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

November 19, 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-19 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 19 November 2002 Mardi 19 novembre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

ALLISTER JOHNSTON

VISUDYNE TREATMENT

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

SAUBLE SANDPIPERS

SCHOOL BOARDS

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

DIWALI

SPECIAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL

COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT ACT, 2002

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(PROHIBITING USE

OF PESTICIDES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (INTERDICTION

D'UTILISER DES PESTICIDES)

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO DEREGULATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

HYDRO DEREGULATION

HYDRO ONE

KARLA HOMOLKA

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

HEALTH PROTECTION LEGISLATION

PENSION PLANS

CHILD CARE

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

ONTARIO SUPERBUILD CORP

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

CHARITABLE GAMING

NATURAL GAS RATES

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

ONTARIO TEACHER

QUALIFYING TEST

LONG-TERM CARE

HIGHWAY 69

HYDRO RATES

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

HIGHWAY 69

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Tuesday 19 November 2002 Mardi 19 novembre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The Premier of this province is going to be making a visit to Sudbury this coming Thursday for the annual PC

fundraiser. We welcome him to Sudbury because it's the first time he will have been there since he became Premier. The people of Sudbury are going to want to know from this Premier why he would not

meet with the Crash 69 committee to discuss the appalling state of Highway 69; why he won't meet with people like Ron Henderson, who has lost his sister and his twin nephews; why he won't meet with

people like Rita Pulici, who lost her son; why he won't meet with people like Mario Grossi, who lost his mother and two cousins.

The people of Sudbury also want to know why the Premier, the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines have not taken

advantage of the Canada strategic infrastructure project to make Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound the number one priority. In fact, if this government thinks that the people of Sudbury will

be fooled by their rhetoric, you're sadly mistaken. We want the Premier to come to Sudbury, commit to a start date for Highway 69 four-laning from Sudbury and give us the timeline for the entire

project, and then we want him to show Sudburians the letter he sent to the federal minister asking the federal minister to make this project the number one priority of this particular

infrastructure program.

ALLISTER JOHNSTON

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I rise today to recognize an extraordinary individual, Allister Johnston, on the occasion of his 94th

birthday. Mr Johnston's commitment and dedication to both our province and our country have been unwavering. He served our country proudly, retiring from the Canadian army in 1945 with the

distinguished rank of major. During World War II, Major Johnston served as the commander of the north armoured regiment, the Algonquins.

Following his service in the armed forces, Mr Johnston founded an insurance company in South River, which is still operated by his two sons, John and Peter.

Among his many endeavours, Allister Johnston was a municipal councillor, the chairman of the South River school board and a past president of the Canadian Legion.

Mr Johnston was also elected as MPP for Parry Sound in 1948 and served his constituents with dedication and enthusiasm for 24 years. In 1964, Mr Johnston was

appointed to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. To the railway's employees he was affectionately known as "Major Ally." His many accomplishments include spearheading the expansion of

the successful Ontario Northland communications division.

Mr Johnston is predeceased by his wife, Margaret, and together they have three children, John, Lynne and Peter.

Allister Johnston resides with his daughter, Lynne, and remains active in his community. I would like to stand and congratulate Mr Johnston on reaching this

significant milestone and express my appreciation for his contributions over the years to his community, our province and the country.

VISUDYNE TREATMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In May of this year, the Ontario Minister of Health, after months of questioning in this Legislature and

horror stories in the media forced him to capitulate to demands to meet the needs of individuals afflicted with macular degeneration, finally announced that funding would be provided from the

Ontario government for the treatment known as Visudyne. What the minister neglected to mention in his announcement was that the new policy included strict eligibility criteria that effectively

exclude 80% to 90% of the patients who are candidates for the treatment.

A 53-year-old resident of St Catharines who suffers from macular degeneration was informed that she does not qualify for funding from the Ontario government

because her affliction is not age-related, even though she will have to endure the same sight loss that someone of a more advanced age would experience.

What the minister left out of his announcement was a stipulation that potential candidates must have 50% membrane loss in order to be eligible for the Visudyne

treatment. In effect, this means that patients in Niagara and across the province must suffer from this debilitating disease until their eyesight reaches a so-called acceptable state of

disrepair.

I call upon the Minister of Health of Ontario to change his unfair restrictions on macular degeneration patients and allow them to receive treatment in a timely

fashion, and to reimburse those who have received treatment in the past and have had to pay for it from their own pocket.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): The Eves government is directly responsible for the severe doctor shortage that is jeopardizing the

lives of people all across Ontario.

