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

November 18, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Nov-18 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 18 November 2002 Lundi 18 novembre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RURAL WATER PROGRAM

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

HYDRO DEREGULATION

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

ENERGY CONSERVATION

OHIP BUILDING

JOHN AND JEANNE PYNN

HYDRO DEREGULATION

STRATFORD CULINARY FESTIVAL

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

DEFERRED VOTES

AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES

PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES EMPLOYÉS AGRICOLES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO DEREGULATION

HYDRO ONE

HYDRO DEREGULATION

TENANT PROTECTION

NORTHERN ONTARIO ECONOMY

HYDRO DEREGULATION

JUNO BEACH CENTRE

HYDRO DEREGULATION

CONSUMER PROTECTION

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

PENSION LEGISLATION

SURFACE WATER

MONITORING CENTRE

FUNDRAISING

OHIP BUILDING

PETITIONS

CITY OF WINDSOR ADMINISTRATION

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

GOVERNMENT OFFICES IN BRANT

LONG-TERM CARE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

EDUCATION FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

KEEPING THE PROMISE

FOR A STRONG ECONOMY ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RESPECT

DE L'ENGAGEMENT D'ASSURER

UNE ÉCONOMIE SAINE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Monday 18 November 2002 Lundi 18 novembre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RURAL WATER PROGRAM

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): This government has a track record of making some very bad decisions, so I would like to tell you

about a very good one they made in the spring, which was to implement a program called the tri-county rural water program in Prince Edward-Hastings in Northumberland county.

This would actually implement some of the recommendations from the Walkerton inquiry, improve barnyard drainage, improve surface water protection, move septic

tanks and do fuel storage improvements -- a wonderful program that would truly protect the groundwater, not just for the farmers but more so for the entire community.

However, in October they took this wonderful decision and they retracted it. After the farmers had spent their money, after they had incurred all of the costs,

the minister came back and capped it, saying, "No longer will we do the 50-50 we promised you." In fact, they had been told that the sooner they started, the better to protect the groundwater. The

ministry now says they will not fund anything started before June 28. That's after the tilling season; that's after the money had to be spent to buy the equipment and to do the improvements.

It is an absolute betrayal of these farmers in these three counties to renege on an agreement and a commitment that they believed in. This doesn't improve the

quality of life for the farmers; it improves it for everyone in Ontario.

In my community the most valuable thing we own is our name. This good name has been betrayed by the minister with the reneging on this commitment. Speaker, I

urge the minister to immediately return to the original commitment made to fund these projects.

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House to pay tribute to the legislative interns for 2002-03, some of whom are working for Ontario MPPs

as we speak.

These talented young men and women have recently completed formal studies in universities or colleges. They are hired each year for a 10-month commitment in

different departments across all ministries of the Ontario public service. The interns select the MPPs they wish to work for. Of course, their first responsibility is to assist the member. However,

they also have a unique opportunity to observe the political process at first hand. Among their many duties, interns observe the House and its committees. In addition, they attend seminars with

elected and legislative officials and senior civil servants, and in fact they work directly on policy development and legislative initiatives.

I'd like to mention at this time Martha Black, who is working in my Queen's Park office. Martha completed an undergraduate degree at St Francis Xavier University

and a master's degree in political science from Dalhousie University. She has worked in publishing and as a teaching assistant and research assistant, an excellent background for this Legislature.

I'd also like to mention former interns who have worked with me: Nathan Fisher, Andrew Owen, Gord Westcott and Lauri Leduc. They have been part of the internship program. It is my privilege to have

worked with them during my time in this House.

As well as learning about Ontario public service, interns contribute new and often bright ideas and bring to the workplace an array of skills. I'm confident the

Ontario legislative interns will leave the program well equipped for leadership in the public or private sector. I wish everyone in the House to recognize the interns serving our House.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): The electricity fiasco created by the Harris-Eves gang just never ends. A constituent of mine, Neil, just

last week lost his job and has a six-week delay time to receive his unemployment cheque. His wife works and earns minimum wage. Neil's son is asthmatic and needs a compressor running to help with

his breathing. His bill for electricity is now more than he can afford. Last Thursday, he was given notice that his hydro is to be disconnected.

My office called the utility last week to explain the medical situation, and the suggestion from the local utility was that Neil go to five churches, get $100

each and pay his bill, and his hydro would not be shut off.

For the past five years our local utility has been preparing for the electricity market opening. Now these distribution utilities are near bankruptcy themselves

because they have millions of dollars of potential unrecoverable expenses.

By the way, over the weekend, Neil went to a number of churches and was given charitable donations adding up to two thirds of his bill. Local utilities such as

Bluewater Power are in time becoming charity cases because they are millions of dollars in the red, and in turn local utilities are taking a hard line with people who are unable to pay.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise today to talk about the sorry state of the Toronto Transit Commission. In this city, where we pride

ourselves on being a world-class city, the Toronto Transit Commission, which carries hundreds of millions of riders every year, is facing a real crisis. The crisis they are facing involves raising

the cost by 10 cents per ride. To people thinking that 10 cents isn't all that much, perhaps it isn't, but what is more fearful for all of us who live in this city is that they are saying that this

year potentially there could be a 40-cent increase unless there is funding coming from senior levels of government.

As the funds to ride the TTC go up, the ridership goes down, and for all of who live anywhere near the city of Toronto, this is a horrendous thing to happen. We

know that gridlock embraces all of us. Even if you live in Mississauga or in Markham or in Durham, gridlock embraces us all. One of the surest ways to get cars off the road is to spend money on

transit.

All over North America, cities are provided more funds than we provide to the capital city of this province: Chicago, Atlanta, Montreal, Vancouver -- all of

them.

It is time to come up with our own urban vision. Surely we have one in the NDP. I invite everyone to come up with an urban vision that will allow us to reduce

gridlock and to service the ridership that comes in each of our large cities.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): Energy conservation is one of the best ways that citizens can take action to reduce pollutants in our

air. By walking to the corner store instead of driving, or turning off lights or appliances in our homes when not needed, each of us can contribute to a cleaner environment now and into the

future.

We can make a difference. By acting together, we have a huge positive effect. That is why I am so pleased about the Minister of Energy's announcement of last

Wednesday. Let me list some of the government's environmentally friendly initiatives.

Conservation initiatives will be put in place to reduce electricity consumption in the government's own operations by 10%. If government is going to have a moral

voice in favour of a cleaner environment, it makes sense that it would lead the way toward energy conservation. The government itself will lead so that fully 20% of the provincial government's

electricity usage comes from renewable sources.

Next, the government is creating a Centre of Excellence for Alternative Energy, jointly located at Queen's University in Kingston and the University of Toronto.

Its goal will be an Ontario that is the leading North American jurisdiction for research and development of clean energy technologies.

There are more actions being taken to make Ontario an even better place to live, work and raise a family. I am excited by these positive steps and call on the

opposition to put their partisanship aside and show strong support for these environmental initiatives.

OHIP BUILDING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): For years, many of the employees at the OHIP building in Kingston have suspected that there's

something dramatically wrong with the building. Fourteen employees have had breast cancer, 32 others have had other forms of cancer and many employees have suffered a range of other illnesses,

including many respiratory ailments.

When governments in the past were unwilling to pay for the testing of the building, OPSEU Local 468 commissioned a study conducted by GeoCor Engineering, a

well-respected engineering firm from Kingston, which found coal tar derivatives and some heavy metals in the building, with evidence strongly pointing to a large plume of coal tar underneath the

building.

Indeed, there is a possibility that the toxins may have migrated throughout the building's foundations to the rest of the building. However, a comprehensive

study, including the complete access to the entire building that was denied to GeoCor, is needed to once and for all determine if there is a link between the contamination and the diseases and to

ensure that the people who are working for us in this province do so in a safe and secure environment.

I urge, and indeed demand, that the Ministry of Health without any further delay immediately conduct and fund an independent, third-party study, and furthermore

that the government, and through it the owner of the building, fully co-operate with such a study and make its findings immediately public.

Surely everyone is entitled to work and live in a healthy and clean environment. OPSEU Local 468 has led the way, and it's now up to its employer, the Ministry

of Health, to conduct the study that's required.

JOHN AND JEANNE PYNN

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to talk about a wonderful couple. John and Jeanne Pynn are a husband and wife team that can't slow

down, even though they both celebrated their 81st birthdays this year.

Last month, the Pynns became the first couple to be presented with the Ontario Senior Achievement Award by the Lieutenant Governor, James K Bartleman, in a

ceremony at Queen's Park. The importance of this is that each of them was being recognized individually; not as a couple with cumulative experience, but rather as individuals who happen to be a

great couple.

The Pynns are residents of Sutton, in my riding of York North. They talk about retiring but just don't seem to be able to say no when asked to help with a

volunteer job. Their volunteer jobs include a long list of community charities and projects, such as the Georgina food bank. Through her involvement in the food bank, Jeanne teaches young women how

to stretch their food dollars and make the most of the food bank offerings. She is also a volunteer with Hospice Georgina.

John Pynn is a founding member of Transit Georgina, which offers transportation to the disabled. John's pet project was arranging a regular super-shopping day

where the bus would take people to various businesses where John had managed to arrange for them to have a discount. He also manages to find time to arrange transportation for kidney dialysis

patients to York region hospitals.

John and Jeanne are both active participants in Knox United Church. They are also volunteers at the hospice, Meals on Wheels, and both are familiar faces in the

landmark Red Barn theatre. What a fantastic couple. Congratulations, Jeanne and John.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): It used to be that the Premier had an undeserved reputation for competence, but that fairy tale took a very unhappy

turn last week. Ernie Eves's bungling of hydro killed any belief that he has a plan, a point or even a purpose for being Premier.

The National Post columnist Andrew Coyne wrote, "I mean this quite literally: voters have no reason to trust a word the Eves government says.... They should be

removed -- no, hurled -- from office, and the sooner the better."

Economist Mark Mullins says, "Ernie Eves' plan would cost $1.9 billion and could be as much as $2.7 billion, much of that coming from taxpayers' pockets, and

that's the man who did the costing of the Common Sense Revolution."

