mr Duncan: As is the rule in the House, during a recorded division "no member may enter the committee of the whole while a division is in

progress."

On one occasion, the Speaker interrupted the calling of a vote to request that a leader of an opposition party remove a prop because of the disorder it was

creating in the chamber. Your reference there, Mr Speaker, is debates of the House of Commons, June 22, 1995, page 14466.

That is significant, because I would submit that not only was the member defending the right of this House to conduct a vote, the member showed great patience

in allowing the vote to go ahead while the juvenile tactic of wearing T-shirts, in what was clearly a stunt, was allowed to go ahead.

So with respect to whether or not the member's behaviour was inappropriate or somehow too strong, I would submit that the member demonstrated great patience.

He allowed the members to enter the House. He allowed the members to take their seats. One by one they came in. The Speaker then called the vote at the appropriate time. The Speaker then allowed

the vote to proceed. The vote was conducted, the vote was taken, the vote was recorded and the House properly adjourned.

I would submit that the record until that point shows very clearly that the Speaker acted appropriately in defending this institution and defending the rules

that the members opposite voted for, but he also showed great patience in not calling the members, who clearly had props on, out of order at the time they were out of order. I believe he was taking

his cue from you, Mr Speaker. You have shown much greater flexibility than past Speakers have with respect to a certain number of items, and I suspect the member saw it as more important to allow

the member to exercise his right to vote than to criticize the fact that the member, who is now alleging his privileges were being abused, was in fact abusing the privileges not only of this

Parliament but of the people who sent us here.

A number of issues have been raised, both by the member for Erie-Lincoln and by the member for Niagara Centre. The first issue is the alleged incident or

contempt or privilege -- they haven't defined -- and, by the way, we should review what contempt versus privilege is. I was on the opposition side, and oftentimes the opposition tries to use

contempt. It's sort of a catch-all. If you don't really have a good case, you rely on contempt because it gives the Speaker much broader authority to find a problem. Most Speakers, however,

recognize that for what it is. Let me talk to you about contempt, because the opposition put the issue of contempt on the floor.

The House also claims the right to punish as a contempt "any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege...." That's important, because that's

sort of the catch-all. There was no privilege violated. No member was obstructed from doing his duty. No member was obstructed from voting. No member was intimidated, except, we would suggest, the

Speaker, by the member through his behaviour, his threatening gestures, his yelling and his refusal to obey the rules of the House. That's who was intimidating. It was not the Deputy Speaker, with

all due respect. It was a shameful display, and a number of us will be submitting in writing what we witnessed and what we heard from that member. That member was yelling at the top of his

lungs.

"Though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions" -- the Deputy Speaker made sure the

House proceeded, made sure the House did its functions, and made sure the House would be called back the next day. He followed the rules. A review of Hansard will show that very clearly, and I

reviewed the precise wording.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Duncan: I would remind the member from Riverdale that the opposition raised the point of privilege and we're simply responding.

"`The rationale of the power to punish contempts, whether contempt of the court or contempt of the Houses, is that the courts and the two Houses should be able

to protect themselves from acts which directly or indirectly impede them in the performance of their functions.' In that sense, all breaches of privilege are contempts of the House, but not all

contempts are necessarily breaches of privilege."

That is significant, because neither opposition party was prepared to focus on the issue of privilege versus contempt. So they did what they wanted to do

because they have no case; that is, they tried to establish a contempt.

Members on this side of the House witnessed what was described "after adjournment" -- and that is a quote; I don't have Hansard -- by the member opposite. We

did not witness anything that we felt was other than a Speaker duly concerned about the legitimate functioning of this House. What we saw was offensive, childish behaviour that started with the

wearing of T-shirts and resulted in the member from Erie-Lincoln attempting to intimidate the Speaker of the House.

He hides behind what happened after the House adjourned, because the problem he has with his argument is that if you look at Hansard and review the transcript,

you will see that not only did the Deputy Speaker act appropriately, he tried to correct members in terms of what is and isn't appropriate in this chamber as part of debate. He adjourned the House

appropriately. And then somehow, because he was defending this institution, defending himself from a verbal attack from the member, he is now alleged, with some pictures, I guess -- we haven't seen

them -- that verify this.