Hamilton is one of the largest cities in this province, and our citizens have been especially hard hit. On December 9, two more doctors from the Hamilton area

will be retiring. One doctor alone serves more than 1,500 patients. Many patients are seniors with chronic health problems who require the ongoing services of a family physician. They've tried to

find a new doctor in Hamilton and they've tried to find a new doctor outside Hamilton, but the reality is that doctors simply aren't accepting new patients.

Incredibly, at the same time as thousands of patients in my community need a doctor, there are 3,000 internationally trained doctors living in Ontario who are

willing to work. It is unbelievable that the Eves government has allocated only 10 spots for family medicine and only three out of a possible 10 candidates have been accepted to fast-track into

family medicine.

Flu season is upon us, and this winter hundreds of sick kids and frail seniors will be forced into already overcrowded emergency rooms in Hamilton. Your

incompetence is pushing an already dangerously overloaded health care system to the breaking point.

Timely, effective medical services are the very heart of our medical system. No one should be without these life-saving services. Stand up today and tell the

thousands of seniors and families in Hamilton who need a doctor today how you're going to resolve this crisis.

SAUBLE SANDPIPERS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I rise in the House today to recognize a long-standing club in my riding, since 1977, the Sauble

Sandpipers seniors club. I would like to congratulate president Marjorie Lipka and all the countless volunteers who make up this outstanding organization.

I had the pleasure of attending their 25th anniversary in October. The organization works countless hours to help the different causes in our area and is made up

of over 160 members. The committee members and volunteers are to be commended for their hard work and dedication throughout the year in preparation for the various events.

Over the years, the club has generously supported all the area hospitals, as well as many other community groups requesting funding. They have supported the

Salvation Army, the daycare centre and recently donated $6,000 to the local fire department for a new truck.

The Sandpipers hold two large craft shows a year and a smaller Christmas craft show that supports the Sandpipers club and the lawn bowling club.

The association is to be praised for their ongoing contribution and dedication to local initiatives. A project they have recently taken on is offering full

support to the new medical clinic in Sauble Beach. They are also hoping to make repairs to the local community centre they use, where they play bridge, shuffleboard and euchre.

This is an excellent, much-needed organization in our area, and I'm proud to be able to partake in their events. Again, I congratulate the Sauble Sandpipers on

their 25th anniversary.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): The Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board has petitioned the Ministry of Education for $140,000 in emergency

transportation funding to cover unexpected increases. The Greater Essex County District School Board is overbudget on transportation by about $90,000.

The boards have done everything they can. They've staggered school hours. They've shared all the bus routes possible. Minister of Education, last June's budget

stated that your government was committed to "investing an additional $20 million to assist with student transportation costs and support the development of a new approach to student transportation

funding that will ensure school boards work together to provide safe and efficient transportation for their students."

These two school boards, along with the Conseil scolaire de district des écoles catholiques du Sud-Ouest, have been leaders in bus route sharing and

creating flexible school hours for optimal bus use. Yet they can't make ends meet. School bus funding has been frozen at 1997 levels despite increasing wages and skyrocketing vehicle, gasoline and

insurance costs.

You have to put your money where you mouth is, Minister. I insist that you act today to ensure that no school board in Ontario goes without the funding it needs

and that every student who requires a bus ride is able to get to school in a timely manner.

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to introduce members of the Durham Regional Police Association who are here at Queen's Park

visiting members. They are among the many delegates from the Police Association of Ontario attending the sixth annual legislative day. The representatives from Durham region include the

association's new president Doug Cavanaugh; vice-president-elect Tom Bell; secretary-Treasurer Mark McConkey; and director Rick Walsh.

It's a privilege to once again meet representatives of Ontario's 20,000 front-line police personnel at Queen's Park. Legislative day is an excellent opportunity

to discuss specific concerns such as courthouse security recently in Durham.

Some of the general issues of interest to the Police Association of Ontario, I'm sure, include centralized recruitment, the DNA data bank issue, staffing,

funding and of course policing standards. The association also supported Bill 191, the Highway Traffic Act amendment regarding the protection of police and other emergency workers stopped at the

shoulders of Ontario's highways in the course of their duties.

I understand the association is also urging the federal government to overhaul their prison and parole systems to ensure there are meaningful consequences for

offenders and to reinforce public confidence in our criminal justice as well as youth justice system. In other words, they are calling for an end to the so-called Club Fed prison environment. I'm

sure we applaud them for their initiative and efforts and the work the association does on behalf of front-line officers and the communities they serve. I have visited the new provincial jail in

Lindsay and can assure you it is anything but Club Fed.