Tom Adams of Energy Probe said, "The situation Ernie Eves puts us in this week will almost certainly lead to blackouts and bankruptcies."

And the confidence of Bay Street is shattered. Rebecca MacDonald, the CEO of Energy Savings Income Fund says, "Unfortunately, I didn't know that we have a

Premier who's a complete lunatic."

Unfortunately for Ontario, Ernie Eves is simply making up policy on the back of an envelope while he lurches from crisis to crisis. The people of Ontario deserve

a more competent Premier with a plan, not Ernie Eves and his wishy-washy, directionless waffling.

STRATFORD CULINARY FESTIVAL

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise to tell my fellow members of a new initiative by Tourism Stratford to increase tourism beyond the

Stratford Festival season. This initiative, the Stratford Culinary Festival, highlights the great restaurants in Stratford. The theme of this year's festival is "Come back." Come back to enjoy the

great restaurants, a variety of pre-planned activities and, now that there's snow on the ground, a little Christmas shopping at some of Stratford's unique shops.

The Stratford Culinary Festival has been running for the past two weekends and continues for one more weekend. It is sponsored by the city of Stratford, the

Stratford Festival and the Victorian Inn on the Park, as well as other local businesses.

Tourism is Ontario's fifth-largest industry and festival events are an important part of the industry. This government supports three such events through the

tourism event marketing partnership program. By means of the program, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation invested $20,000 in the Stratford Culinary Festival. I want to thank the Minister of

Tourism and Recreation for recognizing the importance of such events to the tourism industry. I also want to thank Barb Quarry, manager of Tourism Stratford, for all the work she puts into the

success of Stratford's tourism industry.

As Stratford winds up its 50th season, it seems appropriate that another festival will kick off its first season. Maybe 50 years from now someone will be

standing here and speaking of the success of the Stratford Culinary Festival's 50th anniversary.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I beg leave to present the report on the road user safety committee from the standing committee on

public accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Gerretsen: Thank you very much. The report contains six recommendations, and just to highlight a couple of them: the Ministry of

Transportation should prepare a business case prior to reaching a decision on whether to outsource the provincial driver examination function, and it should assess the costs and benefits during the

first year of operation and provide a report to the standing committee.

The ministry should complete the business case for the proposed replacement of the Legacy system and provide the committee with the implementation

schedule and

its benefits. Finally, the committee felt that the ministry should provide the committee with the key steps taken to improve the contract administration procedures to improve compliance with

Management Board Secretariat's consulting services directive. We hope that the ministry will adhere to these recommendations and implement them as soon as possible.

With that, I am pleased to move the adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Mr Gerretsen moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall

meet from 6:45 to 9:30 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays of the weeks of November 18, November 25, December 2 and December 9 for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, ayes have it. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 75; the nays are 7.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

DEFERRED VOTES

AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES

PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES EMPLOYÉS AGRICOLES

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 187,

An Act to protect the rights of agricultural employees / Projet de loi 187, Loi visant à

protéger les droits des employés agricoles.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1359 to 1404.

The Speaker: Mrs Johns has moved third reading of Bill 187,

An Act to protect the rights of agricultural employees.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 77; the nays are 8.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Before we begin with question period, we have with us today in the Speaker's gallery Representative Stephen

Buehrer of Ohio, Representative Libby Jacobs of Iowa and Representative Lauren Hager of Michigan. They are members of the Midwestern Legislative Conference and are visiting us on an exchange

program. Please join me in welcoming our very special guests.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: visiting us today from Alberta we have Raj Pannu, leader of the

Alberta NDP, and his daughter Savi Pannu.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: we have a young woman here today from the riding of Windsor West. Her

name is Natalie Deschamps and she's here with her father. This young woman actually spent her hard-earned cash at an auction at her school, Holy Names High School, which entitled her to spend the

day at Queen's Park with her MPP. She has managed to meet many of you already and has been duly impressed by all those she has met so far. She is hoping to become a young, budding politician

herself. One can only hope she would wait until the current MPP retires before she chooses to go forward with that career. Could we please welcome her and her father in the House today.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would seek unanimous consent

that this House agree that Sandra give that poor girl her money back.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): On a point of order, Mr

Speaker: As long as we're in the mood, I'd like to welcome students from Humber College in the post-diploma public administration program. They're here with their instructor, Elka Walsh.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My questions today are to the Minister of the Energy.

Hydro deregulation in Ontario is dead; it's over. Bay Street knows it; Main Street knows it; everybody seems to know it but you. Minister, why not admit that

your bungling, gross incompetence and mismanagement have killed the hydro market now and forever?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The government proposed a plan this past week to try to

address the real concerns that a lot of working families in the province of Ontario had, not just with the heavy weight of the bill on their kitchen table but their real concerns and fears for the

future as we approach the Christmas holidays and indeed next summer. We certainly make no apologies for standing with working families in the province of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: That is quite an accomplishment. You must have rehearsed that one in front of the mirror all week, Minister. Well done.

Here's what the National Post had to say about your most recent position: "Mr Eves's blatant politicization of the electricity market ... has erased any chance

of developing a private power industry in Ontario: investors simply do not trust it."

Your government has managed to do something which is absolutely extraordinary. This Tory government makes Ontario business nervous. That's quite an

accomplishment. Hydro deregulation is dead. The market is dead. Nobody, and I mean nobody, trusts your government any more. You said prices will go down; they went up. You said the debt would go

down; the debt is climbing. You said we had all kinds of supply; we're suffering from a desperate shortage of supply.

Instead of wasting time and money trying to resuscitate the hydro corpse, why not admit what everybody knows: deregulation is dead?

Hon Mr Baird: In responding to the real concerns that working families in every region of this province had, we came forth with some real

action to address their concern for their high hydro bills on their table and their concern for the future. I think that is incredibly important: that we look at the circumstances of real families

in the province of Ontario.

It is important that you come up with a position. The leader of the opposition quotes the National Post. He might want

to read the Toronto Star today, where it asks what the Liberal position is. This member was on the radio about 10 days ago. When he was asked what the rebate should be, do you know what he said? He

said, "Well, I don't know. I mean, you know. I think you know." Well, the questioner didn't know, so he said, "What kind of rebate would make a difference?" He said, "I don't know. I honestly don't

know."

Well, on this side of the House, we know. We're providing substantial assistance to the people in the province of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: It is simply --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order, please. The leader of the official opposition has the floor. I apologize to the leader. Continue.

Mr McGuinty: It is simply too much for us on this side of the House to stomach when this minister stands up and tries to hold himself out

somehow as some kind of a defender for the interests of families after we stood on this side for week after week after week and complained about what this government's plan was doing to ordinary

families' bills. It is simply too much to stomach.

Minister, I will now ask you again: now that Bay Street recognizes it, now that Main Street recognizes this, now that there is a broad consensus right across

the country that this has been one of the most glaring examples of gross mismanagement and incompetence, why not admit it? Deregulation is dead; the market is dead; your experiment has been an

abject failure.

Hon Mr Baird: We still have an open market for the generation of wholesale electricity in the province of Ontario and I think that is good

news. I'm proud of the fact that Ernie Eves and our government came forward with an action plan to deal with the challenges facing Ontario families, small businesses and farm operators.

If the member opposite wants to talk about price, I'm happy to do that. When asked about price last year, the member said, "Rates may very well have to go up."

And what did he say this past week to my good friend the well-known political reporter April Lindgren in the Ottawa Citizen? The first part of the

article says, "Electricity prices under an Ontario

Liberal government would likely rise."

The people of Ontario have a clear choice. They have a government that can tackle the challenges facing working families, small business people and farm

operators, or they can buy into the risky scheme by the Leader of the Opposition. I know which side they'll choose.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): We'll try the same minister again and see if we have any more success this time around.

Minister, now that you're performing Olympian backflips on hydro, let's talk a little bit about Hydro One. You have never made the business case for the sale of any part of Hydro One. During the

last three years, it earned a profit in excess of $1 billion. Why would you not keep Hydro One entirely public and use those profits to help keep rates down in Ontario?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Profits from Hydro One on an operational basis certainly

provide assistance in dealing with the stranded debt. If the member opposite is against prices in electricity, he might want to call his own brother, Brendan McGuinty. In the city of Ottawa, his

boss voted to almost double fixed-rate delivery charges and the local distribution rates and then said, "The devil made me do it." So if he feels as strongly as that, I hope he'll encourage our

good mayor in the city of Ottawa to reduce hydro rates by going to a non-profit status.

Mr McGuinty: I gather it's full steam ahead with respect to the sale of Hydro One. Hydro One is a natural monopoly. It is the central nervous

system of the Ontario economy. It earns us a profit. You want to give that profit away the same way you gave the 407 profit away. You find yourselves now in desperate financial circumstances. You

want to sell off Hydro One so you can balance the budget. In the end, it's going to be consumers who will continue to pay the price for your mismanagement and bungling. I ask you again: now that

you have effectively killed deregulation, why not finish the job and keep all of Hydro One public, where it belongs?

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite is certainly one to get public policy advice from. Every decision this government makes will be based on

what's in the best interests of the people of Ontario, whether they be working families, farm operators or small business people, as we come to terms with dealing with some of the challenges. There

are huge infrastructure needs at Hydro One in terms of investments that haven't been made over perhaps the last 20 years as they should have been. I think any policy the government proceeds with

will certainly be advantageous for working families.

The member opposite is quoted on Focus Ontario. And what did he say on this natural monopoly? "I am in favour of privatization, both in terms of the

transmission and the generation." So I might ask the leader: I've said why I'm in favour of it. Maybe he could tell us why he was in favour of it then too.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you want to talk to others about changing position after last week and Monday's performance with that teleprompter

inside that home? Give me a break.

There's only a limited amount of time I have in which to put the question, but I'll try to re-cover some of the changes in your position with respect to Hydro

One. April 26, 2002: you're going to privatize all of Hydro One. May 2, 2002: no, the privatization is off the table. May 8, 2002: no, it's back on the table. May 30, 2002: you introduce

legislation to sell all of Hydro One. June 7, 2002: "No, we're going to go with an income trust." June 13, 2002: "We're going to kill the IPO option." July 6, 2002: "No, what we think we're going

to do is settle on selling half of Hydro One."