We will submit to you, Mr Speaker, that those of us on this side of the House witnessed, first, a Deputy Speaker of enormous integrity who stood on his feet

and protected this institution from childish props being brought in, props that clearly violated the rules that that party agreed to; second, a Speaker who properly adjourned the House according to

the rules; a Speaker who defended this institution with the passion that it ought to be defended with from the childish antics that occurred and the contempt that was brought upon this House by the

member for Erie-Lincoln, who, we on this side will say, attempted to intimidate the Speaker as he left the chair.

This side of the House, and any respectful member, knows that the member from Essex, the Deputy Speaker, acted in the best interests of this House, did not

attempt to intimidate or influence the behaviour of any member of this House and in fact was himself the subject of a childish verbal tirade from the member for Erie-Lincoln, who should in fact be

the one found in contempt, based on the violation of the rules that they perpetrated deliberately and without cause, without thought with respect to what would happen to this great institution.

The Speaker: I want to thank all the members for their presentations. I will take all that you have said under consideration and come back

with a ruling. I appreciate very much what was said. I do take this very seriously, and I hope you all do the same.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Premier: In coffee shops and diners across this province, taxpayers fought back and said no to

your ill-conceived, wrong-headed McGuinty soup-and-salad tax. In diners, they signed thousands of petitions and faxed them in to your office and to members' offices. In coffee shops, taxpayers rose

up, they rolled up the rim and they won. You had to back down on the McGuinty soup-and-salad tax. This was nothing but a shameless $200-million tax grab. Premier, will you now apologize to working

families in the province of Ontario for trying to pick their pockets with this ill-conceived tax hike?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I am proud to say that we have enlisted the restaurant industry in our

cause to bring healthier food choices to the people of Ontario, particularly our children. We're pleased --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. It's passing strange that we have just had a discussion on privileges, and the member's privileges are

being eroded here immediately. I would like to hear the Premier's response to the question.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'm very pleased to have had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the restaurant industry. It became very clear as

a result of that meeting, and from hearing from others throughout the province, that we were not about to achieve our policy objective, which was to ensure that we were bringing to Ontario

families, but especially to young people, healthier food choices. What we will now be doing, with the restaurant association as our partner, is putting together a plan to bring those healthier food

choices to all Ontarians.

Mr Hudak: That has to be the most bizarre last-minute spin I've heard in my nine years here in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Maybe the

member has to go back to Bill Clinton's spin doctors in Chicago to come up with better lessons.

Plain and clear, the Premier got caught red-handed trying to raise taxes on seniors and working families in the province of Ontario. We all remember: You

looked taxpayers in the eye, through our TV screens, and said, "I'm not going to raise your taxes." I didn't see that you had your fingers crossed. I didn't see any kind of asterisk there. You said

that you would not raise taxes.

You've backed down on one try. Let's be clear: no more prevarication. Let's hear the straight goods. Are you going to raise taxes on the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr McGuinty: There is no doubt whatsoever that -- and there's objective polling that confirms this -- people are very concerned with the

state of our financial affairs as a result of the negligence and mismanagement on the part of the previous government. I can assure you that one of the things that we're going to be doing, through

this budget, which my friends anxiously await, is getting better results for the people of Ontario, whether that's better academic achievement for our students, shorter wait times when it comes to

health care or whether it happens to do with healthier food choices for children in Ontario.

Mr Hudak: We've been hearing the same line these past six months. That dog don't hunt no more. Your popularity has plummeted 11% in the latest

poll. More Ontarians disapprove of their Premier's performance than approve, which is shocking at this point in your mandate.

Let me tell you why you've gone down so much in the polls: You regularly break your promises, you tried to get away with a $200-million shameless tax grab and

your tax-and-spend policies and tendencies are starting to make Bob Rae look like an amateur.

Tell us right now, and tell us straight out. Don't dodge the question, don't prevaricate, don't duck. Be straight up. Can we read your lips: no new taxes?

The Speaker: Order. That's the second time you've used that word. I'd ask you to withdraw it.

Mr Hudak: I withdraw.

Hon Mr McGuinty: We will not shy away from doing what we believe to be the responsible thing to do, given our financial circumstances. We are

going to proceed to deliver on our commitments. We're going to avail ourselves of the necessary resources in order to get the job done. We're going to balance the budget in a responsible way. We

will not be shy, we will not be ashamed, with respect to the kind of agenda we're going to put before the people of Ontario by means of our budget. I can't tell you how proud I am and how much I'm

looking forward to placing our budgetary agenda before the people of Ontario.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a question for the Minister of Finance. During the recent election campaign in October, you

committed to freeze, and then reduce, auto insurance rates. Yesterday in the House, you clearly stated, "Insurance premiums started to go down the day ... our government was elected."