I commend Police Association of Ontario president Bob Baltin; chair, Brenda Lawson; administrator, Bruce Miller; and the board members for all they have done in

their organization of this legislative day. I recommend all members who attend to meet with their association to respect the work they do for our communities.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today I seek unanimous consent to have all members in the House wear the Club Fed

pin so that the PAO and all the police forces under that umbrella will clearly know that everyone in this House believes criminals who do a crime should be placed in the appropriate institution to

do their time.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member has asked if we can wear the pin he referred to today. Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm asking for the unanimous consent of the Legislature to support a

resolution that the Ontario Legislature oppose the federal government's changes to the disability tax credit and support the Canadian Paraplegic Association's request that the former rules

governing the tax credit be restored.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise in the House today to speak on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals to recognize the Police

Association of Ontario day here at Queen's Park. Today the members of the PAO have joined us including President Bob Baltin, Bruce Miller, Brenda Lawson, Jim Mauro, Walter Tomasik and Byron Smith,

who met with Dalton and myself earlier today, as well as Len Ellins and Dianne Careswell from my riding of Brant. The three of us grew up in the same neighbourhood in Eagle Place. We welcome them

and all PAO members and thank them for joining us today.

We are pleased to have this opportunity to highlight the important work of the Police Association of Ontario. The PAO was formed in 1933 and represented

constables in 25 communities across Ontario. Today, the Police Association of Ontario represents more than 20,000 front-line police officers and civilian members of police services in more than 66

police associations across Ontario. The PAO is the unified voice of front-line police personnel across Ontario and an integral part of policing in our communities.

We just want to stress the importance of our front-line police officers, who put their lives at risk for the safety and security of Ontario families. We want to

thank them for their dedication and commitment to policing in Ontario.

We would also like to take this opportunity to thank the families of the courageous officers who support them as they carry out their important work in our

communities to keep them safe. It is vital that we recognize the value of these officers who work with the police association and work to uphold the honour of the police profession and elevate the

standards of policing.

We also recognize the important role our civilian staff play in keeping our police services running smoothly and effectively, especially communication and

dispatch personnel.

Once again, on behalf of Dalton and the Liberal caucus, thank you to the PAO for keeping our communities safe and secure.

DIWALI

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I rise today to draw to the attention of the House that over 350 London area Hindus celebrated Diwali on November 16

with a dinner and show. Diwali or Deepawali, the most pan-Indian of all Hindu festivals, is a festival of lights symbolizing the victory of righteousness and the lifting of spiritual darkness. It

commemorates Lord Rama's return to his kingdom Ayodhya after completing his 14-year exile. Twinkling oil lamps, or diyas, light up every Hindu home in India, and fireworks displays take place

across the country. The Goddess Lakshmi, the symbol of wealth and prosperity, is also worshipped on this occasion.

The festival also marks the start of the Hindu New Year. At this time, most Hindu homes worship Lord Ganesha, the symbol of auspiciousness and wisdom. Spring

cleaning and decorative designs for homes are the order of the day. Family members come together to offer prayers, distribute candies and light up their homes.

Diwali's message of the triumph of light over darkness and of good over evil gives hope and encouragement to everyone. I know that all members of this House will

join with me in wishing Hindus across Ontario and the world a Happy New Year and a warm "Namaste."

SPECIAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL

COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the special report of the Environmental

Commissioner of Ontario, entitled Climate Change: Is the Science Sound?

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 177,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act, 2001, the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, and other acts consequential to or related to the enactment of the

Municipal Act, 2001, and to revise the Territorial Division Act.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice and social policy and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 179,

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

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1354.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 48; the nays are 36.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Monday, October 28, 2002, the bill is ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT ACT, 2002

Mr Beaubien moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr12,

An Act respecting the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.

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

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to take this opportunity for all members to welcome members

of the provincial council of women who are in the member's gallery today. It's their 79th year of bringing their valuable insight to Queen's Park. We all want to say thank you.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(PROHIBITING USE

OF PESTICIDES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (INTERDICTION

D'UTILISER DES PESTICIDES)

Mr Patten moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 208,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act, 2001 to permit municipalities to prohibit activities or the use of substances to protect the health, safety and

well-being of inhabitants of the municipality / Projet de loi 208, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités pour permettre aux municipalités d'interdire des activités ou

l'utilisation de substances afin de protéger la santé, la sécurité et le bien-être des habitants de la municipalité.

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

The member for a short statement?