Minister, I'll ask you again: understanding now that you have effectively killed deregulation in the market with respect to OPG, why not do the right thing and

tell us you're going to keep Hydro One entirely in public hands?

Hon Mr Baird: We'll obviously pursue a policy that's in the best interests of people in Ontario. I think that's important when we look at the

structure of any sort of arrangement with respect to a strategic partnership that would have benefits for taxpayers, for working families and indeed for everyone in Ontario. The member opposite

says, "I've been very consistent with respect to Hydro One. I'm in favour of privatization." Can you explain that, Mr Speaker?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. It's getting too noisy in here. New question.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Earlier today, Raj Pannu, leader of the Alberta NDP, came

all the way to Toronto to warn Ontario Hydro consumers about your desperate scheme to hide the skyrocketing cost of privatized, deregulated hydro until after the next election. He says your

pre-election hydro rebate scheme is the same bribe Ralph Klein used in Alberta. In Alberta, $2.3 billion of the people's money was used to hide the cost of deregulated hydro until after the

election. As soon as the election was over, off came the rate caps, off came the hydro rebate.

It cost $2.3 billion to hide the cost of hydro privatization in Alberta. How much of the people's money will it cost you to hide the cost until after the next

election in Ontario?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): In responding to the real concerns of working families

in Ontario, of farm operators in rural Ontario and of small business people, whether they be the drycleaner in North Bay or the shop owner in Toronto, we thought it was important to act decisively

and to do the exact opposite of what the member opposite just charged. We believe it was important not just simply to put in a quick fix, Band-Aid solution, but rather some meaningful relief in the

medium term while new generation is brought on-line.

To very directly answer the leader of the third party's question, our plan fully balances itself over the next 41 months. I will congratulate the member

opposite. He has been consistent on this issue. He is no Howard-come-lately like the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Hampton: No one believes your line that you can cap hydro rates and provide a rebate and it won't cost the taxpayers of the province

anything and it won't cost hydro consumers anything. In Alberta, eight months after the election the hydro rebates disappeared, the rate cap disappeared and people's hydro bills doubled again. Why?

Because hydro deregulation and privatization continued there, just as you want to continue it here, just as you want to sell off Hydro One, just as you want to sell of more of the generating

stations, just as you want to use billions of dollars of public money to subsidize private for-profit hydro generators.

I think you owe it to the people of Ontario. You're going to hide the costs from them on their hydro bills. How much is it going to cost them in taxes? How

much is it going to cost them after the election? Don't try to fool them like Ralph Klein did.

Hon Mr Baird: We now have Howard the Taxfighter leading the third party. I wish he had been so concerned about the bottom line for working

families in Ontario when he raised taxes all those times when he was in government.

We've responded to the real concerns of working families in Ontario. The plan fully balances itself over the 41 months of it. Let's look at the bond rating

companies. Dominion Bond Rating Service says, "We expect the net impact of this initiative on the province's fiscal balance to be manageable." Standard and Poor's says, "Announced provincial

electricity rate cap will have no material impact on Ontario's financial performance."

Mr Hampton: You can keep trotting out that line, but people know that when you're paying the likes of British Energy, Brascan or some of the

American profit-driven hydro companies $1,000 a megawatt hour and you only charge $43 a megawatt hour on the hydro bill, it's going to take a lot of taxpayers' money to cover up that subsidization

of your profit-driven friends.

Now, you and the Liberals think that rolling out a rebate is going to cover up the cost of privatized, deregulated hydro. It's not. You've already admitted

that privatized, deregulated hydro is too painful for people on their hydro bill. Why don't you go the next step and admit that hydro privatization/deregulation is too expensive for people, period,

and kill it now?

Hon Mr Baird: The leader of the third party is running around Ontario preaching public power at cost, but his own record speaks for itself.

When he was in government, the Hydro debt went up by more than $3 billion in addition to the more than $50 billion that was borrowed to balance the books under his party's regime.

We're taking action by maintaining the market open, by maintaining the market in generation, to try to encourage prices to go down, to try to encourage

competition, which we think is in the best interests of the people of the province of Ontario.

There have been some bumps along the road, and that's why we've taken some decisive action with respect to the price for working families, for small business

people and for farm operators, because I think that's the right thing to do.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question. The Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you've admitted that privatized, deregulated hydro is far too expensive to allow the price to appear on people's hydro

bills. It just seems to me the next logical step is to admit to everybody that this stuff doesn't work, and end it.

Again, let me just point out what happened in Alberta. Immediately after the election, people started to see something new on their hydro bill. It was called a

rate rider. When they asked what it was, they were told, "Well, before the election we wouldn't let the private hydro companies jack up the rates. Now we give them a rate rider to make up for what

they lost before the election, before the rate cap, before the rebate." In other words, people had to pay twice after the election for the bribe that happened before the election.

I'm asking, Minister, do you really think you can fool the people of Ontario with a before-the-election bribe using their own money, and then jack up the hydro

rates on them after the election? Do you really think you can fool them?

Hon Mr Baird: If we had come forward with a plan that was a six-month, quick-fix solution, I think the people of Ontario -- working families

and small business people around the province -- would have seen through that. But Premier Ernie Eves came forward with a really comprehensive initiative to provide some stability for 41 months. I

think that's good. It was supplemented by new announcements to encourage supply in the province of Ontario; to promote green, clean and alternative fuels; and probably most importantly, some

specific and tangible measures to promote conservation. We think that's sound public policy and the right thing to do.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you and the Liberals talk about a hydro rebate to hide the true cost of deregulated, privatized hydro. You talk about a

rate cap until 2006. But you know yourself that the profit-driven producers of hydro that you want to bring into the province will never stand for a rate cap until 2006. You also know it is too

expensive. The people out there know it's too expensive.

People want hydro as an essential public service, to be publicly owned and provided on a non-profit basis. They don't want profit-takers, fee-takers,

commission-takers, all loaded up on the hydro bill, and they don't want them loading up on a subsidy in the backroom either.

I ask you again, Minister, now that you've admitted that deregulated, privatized hydro is too expensive to show people on their hydro bill, will you admit that

it's wrong in principle and stop, cancel, kill hydro privatization and deregulation?

Hon Mr Baird: When there was a non-profit system in the province of Ontario, it cost us $38 billion in debt. That's more than $10,000 for

every family in the province of Ontario. For the baby born this morning in Nepean, that's a $3,000 mortgage on their future. Now, I realize that's small change for the leader of the third party,

because when he was a member of the executive council of Ontario, they in fact ran up more than $50 billion worth of debt in five short years.

What we're doing is making some responsible decisions to provide some real relief to consumers, small business people and farm operators over the next 41

months. The member opposite in his first question said that private generators were going to continue to get a market price and in his second question said they're not. Which is right, the first or

the second?

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Tenants across Ontario are worried that your

government's bungling of hydro is going to lead to even further rent increases, and they have every reason to worry because of what happened in the case of natural gas. I'm sure you'll understand,

Minister, that when gas prices spiked, landlords applied for and obtained rent increases, and when the price of natural gas came down, tenants didn't see their rent go down, because under your

system tenants are forced to pay temporary utility cost increases forever.

Tenants are now worried that the same thing is going to happen with respect to hydro. The rent is going to go up, landlords are going to get the benefit of the

rebate, but the tenants will still have to pay the increase. Will you issue a directive today to ensure that no Ontario tenant will experience a rent increase because of your government's

mismanagement of hydro?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It's a hydro issue, and I know the minister wants to talk about that.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The announcement the Premier made brings rates back,

almost retroactively, to what consumers have been paying, to 4.3 cents. That's where they were before the market opening. Therefore, obviously with respect to the commodity portion of the bill

there's no rate increase. It can't be clearer than that.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, it's a fairly straightforward question. Let me just say at the outset that it's really a sad commentary that the

minister responsible for housing, the defender of tenants in that government, has fully abdicated his responsibility and turned this over to you.

Interjection.

Mr McGuinty: Apparently he wants to answer the question now, Speaker. Perhaps the minister will refer it back to him. But since he's refusing

to do so, I'll go back to the Minister of Energy.

It's a fairly straightforward question: will you assure us that the legislation, which you're apparently still drafting on the back of an envelope, will

protect all tenants from any rent increase attributable to your government's mismanagement and gross incompetence on the hydro file?

Hon Mr Baird: The relief we came forward with, that the Premier announced a week ago today in the province of Ontario, is substantive in its

relief, retroactive to May 1, and I think that's important. We stepped up to take significant action to protect tenants, homeowners, small business people and farm operators right across Ontario.

For those tenants where it's included, it's self-evident that the price of the commodity hasn't gone up.

We've looked at it and dealt with it retroactively. Maybe the leader would like to return the cheques for the $350 Bay Street fundraiser he had when he was a

big promoter of deregulation. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?

NORTHERN ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Over the past few weeks, I and several members

have risen in our places to ask questions about economic activity in the north. Today, I'd like to focus on recent announcements made by Weyerhaeuser in Sturgeon Falls and Tembec in Mattawa that

are not in line with my or this government's vision of a strong, prosperous northern Ontario. Minister, could you please inform everyone what your ministry is doing to boost economic activity in

northern Ontario?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): We at the ministry take very seriously the challenge to improve economic

conditions in the north. We believe in a healthy, competitive and sustainable northern economy, which combines and builds upon the strengths of our resource sectors with the emerging opportunities

of a knowledge-based economy.

The Minister of Finance just finished putting out expressions of interest for tax incentive zones for rural and northern Ontario. There will be six pilot

projects. Also, the government has announced that we'll be introducing opportunity bonds, allowing municipalities to build and rebuild their infrastructure at lower cost. We've doubled the northern

Ontario heritage fund, which is our big economic engine for the north, to $60 million a year. In fact, since October 1996, the government, through the heritage fund, has created about 15,650 jobs

in the north.