Ontario residents are renewing their auto insurance and not enjoying reductions. I'd like to quote from a letter I received from a constituent of mine: "I'm 22

years old.... I have had no accidents, no speeding tickets and I have never lost any demerit points. My driving record is clean....

"I work as a mechanic making $10 an hour....

"I was paying $3,840 a year, which included collision.... They, without notice, are raising it to $6,700 per year, which is $555 a month." That's for a June

renewal.

"Insurance companies are driving young, talented people out of the north."

Minister, why are my constituents not enjoying the promised 10% reduction in auto insurance rates now, six months after you were elected?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): Let's just do a little bit of history first. In the fourth quarter of 2002, rates under the

Progressive Conservatives went up 9.2%; in the first quarter of 2003, a 7.3% rate increase; in the second quarter of 2003, an 8.5% increase; in the third quarter of 2003, an 8.2% increase.

Let's go to the April 15 filings by insurance companies representing 55% of the market. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada: 4% of the market share; filing

effective June 15. Filed on April 15: approved rate change down 11.9%. Aviva insurance company, representing 1.9%: a rate reduction of 10.15%. Let's take another one. Chubb Group of Insurance

Companies, representing almost 0.5% of the industry, filed on April 15: 10.5%.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary, the member for Nepean-Carleton.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I say to the Minister of Finance: People across Ontario are frustrated because the promises that you and

your party made during the election campaign were simple, the expectations you raised were clear and you didn't meet them.

You and every Liberal MPP promised that within 90 days of your election, auto insurance premiums in the province of Ontario would be cut by 10%. Check out MPP

Khalil Ramal's campaign Web site when you leave question period. Look at what it says -- it's still up: "Within 90 days of taking office," the Liberals will "require insurance companies to cut

premiums by an average of 10%" -- not cut the rate of increase by 10% or moderate them.

Would you just stand in your place and admit to the people of Ontario that you've broken another campaign promise? Will you do the right thing and bring back

the three regulations that the Tory government implemented that would actually work for rate increases in the province of Ontario? Would you do that?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Did he really say, "Bring back Tory policy"? Three straight years of rate increases? Let's go back to the list. Guarantee

Company of North America: rate reductions of 11.2%. Hartford Fire Insurance Company: rate reductions of 10%. ING insurance company, representing 7.84% of the market: a rate reduction of 12.4%.

We did this in the time that we said we were going to do it. As a result of these initiatives, insurance premiums in the province of Ontario are now starting

to decline. I tell my friend, as we bring forward the next series of reforms to this system, premiums will go down further and the product that drivers get in this province will be far better.

Mr Baird: This is the kind of double-speak that even has Liberals shaking their heads. You were very clear during the election campaign, you

were very clear, when you introduced your auto insurance policy last June, that rates would be cut by 10%.

You stand in your place, you're glib and you don't understand that your policies are having real effects on working families in Ontario. My colleague

recognized a member from his constituency, who is a mechanic making $10 an hour. He was paying $3,840 a year ago, and without notice, his insurance company is raising his rates to $6,700. All you

can do is stand in your place and give glib answers.

You promised a 10% rate reduction and then you promised another 10% reduction, for a total of 20%. Insurance rates are now skyrocketing. You cancelled three

regulations that would have been to the benefit of taxpayers in Ontario last fall. Would you not stand in your place, would you not admit that by taking the actions you've taken, you've made the

situation even worse and you've broken another promise to the people of Ontario? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Let's just continue with the list. Zenith Insurance Company: rate reductions of 10%. Specialty National Insurance Company:

rate reductions of 10.2%. Royal and SunAlliance Insurance Group: rate reductions of 10%.

What we said was that as soon as we were elected, we would freeze insurance rates. We would then take unprecedented steps to make sure that insurance premiums

would start to go down in the province. Ninety days afterwards, a bill in this Legislature was passed. As a result of that bill, almost 55% of the industry have now filed new rates. Collectively,

that represents rate reductions, from when we took office, of some 10.15%. We're very proud of that.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. As you and your Minister of Finance keep talking about an insurance

rate freeze and keep saying that somewhere in the future there'll be a reduction, angry drivers phone our offices, inundate our offices, because they're getting double-digit insurance rate

increases. They haven't seen a freeze; they haven't seen a 10% reduction; what they see are 20%, 25% increases. They're angry because big insurance corporations are picking their pockets, and you

and your Minister of Finance say, "Oh, it's all OK."