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): This bill amends the Municipal Act, 2001, to enable municipalities that wish to pass bylaws to prohibit the

non-essential or cosmetic use of pesticides on a precautionary basis if the municipality is of the opinion that there is a threat to the health, safety and well-being of its citizens. There is a

growing body of evidence that exposure to pesticides can cause acute or chronic effects on health, with children representing the most vulnerable population. I look forward to the debate on this

bill on December 5.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Premier. The Minister of Energy has been meeting on a regular basis with the chair of

Ontario Power Generation. In 1998, Energy Minister Wilson said in the House, "I meet with Mr Farlinger ... every week at a set time, as did my predecessor Norm Sterling, as did my predecessor

Brenda Elliott." Your current energy minister confirmed that regular meetings are provided between the energy minister and Mr Farlinger.

I presume that some information is exchanged between the government of Ontario and the chair of Ontario Power Generation. Is it your position, Premier, that at

any time the government of Ontario received bad information from Chairman Farlinger?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'd refer that to the Minister of Energy. I'm sure he'd be happy to answer

it.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): When I became Minister of Energy in August 2002, the

very next day, my first full day on the job, I went to see Pickering A for myself to underline the importance I place on the issue. We are tremendously concerned with the timetable of the

project. We're also tremendously concerned with respect to what the anticipated cost was, versus what the actual costs are.

I received an update on that date and asked for more information, which I received in two weeks' time. I asked for more information, and we had a rather

prolonged meeting on that issue.

Mr Bryant: Minister, your parliamentary assistant said last week on TVO, "We" -- the government -- "had bad information from Ontario Power

Generation and I think that has directly impacted the whole supply-and-demand equation on which we originally predicated opening the market."

I asked you yesterday whether you had full confidence in Chairman Farlinger, and you certainly did not answer in the affirmative. Published reports are out

today suggesting that bad information was provided by Mr Farlinger to the government of Ontario. If that is not true, it needs to be cleared up now. If it is true, why is he remaining the chair of

Ontario Power Generation?

Did the energy minister -- you, your predecessor or his predecessor -- and the government of Ontario receive bad information from Chairman Farlinger with

respect to when Pickering A would be refurbished?

Hon Mr Baird: Certainly in my three months on the job I have not. I can indicate to the member opposite that there indeed was bad information

with respect to when the project would be up and running. It was initially indicated that the first reactor, reactor number 4 at Pickering A, would be on-line well before it certainly will. That's

no secret; it's quite open. It's in OPG's third-quarter statement. Mr Osborne has spoken very clearly with respect to the project and his views on it, and my views would not be dissimilar to those

expressed by the president and CEO.

Mr Bryant: Well, here is the problem: energy ministers were meeting with the chair of OPG on a regular basis, week after week after week,

before the marketplace opened, and yet Ontario Power Generation had put out in a press release on January 30 that Pickering A was not going to be on-line in May. It wasn't going to be on-line, it

says, until the third quarter of 2002. Then another report, also before the market opened, said that "OPG currently expects to return the first unit of Pickering to service in late 2002 and early

2003."

Are you to have us believe that the energy minister didn't raise this with the chair? Are you to have us believe that he didn't read these press releases? You

say you received bad information. I say the government of Ontario didn't receive bad information; they received information that they didn't want to hear. You were getting the truth about the

Pickering refurbishment and you couldn't handle the truth. As a result of it, you started up the marketplace before supply was ready. My question to you is, when you knew -- when the government

knew -- that in fact Pickering wasn't going to be on-line and on time, why did you open up the marketplace in May?

Hon Mr Baird: The member opposite undoubtedly took grade 13 drama in high school and failed, but I guess they didn't provide an F back in

those days either. We're tremendously concerned about the delays that have happened at Pickering A. Obviously the information that had been given when we first embarked on this process in the late

1990s has not come to fruition. I can say that in the three months that I've been the Minister of Energy, I've always received a good amount of information that I've requested from OPG.

I think the member opposite is trying to go down another road, because his own leader has changed policies on his back. If you go to energy on the Liberal Web

site -- I wanted to find out what their policy on energy was today and I plugged into the Liberal Web site, and you have here, "Update coming soon," which is really remarkable. When Dalton McGuinty

went out and had the scrum of his life, I saw the leader of the NDP standing like a proud father, knowing that Dalton McGuinty is a Howard-come-lately on this issue.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Later today, your appointee is going to reveal a long list

of cuts to the Toronto District School Board. Your strategic leaks to the media admit that you're going to be cutting certified supply teachers. Cutting the number of certified supply teachers

means that when regular teachers get sick, uncertified people will be teaching kids more often. It means that when a teacher takes maternity leave, more often her students will spend the rest of

the year with an uncertified person. The question is simply this: why does your government want more classes taught by uncertified people?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): The member opposite obviously has much more information than we do. If I take a

look at what I've been reading in the media, it looks to me like the supervisor has perhaps done the job he was asked to do of balancing the budget, despite all the fearmongering that we heard from

you and others in the city of Toronto.