Finally, to help northern economic development we've spent a record $1.6 billion on northern highway infrastructure in the north.

Mr McDonald: Thank you, Minister. I know from talking to a lot of northern Ontarians that they appreciate your dedication and the good work

our government is doing on their behalf. They do appreciate the effort this government is making on northern Ontario.

However, the residents of west Nipissing were especially hard hit by the announcement that Weyerhaeuser will be closing their facility there. I know that you

travelled to Sturgeon Falls, Minister, with some important news. Could you please share that with us?

Hon Mr Wilson: On November 7, I did travel to Sturgeon Falls in west Nipissing. First, though, I want to commend the honourable member. AL

McDonald was the first member of this Legislature, the first MPP, to express his concern with the announcement to close the Weyerhaeuser plant. West Nipissing is not his riding, but he did offer,

on behalf of the government and the people of this Legislature, all of our assistance.

On November 7, I announced a new northern Ontario heritage fund project. West Nipissing-Sturgeon Falls will be eligible for an unlimited number of projects.

For each one, we will pay 75% or $5 million per project, an unlimited number of projects, to help that community get back on its feet. It's money well spent. It's northerners' money. It will be

spent on bringing Sturgeon Falls-west Nipissing back to better than it was before.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, will you stand in your place today and tell us that you

have full and unqualified confidence in the chair and CEO of Ontario Power Generation?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): In fact, there's a chair and a CEO. They're two

different people.

Mr Bryant: That's a ringing endorsement. Who said this of Mr Osborne and Mr Farlinger? Who said that we had the best possible management and

the best possible chair of OPG? Who said that? You said that, the Minister of Energy, now the member for Simcoe-Grey. Who appointed the current chair and CEO of Ontario Power Generation? Did we do

that? Did Eleanor Clitheroe do that? Did Floyd Laughren do that? No, you did that. Who appointed the CEO, for that matter, of Ontario Hydro One? Did we do that, did Floyd Laughren, did the people?

No. You did that. Who's paying them $2 million a year, the head of your Hydro Hydra? Who's doing that? You're doing that. You're trying to point fingers. First it's Mother Nature, then it's

Clitheroe, then it's Floyd Laughren. Now it's Osborne; then it's Farlinger. Who's to blame for the shipwrecking of the Hydro Hydra? You are, the Harris-Eves government, who destroyed the

electricity system in the province of Ontario.

Hon Mr Baird: I didn't hear a question there, but it was a good theatrical performance.

JUNO BEACH CENTRE

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Culture. Minister, I understand that on November 7, Premier Eves

announced this government's support in the amount of $1 million for the Juno Beach Centre in Normandy, France. With the support of this government, I understand that the Juno Beach Centre is now $7

million closer to their $8.1-million goal. The centre is scheduled to open on June 6, 2003, June 6 representing the date in 1944 when over 21,000 Canadian soldiers stormed the beach code-named Juno

in the small fishing port of Courseulles-sur-Mer. Three hundred and forty Canadians gave their lives, 574 were wounded, and 47 were taken prisoner.

Minister, could you please tell this House what the Juno Beach Centre will mean to the people of this province?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): First of all, I want to thank the member of

Scarborough Centre for the question. I was pleased to be at the announcement, along with Premier Eves and Minister Runciman, which was also attended by many of the veterans, the men and women who

have served this country so well.

There are certain times in history which are defining moments for our country. In World War I it was Vimy Ridge, and in World War II it was Juno Beach. This is

where our troops gained the recognition that they really needed to have. The Juno Beach Centre will be more than just a memorial; it's a memorial honouring Canadian veterans of World War II, and it

will be a memorial museum as well.

I want to congratulate, in particular, Garth Webb, who is the president of the Juno Beach Association. I'd also like to mention Don Kerr, whom I've met, who is

a volunteer and veteran who strongly believed in Juno Beach and brought this idea to my attention, through our member John O'Toole. These are the people who really served our country; it's

important for us to recognize that, and that's why we're all very pleased to support this wonderful project.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that response, Minister. I also understand that the Juno Beach Association asked our government for a $250,000

contribution and that Premier Eves in fact contributed $1 million. I am sure this came as a very pleasant surprise to all who were present. The Juno Beach Centre is designed to honour Canadian men

and women, and the people of the province of Ontario, who gave their lives in the fight for freedom.

I spent November 11 representing the province of Ontario at the Remembrance Day ceremony at the Toronto Zoo. I also spoke at the local Scarborough Royal

Canadian Legion "Dambusters" branch 617 about Canada's extraordinary wartime effort, unparalleled by any other country. Could you please tell this House why we should continue to invest in Canada's

military past?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I thank the member again, but the question shouldn't be, "Why should we?" The question should really be, "How could we not

participate in a very important project?"

The Premier also announced that we now have a commitment to build a war memorial on the grounds of Queen's Park. I think it will serve the people of Ontario

quite well. These were ordinary Canadians, my neighbours and your neighbours, ordinary men and women who served selflessly; people like Wayne Baker, a paratrooper who was dropped off behind enemy

lines as an advance scout; Margaret Ackroyd, who was with us at the announcement, who joined the Canadian Army Show in 1943 and entertained the troops until 1946 and is still very active giving the

stories of World War II to children across this province; Art Underwood, who was wounded in action; and Jack Harris, who just passed away at the age of 90, who was decorated for saving his tank

crew.

These are the men and women for whom I am very proud to stand here today, as are all of us, and say we support the Juno Beach project to support our veterans

and thank them very much.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is again for the Minister of Energy. This weekend, your government launched yet another

television advertising propaganda campaign, this time trying to convince people that the skyrocketing cost of hydro that has been privatized and deregulated is going to disappear, trying to hide it

from the public. It's bad enough that you refuse to kill hydro privatization and deregulation; it's bad enough that you're going to use billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to subsidize private,

profit-driven hydro companies in the backroom, but to top it all off, you're going to use the public's money on another propaganda campaign to promote your pre-election bribe.

We called your officials in the Ministry of Energy and asked them the cost of this propaganda advertising campaign. They refused to answer. Perhaps you can

tell the people of Ontario now how much of their own money you are going to try to use to convince them of this pre-election bribe.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): It may come as a surprise to the member opposite that I

don't share his characterization. What we're doing is responding to the real concerns that a lot of working families have, not just about the high cost of the electricity bill on their kitchen

table but the fear that they have for the future. The government has heard that concern, and we're responding with specific proposals and legislative measures. We think it's responsible to report

back to the people we serve on this important issue.

Mr Hampton: Last spring you spent $2.3 million on a propaganda campaign telling people that deregulated hydro was going to cost them less,

that it was going to be good for them. Now it looks like you're going to spend $2.3 million trying to hide the cost of privatized deregulated hydro, trying to tell people the bogeyman won't get

them. Minister, if you spent $2.3 million trying to tell people that it's good for them last spring and you're going to spend $2.3 million trying to hide the skyrocketing hydro bills now, why don't

you just admit it doesn't work, that it's a rip-off for consumers, and kill hydro privatization and deregulation? Why don't you do it now?

Hon Mr Baird: Again, it won't come as a surprise to the member opposite that we believe in an open, competitive market in the generation of

electricity in Ontario. We've maintained the market and the wholesale aspect to try to encourage more generation. It was a better option than continuing to pile on debt at the old beast of Ontario

Hydro. I say to the leader of the third party that that Hydro debt, the beast created by successive governments, isn't dead. That's why we've had to take some pretty solid action to try to deal

with the challenges facing our electricity system.

We've had the courage to embrace that. While I've been disappointed that we haven't had the support of the leader of the third party, it warms my heart that

all Liberal MPPs who were present for the voting on Bill 35 stood up and voted for it when we did it, on principle.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. Minister, as you probably know, and I'm sure you

do, later this afternoon we're debating modernizing Ontario's consumer protection legislation. You've actually taken some very bold initiatives in this legislation. One that attracted me was the

capping of variations to written estimates for things like home repairs. That's just one. It also requires goods bought on the net to be delivered within 30 days or the contract is void. Also,

there is the banning of negative option billing. I commend you for these initiatives, great new proposals to have in place. I know your ministry has a great track record of shutting down bad

operators. Minister, will this new legislation beef up the penalties -- that's the question -- against these bad guys in the marketplace?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I appreciate the member's question. He's right. Before the House for debate later

on is Bill 180 for CP21, consumer protection for the 21st century, the biggest overhaul to help protect consumers against scam artists in the last 30 or 40 years.

The member makes a good point. This ministry has had great success in terms of flushing out bad operators and stamping out consumer deception. For example, in

the past year or two years, 1,000 charges have been brought forward with over $1 million in fines that have been allocated, and over $2 million in restitution has been returned to consumers who

have been ripped off by scam artists.

The proposed legislation, if passed, would help to double the fines for individuals and for corporations, and jail times would be boosted to the maximum of two

years less a day, the provincial maximum. Finally, we are also increasing the standard limitation period to two years to allow our prosecutors more opportunity to go after the bad guys and to put

them out of business.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for that information, Minister. I'll be pleased to share it with my constituents. I was very pleased to see that the

Ernie Eves government and yourself are strongly committed to curbing consumer scams. Your proposed new legislation will be protecting consumers in areas where so far there is no consumer protection

law, specifically in the Internet area.

I can tell that you are working for families, not just in my riding of Durham but across Ontario. They're jumping on the Internet quickly, as I'm sure you

know, Minister. I can hardly not use this opportunity to recognize the important work done by Durham Regional Police Sergeant Ken Anderson as well as Detective Constable John Bradley, who is an

investigator in the computer crime area in my riding of Durham.

I know the proposed legislation will protect on-line consumer competition, but Minister, how would your proposed legislation protect Ontarians who are dealing

with companies in different parts of the country, indeed different parts of the world?

Hon Mr Hudak: The member raises an excellent question. We want to make sure that people who are jumping on-line for transactions, and doing so

increasingly, can do that with increased confidence in the laws that back up the system. We want to take those rogues who are lurking on the Internet and reinforce confidence in this industry.