Premier, you didn't promise that you were going to moderate insurance rates. You said you were going to cut them, and it hasn't happened. Admit now that your

insurance rates scheme was always a con game; it was always a sham. There never were and never will be real reductions of 10% and 20%.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): On this particular issue, like so many others, members of the opposition

aren't prepared to take yes for an answer. There is good news here. There is wonderful news for drivers in the province of Ontario. For the first time in eight years rates have actually come

down.

I'll just read some more of these figures and perhaps the member opposite might want to get hold of a copy of this so that he has it when his constituents

contact him. Allstate insurance company rates have dropped by 10.09%; Accentus insurance, 10.%; Aviva insurance company, a 10.15% reduction; AXA insurance, 10.0%; Belair insurance, 10.11%; Chubb

Insurance Co down by 10.5%; Citadel General Assurance Co, 10.5%; Co-operators General Insurance Co, 10.%, Continental Casualty Co, 10.%; Dominion of Canada, 10.01%; Economical --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr McGuinty: Speaker, I could go on and on. There's lots more to go and I look forward to a supplementary.

Mr Hampton: You see, Premier, your friends at the auto insurance corporations send you that stuff, you read it, but then the real people in

Ontario get the notice in the mail.

Here is, for example, Mr Zygi Fila from Garson, near Sudbury. Mr Fila is a 62-year-old pensioner with a six-star rating -- no accidents, no tickets in the last

10 years. He just got his auto insurance bill: a whopping 17.5% increase.

Premier, you stand up and tell this pensioner with a six-star rating that a 17.5% increase in his insurance rate is really a good deal. You stand up and tell

him that.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I cannot speak to that particular case, but I can return to the list provided by the superintendent of financial services of

Ontario. It doesn't come from the insurance industry; it comes from a government agency: Federation Insurance Co of Canada down by 10.4%; Guarantee Co of North America down by 11.2%; Hartford Fire

Insurance -- there's a well-known one -- down by 10%; ING Insurance Co down by 12.4%; ING Novex down by 12.6%; Langdon Insurance down by 11.8%; Lombard Insurance Co down by 10%; Motors Insurance

Corp down by 10%; Nordic Insurance Co down by 10%; Pilot Insurance Co down by 10.2%; Royal and SunAlliance Insurance Co down by 10%. I look forward to providing more information.

Mr Hampton: To the Premier: Send that list to Mr Fila and see the reaction you get.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, you and your good friend, your soulmate, John Manley continue to tell people that nuclear

power plants are going to be good for Ontario. Yet now we find out that Pickering B, out of service for 50 days -- additional costs to the hydro bills of people, $30 million. You and John Manley

seem to be saying, "Oh, but don't worry. This time we're going to get it right. This time nuclear is going to work."

Premier, what will it take you to admit that nuclear power plants are expensive, unreliable and don't offer Ontario a very good electricity future?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I know the Minister of Energy would like to speak to

this.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): With Pickering B, unit 6, there has been the problem that was identified

today in the Toronto Star. It has in fact cost OPG, I believe, $30 million in lost revenue since that point in time.

The broader question the member asked is about the future of our supply in the province of Ontario. That member's government failed to bring on new supply,

failed to bring on demand management. The question of nuclear in Ontario's future is an extremely important one --

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): And you're giving them more.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Could I ask the member from Nepean-Carleton to just come to order?

The Minister of Energy.

Hon Mr Duncan: The question of the future of nuclear in Ontario is an extremely important one that the people of Ontario are actively

participating in. There have been recommendations from a variety of sources, and active debate is going on. What is paramount is that we find a way to undo 10 years of mismanagement in the

hydroelectric system.

The member opposite refused to cancel the Darlington plant, for instance, when they were in office, just by way of example. I would suggest to the member that

the question of the composition of our supply going forward is one of the most important ones, and we look forward to him taking a consistent and straightforward position on those important

issues.