We have worked with the other provinces for a harmonization agreement that would apply across Canada. For example, a 30-day rule for delivery of a good or

service when contracted for would be reinforced by our legislation, CP21, if passed, and would apply through harmonization to all such agreements across Canada.

Similarly, we want to work with operators across North America and throughout the world in harmonizing these rules where possible, so people will have

confidence when making a transaction across the Internet. We want to make sure that Ontario is a much less attractive jurisdiction for scam artists and more attractive for on-line e-commerce.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I apologize; I did miss the rotation. It will equal out. We'll do two Liberal questions. I went to the wrong

side, even though it said it here.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Health. On Thursday after midnight you released your press release

that announced private MRIs and private CTs coming to Ontario and that you would have requests for proposals from several communities to open private MRIs and CTs, what we believe is a two-tier

health care system.

I would like the Minister of Health to tell the community of Huntsville -- this is a community whose hospital has made a submission to you for permission to

have a CT scanner. Those people have been waiting for an answer. They know they're responsible for raising the money to purchase the equipment. You've ignored that proposal, but you've gone forward

to include Huntsville as a potential community for a private CT. Could you please explain to that community why you are so bent ideologically to the private sector when the hospital is waiting and

begging for a CT?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It will come as no surprise to this chamber that I take issue with pretty well

First of all, she should know that this initiative was originally signalled in the throne speech of this government, in the budget of the Minister of Finance

and by me in July. If the honourable member didn't take time to pay attention, perhaps she's the only one who is surprised.

apology for the fact that we rely on stand-alone clinics as well as hospitals to deliver excellent services. We announced three MRIs and a previous CT as part of our initiative in advanced

diagnostics. We are providing that in hospitals, throughout our community --

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

Mrs Pupatello: Minister, based on your answer I'm going to presume that what you said in July still holds true. What the Minister of Health

said in July is that people can pay cash for a CT or an MRI. That's what you said in July. When you were pushed by journalists to answer that question, you said, "Yes, people can pay cash." What

you're saying today and in your press release is that suddenly you've changed your mind on that tack. The point is that you are not to be believed. All the things you say one week no longer hold

true the next week. Hydro is a perfect example of that.

What you said last July was that people would pay cash in a private system. What we know is that there are a host of communities who have asked for permission

from you, who know they have to raise money for an MRI or a CT. Those communities include Belleville, Chatham, parts of Ottawa, Cornwall, Hamilton and Etobicoke. What I'm asking this minister is,

how can you ignore those submissions that are already on your desk asking for approval when they have to raise the money for the machines? You've ignored them and you've gone to other communities

to announce private MRIs and CTs. What rationale could you possible have --

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

Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member is confused. The honourable member should have checked very carefully the notes on the July

announcement. The issue was queue-jumping, and I made it very clear that queue-jumping will not be allowed in the province of Ontario. We have stricter rules than anywhere else in Canada, and we

are proud of that fact.

If the issue is uninsured services, our emphasis is on insurance services, but just as in a hospital right now you can get an uninsured service, that is the

case in stand-alone clinics as well. If the honourable member has a problem with stand-alone clinics, she should stand in her place right now and say that the Liberal Party of Ontario is against

stand-alone clinics. Perhaps she's against the Diagnostics Imaging Associates located at 600 Tecumseh Road East in Windsor. Perhaps she's against the Essex X-Ray Ultrasound & Mammography clinic

at 2462 Howard Avenue, Windsor. Perhaps she's against the Windsor Radiological Associates clinic at 410 Giles Boulevard East in Windsor.

You stand in your place and say you're against stand-alone clinics and the Liberal Party is against them. You stand in your place and say you're against

Applause.

PENSION LEGISLATION

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): I was pretending the applause was for me, Mr Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Finance and it concerns provisions of Bill 198 which include significant amendments to pension law in this province. If

passed, this bill will be retroactive to 1988, wipe out current, pending cases, overrule pension agreements and remove rights of appeal to the courts. Perhaps most incredibly, it sets Ontario apart

as a jurisdiction -- because you can't do this in the United States of America -- where CEOs will be encouraged to raid any pension fund where an actuary's report might indicate that a surplus

exists.

Madam Minister, how is it that you could use a bill designed to restore investor confidence to rob employees of their rights and to encourage pension fund

raiding through the introduction of the Conrad Black clause?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I really suggest that Liberal research needs to hire somebody with a little bit of expertise in reading

legislation, in reading policies and understanding pensions, because the legislation that he cites in this House does not interfere with court cases; it does not take away pensioners' rights; it

does not allow employers to raid pension funds. For the honourable member to suggest this is being -- well, I would like to stay polite, so I won't say what I think it is, but it is fearmongering

at its best.

Mr Smitherman: Madam Minister, if you're so confident in your analysis, agree today, before this Legislature, to put this bill out to public

hearings and let Ontarians have this debate, because a very clear reading of

section 79.1 clearly indicates that an actuary's report will allow corporate raiding of surplus pension funds. Won't you

agree that since 1988, when the member from York stood and introduced legislation, both employers and employees have been involved in the discussion around matters relating to pension windup? Those

employee rates in this legislation, under the provisions that you've introduced, are eviscerated.

Will you put this out for public hearings? If you're confident in the positions that you take, put this out for public hearings.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Again, where has the honourable member been? There has been public consultation on this. As a matter of fact, we put out a

discussion paper and invited all stakeholders to participate. We announced in the budget that we were going to be proceeding, and then do you know what we did? We did more consultations.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Ecker: He asked the question and now he doesn't want to hear the answer. There has been considerable public consultation on this.

There is nothing in this legislation that takes away the rights of pensioners or interferes with the rights of pensioners or their earned benefits. In fact, what this legislation does is ensure

that the pensions are respected, to ensure the financial solvency of pensions, to make sure that the money is there when a pensioner needs it. That is the pre-eminent goal of the legislative

amendments we've brought forward.

SURFACE WATER

MONITORING CENTRE

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the hard-working Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable Jerry Ouellette, from

Oshawa.

Minister, as you know, my riding of Perth-Middlesex has a large agricultural component. That's why I was very interested to hear your recent announcement about

a new centre that will help predict and minimize the potential impact of floods and droughts in the province of Ontario. As we all know, information on flood and drought situations is extremely

important. Would you please explain to us here today how this centre will work?

Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member from Perth-Middlesex for the question. Last month, as the member

mentioned, I was happy to announce on behalf of the government the creation of the Surface Water Monitoring Centre. This centre will assist in the predicting and informing people of flood and

drought conditions throughout the province. The monitoring program is based on over 400 gauges located throughout the province. These gauges will measure the amount of water flow in the rivers and

streams as well as the water levels in lakes. The equipment will also record climate data such as precipitation and temperature.

As well, I am happy that we are able to move forward with partnerships with the Ministry of the Environment and the conservation authorities to provide this

program.

Mr Johnson: Thanks very much for that answer, because we have heard a lot of misinformation about the number of gauges and testing stations in

rivers and streams in Ontario.

As you'll recall, a couple of years ago in July, there was a devastating flood in my riding and the one next to it. It started at Brucefield and came down

through Exeter, Woodstock, London and so on. It had a devastating effect by flooding thousands and thousands of good fields of crops, and it left livestock situations that were totally intolerable,

with too much water.

I have heard that this new centre will be a consolidation of two old --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order, members. The member has a sore throat. Could we keep it down, please? It's difficult for him.

Sorry, member for Perth-Middlesex.

Mr Johnson: Minister, it will be a fantastic advantage having the staff in one location, but what will the other benefits of this

consolidation be?

Hon Mr Ouellette: I thank the member again for the question. Yes, there are over 400 gauges located on streams, rivers and lakes throughout

the province. The centre, to be located in Peterborough, will bring together the drought experts along with the flood experts. Bringing these experts together maximizes their expertise for more

informed decisions to help reduce the risks to both people and property. Increased public safety is the main motivation. As mentioned, this would assist with a quicker response and would aid

communities such as the member's in situations that deal with floods, as he mentioned earlier on.

The MNR plays a very important and lead role in forecasting floods and droughts for the province, and in the protection of life, I might add. The centre will

certainly expand those abilities here in the province of Ontario.

FUNDRAISING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. Minister, the alcohol and gaming

commission is wreaking havoc on local fundraising efforts in my city, Sault Ste Marie. Organizations like the Marconi Club, the Elks, the Legion and many others are being told that the way they

have always raised money to support community events can no longer happen. They are being denied lottery licences they have always gotten, and they are unable to pay their own expenses from the

small amount of money raised. This means they can no longer fund community activities such as minor hockey and the local band that plays in hospitals for sick kids. Some are faced with closing

their doors.

Minister, what are you going to do immediately to ensure that our local clubs can still conduct the small fundraising events that we've all always relied

on?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I appreciate the question of the member from Sault Ste Marie. I think certainly

all of us in the Legislative Assembly understand the important role charities play in helping to support vulnerable citizens or other good causes in communities, whether it's Sault Ste Marie, Fort

Erie or Beamsville.

With respect to the issue of legalized gaming -- obviously a very important and sensitive issue, something that's governed by the Criminal Code as well as the

alcohol and gaming control commission in the province of Ontario -- we want to make sure that we can help support charities and work within the law. If the member has some particular concerns, I

would be pleased if he sent them over to me here in the assembly, and I can ensure that they get the proper attention.

Mr Martin: As a matter of fact, I have a number of, I think, really good suggestions. I'd like to meet with you within the next week or two to

talk about those, if you would agree.

Our local clubs and groups do not want to have to rely on outside fundraisers that keep up to 80% of the money they raise for themselves. They want to raise

money from the local community and spend it in the local community. But the way this government is enforcing the rules makes that impossible. We need to be empowering these local groups, not

cutting off their lifeblood.

Your government takes such pride in cutting red tape, but you are choking off these groups with that same red tape. The current rules aren't working and they

need to be changed.

Will you promise today to conduct a review of the criteria for issuing lottery licences to ensure that the small charitable organizations can fundraise and

continue to provide essential services to the community?

Hon Mr Hudak: Certainly this government, the Ernie Eves government, takes great pride in eliminating red tape to help support job creation, in

fact record job creation across the province of Ontario, and similarly, cutting red tape to help empower charitable groups in their important purposes.

Obviously when it comes to gaming regulations, we want to make sure that we maintain the integrity of the gaming and comply with Criminal Code law with respect

to gambling enterprises. That having been said, I'd be very pleased to discuss with the member a meeting he wants to set up. In fact, I'm here both this afternoon and this evening if he wants to

come over. We could talk about it and I could look into the specifics of the concerns he has brought forward on behalf of the community of Sault Ste Marie.

OHIP BUILDING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, you know there's a very

serious health concern with respect to the OHIP building in Kingston. This matter has been like that for at least the last 10 years or so. As a matter of fact, there have been statements made that

up to 14 employees who have worked in the building have suffered from breast cancer, and another 32 individuals suffer from other forms of cancer.

A recent study that was conducted by OPSEU Local 468 clearly indicates that there's a problem with respect to coal tar residue beneath the foundation of the

building. The union has gone to the lengths of getting the study done. It clearly indicates that there's been a problem there for the last 15 to 20 years.

Minister, will you now do the right thing and completely fund an independent, third-party study so that we can once and for all get to the bottom of this, and

also give us your commitment here today that when that study is done and completed, it will be released to the public so it can give a certain amount of surety and safety to the people who work in

that building?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Yes, I believe the Chair of the Management Board can answer that question.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): First of all, I must say that all of us are concerned

about the health and safety of any of our workers. Having said that, I will say this, that the Ontario Realty Corp is currently in the process of retaining a reputable consultant to conduct the

testing required in the facility. It is important for us to complete this testing. It's of an urgent nature for all the employees there, and we certainly consider it that as well.

Mr Gerretsen: I appreciate that, and I hope we will actually see that happen, because there's been a concern of the employees there for quite

a considerable period of time.

As you know, you no longer own the building. The building is owned by a third party. Although you are responsible still for the environmental situation that

existed there at the time the building was sold, there are major concerns that the owner of the building will not give you access to the building, so that in effect the tests that GeoCor, which is

a very reputable Kingston engineering firm that did the study for Local 468 but were not able to get into the building -- that you once again, or whoever does the study, may be denied access to the

building to do the necessary test hole drilling in the foundation of the building to determine exactly what the status is.

This is a major concern, Minister. I hope that you will not put this out for a further study but that you will actually get to it and agree today to fund the

study and make it public once the study has been completed.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, if I could say, the Ministry of the Environment has been asked to participate in the investigation, and the

Ministry of Labour as well, so we're making sure that all the bases are covered with this particular area.

The studies, which will be done by ORC, would be shared with the joint health and safety committee. So that's important for the member to know as well.

If I could give some assurances, certainly this has occurred before in the past, as the member knows, that other studies have been done. In fact, the last one

was done as recently as -- I believe the testing results were received in January of this year, earlier on, which indicated that there were no air quality concerns at the time.

However, I'll say that when the concerns are raised again, it's important for us to give that assurance to our employees that we have committed to conduct

another study to make sure their working conditions are safe. It's important for us over here, and that's why we, along with the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Labour, have committed

to do these studies to give that assurance, because they are our employees.

PETITIONS

CITY OF WINDSOR ADMINISTRATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Last week, I was presented with a petition by Mr Al Nelman and 2,500 other citizens of our community of

Windsor, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the citizens of Windsor, Ontario, have seen the greatest period of sustained growth and resulting prosperity in the city's history;

"Whereas the citizens of Windsor, Ontario, have been presented with a plan which acknowledges a debt of $225 million by the year 2005;

"Whereas city council has been unable to control the city's administration, leading to unauthorized multi-million-dollar contracts;

"Whereas the mayor and a majority of councillors have failed to provide communal services and infrastructure maintenance efficiently and at the lowest possible

cost;

"Whereas the mayor and city council have been reckless in the use of land expropriation, leading to the loss of millions of tax dollars;

"Whereas city council has used in camera meetings to excess, thereby depriving the citizens of Windsor of important public information;

"Whereas city council has arbitrarily reduced public meetings from weekly to biweekly, coupled with a five-minute limit for delegates to make a presentation

drastically reducing public scrutiny and input;

"Whereas city council continues to enter into further unmandated risky commercial undertakings, the pursuit of which continues to divert tax dollars from

necessary expenditures;

"Whereas there have been cases of criminal behaviour by members of the administrative staff which have been dealt with under a cloak of secrecy, denying

citizens their right to know the extent of the damage they have sustained;

"Whereas taxpayers in the city of Toronto have benefited from a forensic audit, the taxpayers of the city of Windsor believe that an arm's-length investigation

is essential;

"Whereas a significant number of the citizens of Windsor no longer trust city council to take care of their interests;

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

"Request the Minister of Municipal Affairs to immediately undertake a forensic audit of the city of Windsor's finances and administrative procedures."

I table this on behalf of Mr Nelman and 2,500 other citizens of Windsor.

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition given to me by the University of Western Ontario's Society of Graduate Students and signed by 582

people. It asks the Legislature to "freeze tuition fees for all programs at their current levels and take steps to reduce the tuition fees of all graduate programs, post-diploma programs and

professional programs for which tuition fees have been deregulated since 1998."

GOVERNMENT OFFICES IN BRANT

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by well over 1,000 people.

"Whereas Brantford is a community of more than 89,000 people, and combined with the community of Brant county, the population exceeds 110,000; and

"Whereas the business community of Brantford and Brant county warrant and deserve the service they have come to expect from the Ministry of Finance Brantford

district tax office; and

"Whereas the Mississauga regional tax office continuing business plan strategic priority number one is building a customer-centred public service that provides

service when, how and where the customers want it;

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

"We would like to propose that not only should the location and services offered by the Ministry of Finance be kept in Brantford, but they should be expanded

to include a much-needed permanent location authorized to issue health cards by exploring the following alternatives: (1) maintain the status quo at 213 King George Road in Brantford; (2) relocate

to 10 Fairview Drive, former OPP station in Brantford" owned by the government; "(3) build a new office in a central location; (4) investigate available vacant buildings that would be

suitable" for the proper process of multi-government offices.

I sign this and support our constituents in Brant.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

$3.02 per diem in the first year, $2 in the second year and $2 in the third year, effective September 1, 2002; and

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

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

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

resident for nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

the government's own study."

I affix my signature. I'm in complete agreement.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition on the electricity increases in Ontario. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ernie Eves Conservative government has legislated the opening of the Ontario electricity market as of May 1, 2002, and the price per kilowatt hour

for electricity in the province of Ontario has nearly quadrupled since May 1; and

"Whereas Ernie Eves has done a poor job in educating the public as to the ramifications of an open electricity market in the province of Ontario and has done

little to punish the unscrupulous sales practices of door-to-door energy retailers; and

"Whereas the Ernie Eves government appointed the board of directors for Hydro One, who approved exorbitant salaries and compensation packages for Hydro One

executives;

"Be it resolved that the Ontario government move immediately to protect our province's electricity consumers by addressing the serious generation problem in

Ontario, by punishing unscrupulous electricity retailers and by moving forward with a rebate to offset the increasing costs of electricity in Ontario."

Since that is being contemplated, I am delighted to put my name to this petition as well.

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I've received petitions with hundreds of names, actually thousands of names in this regard.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ernie Eves Conservative government has legislated the opening of the Ontario electricity market as of May 1, 2002, and the price per kilowatt hour

for electricity in the province of Ontario has nearly quadrupled since May 1; and

"Whereas the Conservative government of Ontario has done very little to address key issues such as energy supply, which forces the province to import power and

causes the price of electricity to skyrocket; and

"Whereas Ernie Eves has done a poor job in educating the public as to the ramifications of an open electricity market in the province of Ontario and has done

little to punish the unscrupulous sales practices of door-to-door energy retailers; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has saddled the population of Ontario with additional debt reduction charges, which further increases the amount that the

citizens of Ontario have to pay per kilowatt hour, yet the Hydro debt continues to increase; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris-Ernie Eves governments appointed the board of directors for Hydro One, who approved exorbitant salaries and compensation packages for

Hydro One executives;

"Be it resolved that the Ontario government move immediately to protect our province's electricity consumers by addressing the serious generation problem in

Ontario, by punishing unscrupulous electricity retailers and by moving forward with a rebate to offset the increasing costs of electricity in Ontario."

I too have signed this petition.

EDUCATION FUNDING

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

"Whereas the funding for school boards is now based on the student-focused funding legislative grants for ... 2001-02....;

"Whereas the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board is in a period of declining enrolment, a trend that is projected to continue over the next five

years;

"Whereas application of the student-focused funding model for 2001-02 does not allow sufficient funding to the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board

for secretarial support in schools, principals and vice-principals, transportation or school operations;

"Whereas costs in these areas cannot be reduced at the same rate as the enrolment declines;

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

"To reassess the student-focused funding" formula for 2002-03 "to provide additional funding for those areas where funding is insufficient and to adjust future

student-focused funding legislative grants to address the situation of declining enrolments faced by the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board and other boards in Ontario."

I'm very happy to affix my signature to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have here a petition that deals with the long-term-care rate situation. It's addressed to the

Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

$3.02 per diem in the first year and $2 in the second year and $2 in the third year, effective September 1, 2002; and

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

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

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

resident for nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

the government's own study."

It has been signed by approximately 1,000 residents from Halton. I agree with it. I affix my signature to it. I'm handing it over to Brian, our new page

here.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding hydro, signed by hundreds of residents in my

riding.