Mr Hampton: The question was the fascination of the Premier and his good friend and soulmate John Manley with more nuclear plants. Once again,

I didn't get an answer. But even the announcement that was spun here yesterday that suddenly the Premier now believes in conservation and energy efficiency won't do it either, because there was no

incentive for people to go out and purchase new energy-efficient appliances. There were no financial incentives to help people re-insulate their homes. Insulation keeps the cold out in the winter

and the heat out in the summer. There was no strategy there either.

The Pembina Institute says that a serious conservation program would cost $18 billion, but Mr Manley's nuclear program will cost $32 billion. Minister, when

will you face the facts: Nuclear is going to cost us more money, energy efficiency is the way to go, but what you announced yesterday doesn't do the job either?

Hon Mr Duncan: That member and his government cancelled all conservation programs in Ontario when they were in government. Had they proceeded

with those conservation programs, maybe we wouldn't be so dependent on Pickering today. Had you done your job when you were in office, had you done the right thing on conservation, had you done the

right thing on green power, we wouldn't be relying on Pickering today and we wouldn't find the mess we're in today.

That government cancelled Conawapa. That would have brought 1,250 megawatts of clean power to Ontario from Manitoba. They cancelled it. Why?

Interjection: Rain forest.

Hon Mr Duncan: And they bought a rain forest in Costa Rica.

We are attempting to deal with a very difficult issue. I had some very good advice, and I'd like to share this advice because we're quoting those who give us

advice. Here's the advice I had: "Hydro is still too big and bureaucratic, and I'm sure could be made more efficient by injecting market principles deeper into the bowels of its organization. How

to do that without imperilling quality, reliability, and public accountability is a great challenge. Simplistic, ideological solutions are to be avoided at all costs." Bob Rae, Protest to Power,

pages 273-4.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): To the Minister of the Environment --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): There's a voice from the extreme end that is interrupting the proceeding. May I ask her to come to order?

Mr Barrett: To the Minister of the Environment: In shutting down Adams mine, you have closed the door on 15 years of debate and environmental

assessment processes. That took 15 years. How many years will it take to find another site with the same capacity to handle landfill as the Adams mine proposal? How many years, Minister?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): This government is absolutely committed to ensuring that our environment is protected,

particularly our water sources. That is a commitment we take very seriously and one that the previous government turned its back on. So I'm very proud of the initiative that we will be debating

later on today in the Legislative Assembly.

With respect to the siting of landfills and other initiatives in this province that are regulated by the environmental assessments and approvals process, this

government has established a panel of experts who will provide this minister with advice on how to improve the process so that it doesn't take 15 years for such projects to be approved.

Mr Barrett: Minister, on the day you were sworn in, you ended your ministry's appeal of a court decision ordering broader terms of reference

in the environmental assessment of the Richmond landfill expansion. As environment minister, you had the clout to do that for your constituents in Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.

More recently, the Minister of Natural Resources successfully used his clout to stop the Adams mine landfill. Again, he used his political clout as a cabinet

minister for the benefit of his constituents in Timiskaming-Cochrane.

Minister, in my view, this is environmental political pork-barrelling at its worst. It leads me to ask: Is the NIMBY principle -- not in my backyard -- now an

official policy of your government?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: The initiatives of this government, and more particularly this ministry, which I'm very prepared to speak to as minister,

are about moving this province forward with a sound environmental plan.

I would just like to remind the members of this Legislature of some of the initiatives that we have taken so far, as a government, to protect the environment.

We have initiated a source water protection initiative. We have been very consultative with this process, and we are very proud of it. I have to say that it's one for which we have received, as

well, very positive comment from the people of Ontario.

We have introduced the Adams mine legislation. We are not convinced that this proposal was safe and sound for the environment and for the people in that

community, and I'm very proud of that initiative by this government. Yesterday, I was in Sarnia announcing an initiative whereby we are going to protect the community in that area against

industrial pollution. These are some of the initiatives that this government is moving forward on because we take protecting the environment seriously.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr David Zimmer (Willowdale): My question is for the Minister of Energy. The government has a plan to reduce energy and electricity

consumption in Ontario by about 5% by the year 2007. How do you see this initiative as contributing to our new culture of conservation in Ontario? How will it meet our reduction targets?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The member is right, this is a challenging target that we've set: 5% by 2007,

10% by 2010.

Yesterday's announcement by the Premier empowers Ontario electricity consumers by providing them with the knowledge, the tools, the opportunities and the

incentives that will allow them to achieve very significant energy savings. We're launching a public education and outreach campaign to help them make smart choices that will save them both energy

and money.