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government deregulated electricity on May 1, 2002, in the province of Ontario without it being in their election platform in either

1995 or 1999 and without the mandate of the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas the price of the commodity of electricity has reached outrageous levels, having risen at times over 100% since May 1, 2002, causing Ontarians great

financial hardship; and

"Whereas Ontario Power Generation (owned by the Ontario government) has applied to the Ontario Energy Board for a 20% reduction in the promised rebate to

Ontarians if the commodity price of electricity rose above 3.8 cents per kilowatt hour; and

"Whereas competition in the electricity market has been scared off by the uncertainty of the Harris-Eves government's attempts to sell off a portion of Hydro

One, leaving electricity commodity prices high; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government authorized exorbitant salaries and bonuses in the amount of $2.2 million per annum to be paid to the former president of

Hydro One, and in excess of $1.6 million per annum to the vice-president of Ontario Power Generation;

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

"We demand that the Harris-Eves government take immediate action to ensure that Ontarians have fair prices for the necessary commodity of electricity in

Ontario, and that the Harris-Eves government and its leader, Ernie Eves, call a general election on the instability of the energy market so that Ontarians can have a voice on this issue."

I sign my name on this petition and hand it over to Nicholas.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

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

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

their warning lights activated;

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

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

Hoy, MPP, Chatham-Kent-Essex, be immediately enacted. Bill 112 received the unanimous all-party support of the Ontario Legislature at second reading on June 13, 2002....

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

I too have signed this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

KEEPING THE PROMISE

FOR A STRONG ECONOMY ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RESPECT

DE L'ENGAGEMENT D'ASSURER

UNE ÉCONOMIE SAINE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 7, 2002, on the motion for second reading of Bill 198,

An Act to implement Budget measures and other initiatives of

the Government / Projet de loi 198, Loi mettant en oeuvre certaines mesures budgétaires et d'autres initiatives du gouvernement.

The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): It's my understanding that we will resume debate with the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale,

who may now assume the floor.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): It's my pleasure to have an opportunity to continue the Liberal lead in response to government

Bill 198, dealing with certain measures related to the budget, but not in its title or in any of the communications of the government -- it needs to be said here very clearly at the beginning --

dealing with the fact that this is the bill that repudiates the government's track record and language around "tax cuts pay for themselves." This is the bill, this is the very one, that if the

government didn't change a law, they would be breaking the law by stopping or slowing down tax cuts they had already proposed.

The Liberal Party is clear on this, but it's worth repeating that the proposed cuts they want to slow down, we want to kill altogether. There is the private

school tax voucher that sends an incentive to take kids out of the public system and into private schools. We're going to kill that.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, minister responsible for women's issues): That's not what you said at

your riding association last week.

Mr Smitherman: I don't know what the minister from London -- I'll look forward to her opportunity during questions and comments to try and

correct the record, but she's obviously mistaken and should get to work.

Secondly, we are going to kill those corporate tax cuts, because we don't believe that Ontario's future is best reflected in a race to the bottom with Alabama.

That's what the government of the day proposes. We're going to get rid of those.

Another thing this Bill 198 doesn't in its face talk about is the unprecedented action of turning back the clock to 1988 on the pension funds of employees in

this province of Ontario. This is the bill that is loaded with the ghost of that man who has decamped for London, England: Conrad Black. If you pay no attention to anything else with respect to

this bill, particularly for those people at home who were watching question period, as they know, I asked a question with respect to

section 79.1 of this bill. They know I asked that question of

the minister. In her answer, the minister went to great lengths to deflect from the reality of what's going on here. So I'm going to spend a reasonable amount of time informing people what the

effects of this

section of that bill are.

The minister spoke about consultation, about a consultation paper. First off, the paper she refers to did not in any way outline or raise the draconian steps

they took when legislation was brought forward. So to say there was a consultation paper is true, but the contents of that paper did not reflect the actions this government took with respect to

pensions in Ontario.

The minister said Bill 198 does nothing to change the role of employees as it relates to pensions. Not true. In 1988, under extraordinary pressure brought

about by Conrad Black's attempt -- I think he was successful -- at raiding the pensions of the employees of Dominion stores, the government of David Peterson, led at that time by the Minister of

Consumer and Commercial Relations, my colleague Monte Kwinter, introduced legislation that ensured, on matters of pension windup, that both employees and employers had a role to play.

Although pension matters are complex, for the better part of 15 years, through three successive governments, through governments of three different political

stripes, this operated reasonably well, but we see in this legislation a capitulation to voices like the Canadian Bankers Association. The corporations in our society, as a result of their

chartered status, had an opportunity to be very successful, and I celebrate their success, but their lobbyists have been lined up at the government's door, at the minister's door, in an attempt to

ensure that these pension provisions were in there. They're in this bill at the behest not of employees, not of average working-class Ontarians, not of the people who pay into their pensions and

not of the people who depend upon them; they're in there at the behest of the largest corporations in our province, and if it's not bad enough that they're changing the legislation for the future,

they're letting them reach back 15 years -- retroactive legislation that has the effect of wiping out employee rights, of changing pension agreements -- no protection whatsoever.

When the questions are asked of the Minister of Finance, she dodges and weaves and doesn't answer with the full effect of the law in mind, and I say that's a

shame. I say it's a shame that in Ernie Eves's Ontario we have a government minister, the Minister of Finance, bringing forward legislation to claw back the rights of employees in a way that even

Mike Harris didn't contemplate doing. That's how bad it's gotten.

Is it anything more than a coincidence that the same law firm that Mr Eves was working at during his golden year, Borden Ladner Gervais, is also the pension

specialist representing Scotiabank, which because of their purchase of National Trust stands as the biggest beneficiary of this legislation? Is that any coincidence? I don't know if it's a

coincidence, but we've got a demonstrated pattern here whereby corporate players can always get the ear of the Minister of Finance, but the average person who depends upon their pension benefits

for survival in their golden years -- can they ever get the ear of the Minister of Finance? No.

When we ask to provide an opportunity for this massive bill, 168 pages, something like 25 significant statutes amended -- when we ask in a reasonable way for

the government to consider sending that legislation out for public hearings, to give the citizens of Ontario a voice so that they can highlight the extent to which they're impacted by it in this

section and in the sections dealing with changes to the operation of the Ontario Securities Commission and dealing with the sections that amend the way benefits will work for people involved in

auto accidents -- just three of those sections, all of them dealing with individual Ontarians -- when we ask in a reasonable way for the government to send this legislation out to committee to give

average Ontarians a chance to put their views on the record, what do we get from the government in response? We get stonewalling and we get rhetoric and we get a minister hiding behind a discussion

paper that only ever went to the players, to the insiders, to the $350-an-hour types -- nothing to protect the rights of those individual Ontarians who are now sitting in limbo, at one time certain

and now uncertain of whether their pension funds will be properly paid out.

Then we've got the Conrad Black clause, 79.1. What does 79.1 do?

Section 79.1 opens Ontario up to be the first jurisdiction in North America -- no US state

allows what is proposed in this bill. What is proposed in this bill is that any corporate CEO -- some of them are better than others -- who gets in his or her hot little hand a report from an

actuary -- and this is not a science around which there is ultimate agreement -- which says, "You have a surplus in these funds," the incentive is there to claw that money back to the benefit of

the corporation without any consideration, any discussion, any consultation with the employees who have paid into it and who are depending upon it.

That's what we're asked to accept as an appropriate way of dealing in Ernie Eves's Ontario. Mike Harris didn't do it. Bob Rae didn't do it. David Peterson

didn't do it. But under pressure, this Minister of Finance, led by that Premier, has capitulated in a way that will allow corporate raiders -- not just allow them; it will incent them, it will

encourage them -- to find an actuary who will produce a report about their pension that says it's in surplus and grab it, take the money and run.

When this government introduced this bill, because they didn't want to talk about the fact that they were going backwards on their tax cut pledges, they used

their little backdrop at their media event that said, "Restoring public confidence. Restoring investor confidence." Well, let me ask you this: how much confidence should the public have in a

government that sends a message to the corporate world that any time their pension funds get in surplus they should be a source of raider activities? How does that restore investor confidence?

Will we have a situation like the one we've had in the United States in the last month or two where two of the Big Three car makers, General Motors and Ford, I

believe, were highlighted for the fact that their pension plans were in a dangerous way? Should we celebrate that we have pension funds which are solid? Should we celebrate that we have pension

funds which have the capacity to withstand some of the ups and downs we've all learned too much about in these past two years? Or should we have pension funds which are highlighted in the corporate

prospectus and put out there for the corporate raiders as some kind of signal, as some kind of golden pot, designed to lure the corporate raider in to scavenge those funds and to put at risk the

corporation, particularly the pension fund's capacity in the long term to provide for the retirement funds of those individuals who have paid into it?

This bill is such a lopsided dividend payment to the corporate players in this province at the expense of the hard-working people. For the Liberal Party's part

-- sometimes you get to stand up in this Legislature and vote yes or no with a certain level of enthusiasm, but we vigorously oppose this legislation on so many counts. It fails hard-working

Ontarians. It jeopardizes their future capacity to rely on the pension funds that they have contributed to.

So we ask ourselves, why is the government bringing this forward at this time? We know these changes are ones that the corporate entities would have preferred

in 1988, 1989 and 1990. We know that this has been the subject of intense lobbying of all finance ministers of all political parties. But we ask ourselves at this time, why did Janet Ecker, the

Minister of Finance of the day, capitulate with this golden egg for the corporate entities? One is left to speculate, because the government does not provide us with a very clear understanding of

it. I ask the question again whether the relationship where Mr Eves's former role at Borden Ladner Gervais, the lawyer for National Trust and Scotiabank, which are the most likely beneficiaries of

this legislation -- has that relationship got something to do with it? Did that help get people to the front of the line, or is it other elements of this bill, including slowing down, with a bit of

a nudge and a wink to the corporate community, some of the tax cuts that had been promised?

For our part, the Ontario Liberal Party position is clear: we vote against this legislation. We oppose it with vigour. We think it's a huge reward to the

corporate community for their loyal support of the government opposite. We think it is an awfully profound example of the extent to which, when the decisions are being made, the voices and

influence of the corporate community are at the table and in the ear of the people who make the decisions. And the people with their pensions, put at risk by this kind of legislation, their ear,

their representatives and their desire to express at public hearings their opinion on this continues to be stonewalled against hiding behind discussion papers that were never circulated at their

level and with legislation that goes so far beyond the discussion papers so as to make a mockery of that entire process.

Last week in the Toronto Star, I believe it was, there was an editorial cartoon that showed a US border jail and three inmates chained to the wall. The first

said, "I'm a suspected terrorist." One said, "I bought gas in Maine," and the third said, "I'm a pension-fund-raiding CEO."

But they're behind bars. Maybe they're behind bars because in the US circumstance, this kind of activity would be outlawed; it's illegal. I repeat what I said

earlier: with this piece of legislation, Bill 198,

section 79.1, the Conrad Black clause, the Minister of Finance, Janet Ecker, sends a message forth to the whole wide world: "Pension funds are up

for grabs. Come and get yours today. To all of those CEO pension-fund-raiding types." We know their faces sometimes glimmer at us on screens on Kudlow and Kramer and across business magazines. We

know there are people out there whose individual bottom-line interest moves forward of the rights and interests of individuals, of hard-working people who invested in their pensions. When Liberals

vote on Bill 198, we will vote against this bill, we will vote against this government and we will vote against corporate raiding of pension funds. We're voting in favour of people.

The Acting Speaker: Members now have up to two minutes for question and comments.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm going to have an opportunity later to speak more fully on this, but I want to echo much of what was

said by the member who just spoke, because I agree with him that this move on the part of the government with regard to how they're going to treat pension surpluses, quite frankly, is beyond the

pale. There has been a standing rule since 1991 that was put in place by the former NDP government that basically says, in the case of partial windups, there is a mechanism for people to be able to

deal with those windups. The effect of that was quite simple: employees, through their bargaining units, would sit down with employers if there were partial windups, they would look at how to

utilize that money in order to build better pension plans so people can afford to retire with some dignity. If there was a reason to pull the money out -- because there are times when a plan is

fully funded, you've bought the maximum benefit and there is a surplus; you have to figure out a way to get that money out -- there was a mechanism that basically said that when you do that, it can

only be done with the consent of plan members, the people who are benefiting from the benefit. Usually that ended up being a 50-50 withdrawal. In most cases, that's where it ended up.

What this government is attempting to do by way of this move in Bill 198 is to basically say, "Employees be damned. You don't have a say. If there is a partial

windup of a pension plan, the employer will have the right to be able to go in and scoop that money without any ability for the employees to do anything about it." Quite frankly, that brings us not

only back to where Conrad Black was in 1988; I would argue it brings us even further back than that. I'll have an opportunity to speak to that a little bit further.

I also want to indicate that our caucus, the NDP caucus, will be voting in opposition to this bill, not only because of what's inside the pension regulations,

which I'll get into later, but because there's much in this budget bill that is not the direction we think the government should be taking when it comes to this issue of finance, and we'll speak to

that a little bit later in the debate.

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It is a pleasure to have what they traditionally call a two-minute hit in terms of what

the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale spoke about. There are many issues and good things in Bill 198; it's not only about pensions. I want the people at home to know that there are many good

things, and I must remind them that it's not the first time the opposition will be voting against it; they have made that very clear. They have voted against pretty well every measure we brought

forward, even in terms of giving $200 back to Ontario taxpayers. They didn't like that, and I'm not sure why.

Over the weekend, I was very happy to meet a couple, the Hardatt's who were at a social function I happen to be at. I thought I had seen them somewhere, and I

realized later that I had seen them in the newspaper. They were the people who were there when Premier Ernie Eves rolled out his plan about hydro. I was pleased to meet the ordinary, hard-working

citizens of Mississauga who are quite pleased. In fact, they came over and complimented us on handling the hydro issue very well. I want to compliment the government for taking its time -- they

didn't rush into it. But the plan they brought out is up to the year 2006, and as well they promised to continue the freeze if they have to. So it's not a short-term plan but a long-term plan, and

I'm pleased to speak on that as well.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What we look at in a bill of this kind is the fact that it's an omnibus bill. That means it has so many

components to it that it should probably be broken down into four or five different bills. As is the case with many omnibus bills, some of the provisions in this bill are supportable; others are

not. What the government usually does is put a hostage in the bill so the opposition won't vote for it, and then they can say about the good and popular things in the bill, "The opposition voted

against it." But you really can't fool people with that.

I want to say that I have been receiving communications -- telephone calls, letters and e-mails -- about the issue of pensions and the raiding of pension plans

that might be permitted by the provisions of this bill. Those people are very petrified about this, and the reason they're concerned is that their costs have already increased substantially. They

have had huge utility increases; consumers are finding that gas bills are going up. Gas at the pump is going up. They're finding that their water bills are going up. In other words, they're being

met with a lot of increases that are exceedingly important to them. That is why they're concerned when they see that their pension plan could be raided under the provisions of this bill.

I want those individuals, and members of the government, to know that we in the Liberal Party in the official opposition will adamantly oppose that provision,

which would allow the raiding of pension plans. I'm surprised there hasn't been more of an uprising about this matter within the government benches. We know that the government capitulated last

week to very heavy pressure from the opposition and from the public on the hydro issue. We hope the government will once again see that it is wrong, in the provisions of this bill, and that it will

withdraw the provision that will allow the raiding of pension plans.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to join in this particular debate by the member of Toronto Centre-Rosedale. It's

interesting that he sort of says, "We're not going to support any more tax cuts." It really shouldn't surprise any members on this side of the House. I can remember, when I was a member of

municipal council in Toronto, that they introduced, I believe, 33 tax increases in their very short five-year term. One of them happened to be the commercial concentration tax. That commercial

concentration tax drove out more jobs from this city than any other kind of tax increase I can think of. That was one of the reasons that we, as a party, said in 1995 that we were going to cut

taxes, because we believe that cutting taxes is going to create jobs. And guess what? Seven years later, one million jobs have been created in this province. One million jobs. It's interesting

because there's an

article in the clippings today that says Alberta and Ontario lead the way in job creation in Canada. So if anybody wants to know about the virtue of cutting taxes, just look at

this government's track record in the last seven years. We have grown jobs in this province every month of every year for the last seven years. So you try and tell me that tax cuts don't work.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr Smitherman: Following on the comments by the member from Scarborough Centre, you'd think she doesn't know that when she votes for this

piece of legislation she's voting for a tax increase. What this bill does is, it makes it legal for you guys to break your own law. So thank you very much for making my point. Talk about

consistency. To the members from Timmins-James Bay, Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, St Catharines and Scarborough Centre, I thank you.

It is interesting: the government members had four minutes to respond, but not a word about the central point that I talked about for 17 -- pensions. Not one

word from the solemn masses of government members who lumbered back to Queen's Park today. Not one word about the fact that they are going to come in here, time allocation, and vote in favour of

the Conrad Black clause. They're going to vote in favour of a piece of legislation that asks of corporate raiders in Ontario to steal as much as they can from the surplus and put at risk the

pension funds of hard-working Ontarians. That's Bill 198 and that's a bill the government members, with great enthusiasm, will support.

But here in the opposition benches, in addition to our pronouncement that we will vote against it, is our request -- and I say it this time in the presence of

the member from Etobicoke Centre, the great government House leader. Please use that in your literature. I want to say to that member while he is here, why, why, why will you not allow the people

of Ontario to have an opportunity to comment on this bill in public hearings in their centres? The Minister of Finance likes to hide behind her consultation papers, but I dare you to bring this to

Scarborough municipal hall. Bring it there and hear from the people that are seeing this government support the big corporate raiders over the little guy. We're Ontario Liberals and we're with the

little guy.

The Acting Speaker: Well, it must be Monday.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: "There's an election coming" is right. We will now move on to the leadoff speech for the third party.

Mr Bisson: That was quite interesting, the last comment. First of all, I want to thank you or give you my condolences, Speaker, that you have

to be in the Chair today as our critic, the day that we have this debate coming up. I appreciate your leaving me the opportunity to utilize your lead on this, because normally it would be your

opportunity. I want to make sure people know that I just wrestled it from you hand and foot because there are a number of things that I wanted to speak about on this bill.

I want to speak about three particular issues inside this bill. The first

part I want to talk about is the pension legislation that the government purports to

change by way of this bill; I want to speak about, obviously, Ontario Hydro and the fiasco around deregulation; and I also want to speak about auto insurance and insurance in general because it's

an issue that is coming back, as many people would know.

First of all, let's be clear about what the government is trying to do here. Specifically I want to deal first with the pension issue. There has been, since

about 1988, a change in the way that we deal with partial windups for pensions. The problem existed in the province of Ontario that if you had an employer that had 10,000 plan members inside a

pension plan and there was a massive layoff or plant closure but not everybody was gone -- in other words, you may have multiple plants and one or two plants were closed down and another couple of

plants were left open -- you went from being an employer that had 10,000 employees to one having 5,000. There was this whole issue of how you deal with the surplus that exists within a pension plan

in the event of that partial windup.

You go from 10,000 employees to 5,000 employees. They figure out what the actuarial costs are to cover off all plan members and it's found that there is a

surplus but there has been a partial windup; there's been a layoff in the plant that affects that there are less people working and contributing to the plan. An issue existed -- how do you deal

with that pension surplus?

What happened prior to 1988 was that there wasn't much in the way of rules, and employers were taking advantage of those situations and stealing money from

pension plans. When there were those layoffs, they would do what was called a partial windup to their pension plan.

The most notorious of them all is the one we all remember -- the Conrad Black affair. With Conrad Black and Dominion

Stores, exactly that situation existed. There was a partial windup of the pension plan, and Conrad Black scooped out money that was paid by employees in the plan, took that surplus in the plan out

and then ran with the money. I think at this point he has been knighted or something for having done it. I guess that's kind of a weird thing. You've got to wonder when you have a system that

recognizes people like that as making a valuable contribution after having taken money out of the pockets of pensioners. You say to yourself, "What's wrong with their system?" But that's another

debate.

What happened was that there was a huge outcry in Ontario. People across this province said there was something wrong. Pension surpluses shouldn't be used for

employers to scoop money out to do whatever with. Those dollars should stay in the pension plan in order to negotiate better pension systems.

For example, in Northern Ontario, as across other parts of the province in the 1980s and the 1990s, we saw huge changes within the mining sector. We had

employers like Inco, for exam