As a demonstration of how strong our belief in conservation is, we are moving quickly to reduce the government's own electricity consumption by twice as much;

that is, 10% by 2007. My colleague the Chair of Management Board has laid out a very ambitious program.

We're putting forward the necessary infrastructure to make sure that conservation becomes part of our culture. We are creating the conservation secretariat

within the Ontario power authority and a conservation program that will be the envy of the world. Our sector reform, supported by work we do with the LDCs, will make Ontario a world leader in

conservation.

Mr Zimmer: The government has aggressive plans for smart meters. Yesterday, the Premier announced that we're setting aggressive targets to put

these smart meters in every home so that, together with more flexible pricing, Ontarians can save money if they run their appliances in off-peak hours. Minister, why are these smart meters

important? How do they contribute to our overall change of energy saving?

Hon Mr Duncan: We have set an ambitious target of having a smart meter in every home and small business by 2010. Yesterday, Premier McGuinty

announced our interim target of having 800,000 meters in place in Ontario by 2007. Smart meters are a key conservation tool. With this technology, consumers will be able to see, understand and

learn when it's appropriate to adjust their electricity use. Smart meters will also allow consumers to benefit from time-of-use rates. These rates will benefit consumers who use electricity when

demand is lower. Many consumers who currently use electricity during these times will now be able to benefit from these rates. Not only do smart meters help consumers use electricity during peak

demand periods, but they also benefit their local system and grid by keeping costs and prices down even more.

I've asked the OEB to devise an implementation plan for smart meters. The OEB will be working with local distribution companies to achieve that. These bold new

initiatives will make Ontario the world leader in energy conservation, something this government is very, very proud of.

WATER QUALITY

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question today is for the Minister of the Environment. I've got countless constituents

sending me countless letters and countless phone calls with regard to the hardship they're going to face with the implementation of regulation 170/03. What they've told me is that they simply

cannot handle the financial burden of implementing this regulation. We have churches that are going to close; some churches have closed already. We have campgrounds that are threatening to close

within the month; they're not going to open for this season. What are you going to do to mitigate this effect and to help these people with this financial burden under the implementation of this

regulation?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): First of all, I want to share with the members of this House that, for this government,

ensuring that wherever we are in the province of Ontario -- in rural Ontario, in an urban centre -- when we turn on the tap, the water is safe.

During the Rural Ontario Municipal Association conference here in Toronto in February, I met with over 40 municipal representatives. I have to say that issues

around regulation 170 was a common theme. I will say to the member opposite that, like this government, municipal representatives share our desire to ensure that when a tap is turned on in the

province of Ontario, the water is safe.

We recognize that the regulation that was introduced, which was crafted by the previous government, is terribly flawed. I don't know where your rural members

were at the time of the writing of regulation 170. They were missing in action, very obviously. This minister has committed and asked my ministry to look at regulation 170 to make it more workable

for municipalities in rural Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. The member for Bruce-Grey will come to order.

Supplementary?

Mr Yakabuski: Minister, I would think that all municipalities and all citizens of the province of Ontario want to ensure that we have safe,

clean drinking water. You are well aware of recommendation 84 in the O'Connor report, that in these circumstances it is imperative that where the subject people cannot afford to proceed with these

implementation on their own, the government must be there to assist them. That's recommendation 84 of the O'Connor report. Will you follow that recommendation and assist these rural people in the

implementation of this regulation?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: Unlike the previous government, this government is committed to implementing all of the O'Connor recommendations. That is

without question. With respect to recommendation 84 and regulation 170, we believe that regulation 170 needs to be looked at again to look for ways to assist municipalities so that they can in fact

meet the requirement to ensure that there is safe water within the community facilities across rural Ontario. That is what this government has committed to. We will review regulation 170. We want

to work with municipalities, so that when a tap is turned on in a community hall, a church hall or any other municipal facility, the people of this province can be certain the water is safe to

drink.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Attorney General. During the past decade in my riding of

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, there have been numerous cries for an independent public inquiry into childhood sexual abuse allegations and cover-ups in Cornwall. As a candidate in the last

election, I wholeheartedly supported a public inquiry. The lives of many people have been touched by the issues surrounding these allegations. The citizens, police forces, public organizations and

those who work in the judiciary system are in need of a sense of worth and community. A thorough investigation will have positive consequences for those who work to uphold pride, sensibility and

the spirit of community in my riding.

I stand today on behalf of the people of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, especially those victims of abuse in Cornwall. I, alongside these victims, believe

that an inquiry into these events is necessary to bring closure to this issue so that we can move on. Will you call a public inquiry into this matter?

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I understand that

this is an issue of great importance to the member and of great importance to the people of his community. There is right now a criminal proceeding that is underway. Leave to appeal to the Supreme

Court of Canada was refused, and the Court of Appeal decision required that the last remaining trial involved in this matter be expedited. It is set to begin in the fall. I don't want to do

anything to delay or in any way interfere with this criminal proceeding. A public inquiry cannot be held at this time, while this criminal proceeding is underway.

Mr Brownell: Minister, your consideration of the request is appreciated. I know the people of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh respect your

discretion and judgment. However, when the Liberals were in opposition, they called upon the government of the day to launch a public inquiry into the sexual abuses in Cornwall. My community still

feels a public inquiry is necessary to get to the bottom of the abuses in Cornwall. I will continue to be a strong advocate here at Queen's Park for an inquiry into these abuses. Will you work with

me and the community to ensure there is a resolution to this matter?

Hon Mr Bryant: Yes, I will. The member has been absolutely relentless in fulfilling his duty on behalf of his community and his riding,

through this Legislature, to hold the government to account. The member has stood shoulder to shoulder with his community, and we have spoken at length on the subject numerous times.

When the criminal proceeding is complete, at that point, we will be relying upon that member to continue to be an advocate on behalf of his community. We will

obviously consult with his community, consult with his riding, and consult in particular with him as to what next steps will be taken. So, yes, we will be continuing to work with the member in his

hard work on behalf of the people of his community.

BAUER NIKE HOCKEY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, tonight's hockey game doesn't end the battle of Ontario.

You see, the real battle of Ontario is the battle to keep good, well-paying jobs in this province; in this case, jobs manufacturing hockey equipment. Less than a decade ago, sports multinational

Nike bought Canada's Bauer Corp, the world's largest maker of hockey skates and protective gear, most of which was manufactured right here in Ontario. Since then, Nike has slashed operations,

sending good jobs to plants in China and contracting them out to sweatshop workers here in Ontario. A few days ago, the 25 long-time skilled workers at the Bauer Nike Mississauga custom pro shop

learned that the work they do for all of the top NHL goalies is being contracted out to the lowest bidder.

Minister, it's sudden-death overtime for these workers and for this industry here in the province. What are you going to do to protect their jobs?

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm not familiar with the specifics of what the member is talking about, but

I do know that as much as there are jobs going offshore -- and it happens in North America with other industries; there have been losses in the United States to offshore companies -- there is a

phenomenon that's taking place right here in Canada called near-shoring. There are companies that are actually locating here in Ontario because we provide tremendous competitive advantages.

This is obviously a case of jobs, on the one hand, going to India and going to China because there is a competitive factor involved, but we also have jobs that

are locating here. In fact, there are companies locating here that are from India and from parts of the world that you wouldn't think would locate here, and they're doing so because we have a

competitive environment right here in Ontario.

Mr Kormos: Minister, your job is to protect Ontario's jobs. Nike is a big multinational company that only cares about the bottom line and, in

response, you skate in circles. In Cambridge, Nike shut down Ontario's last hockey stick factory -- 300 people out of work. They refused to put that factory on the market to Canadian investors who

want to use that factory and those workers to make Canadian hockey sticks, because they don't want the competition.

So you've got a unique Canadian industry, unique to Ontario, and you're going to put our NHL players in made-in-China hockey equipment. You've got a chance,

right now, with your Premier, to get on the phone, call Nike to come sit with you at the table and talk about ways to keep those Canadian jobs, that Canadian manufacturing, here in Ontario. It's

your job to protect those jobs. When are you going to start doing your job?

Hon Mr Cordiano: I'll just cite the competitive factors that we have going for us in Ontario. In fact, there was a KPMG study that says it's

25% cheaper to operate a business in places like Ottawa for telecommunications. There's also a PWC study that was released, I believe, last week, that shows that we clearly retain a competitive

advantage as a near-shore location because of our lower labour costs, and that's in the ICT sector, one of the most innovative sectors of the economy which is seeing job growth.

We may lose some jobs as a result of international competitive forces -- and this is happening in the industrial world -- but we