Mr Caplan: You're cutting the number of supply teachers; you know it, I know it and parents and kids know it. Fewer supply teachers means even

more unqualified people leading classes. But I can think of a better way to help the Toronto District School Board and other boards of education balance their budgets. Instead of giving half a

billion dollars to private schools, invest that money in public education classrooms. You're putting more uncertified people in front of classrooms while you hand out millions of dollars to private

schools, and that's wrong. My question for you is simple: will you cancel your private school tax credit and invest that money in our public schools?

Hon Mrs Witmer: This is unbelievable. I don't even know what $500 million he's talking about. Furthermore, let's go back to the fearmongering.

Do you know what Gerard Kennedy said? Schools are going to cut out rec, they're going to cut special-needs programs. Do you know what? It's all been fearmongering. As far as the $500 million for

private schools, it's not here. Do you know what? You're going to have to check your facts and your figures. You've got it all wrong, like you have on Hydro.

Mr Caplan: The minister is right in her answer that she doesn't know what she's talking about. Minister, 3,100 kids are waiting for special

education assessments in the Toronto board alone; 36% of kids have no phys ed teacher; 35% of kids in Toronto have no music program. The quality of education in public schools is failing, but you

have half a billion dollars for private schools. Under your government, funding for private schools is going up $3,500 per student, but for kids in public schools it's going down over $2,100 per

student. That's a betrayal of everything you said you stood for when you were a trustee and when you were the chair of a board of education. Minister, how can you possibly defend handing private

schools half a billion dollars when you're cutting public education in Toronto and elsewhere in the province?

Hon Mrs Witmer: This government since 1995 has done more to support students in Ontario in order to ensure that they have the resources, they

have the services. We are providing funding in order that our teachers can provide the best education possible. In fact, this year we increased funding by 3%. We are now paying and supporting

education to the tune of $14.26 billion. We are proud of what we've done for students, and we would recommend that you get on board and fight for students too.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. You are a former Finance Minister. You're a former Bay Street

investment banker. You should know your numbers. Maybe you can help the people of Ontario out with this problem. Tell us, Premier, when it comes to hydroelectricity, who has flip-flopped more, you

or Dalton McGuinty?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will give him this: he is very consistent. He believes that everything

should be socialistic, everybody should be --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Don't confuse him with the facts. His mind is made up. I'm still waiting for the financial part of the question.

Mr Hampton: I realize that's a very tough question. People in the province say, "There's Flip and there's Flop -- no, there's Flip and there's

Flop."

It's like this, Premier. You've changed your position on hydro so many times it's making people's heads spin. In October 1998 the Conservatives announced you

were going to privatize and deregulate Hydro --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Would the leader take his seat. The members for Windsor West and Windsor-St Clair, please come to order. Sorry

for the interruption, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I realize that the Liberals' position on hydro causes them great pain, so I'll be gentle here. In October 1998 the Conservatives

announce you were going to privatize and deregulate hydro. Then you spend the next three years on propaganda advertising, telling people that this will be good for them, that prices will go down.

In December 2001 the Conservatives announce that you were going to privatize Hydro One. On April 30, 2002, you say that maybe you won't sell off Hydro One. On May 29 you introduce a bill that you

say will allow you to sell off Hydro One. On June 12 you say you'll only sell off up to 49% of Hydro One. Then last week, when it becomes painfully obvious to consumers that privatized and

deregulated hydro is too expensive for them, you rolled out your scheme to hide the cost.

Premier, with all those flip-flops, why should any person in Ontario trust you with our hydro system?

Hon Mr Eves: We have taken steps to protect the consumer in the province of Ontario. As you know, we have capped the rates at 4.3 cents a

kilowatt hour. That is why consumers in the province can trust us. They certainly can't trust a party who in five years increased the public debt in the province by $63 billion and increased the

debt of Hydro $3 billion on top of that; $66 billion in five years you increased the debt of Ontario taxpayers. They certainly aren't going to trust you.

Mr Hampton: Premier, I can tell I've struck a nerve. Don't feel bad, because you're not the biggest flip-flopper. In 1998, Dalton McGuinty

voted in favour of Hydro privatization and deregulation. For the next three years, the Liberals trolled up and down Bay Street looking for money from investors, and they said, "Dalton McGuinty and

the Ontario Liberals have been consistent supporters of the move to open Ontario's electricity market." When Hydro One was put up for sale, Mr McGuinty said, "I am in favour of privatization both

in terms of the transmission and the generation." In September, Mr McGuinty said Liberals would close all the coal-fired plants. Yesterday he flip-flopped on that too. Like some others, I went to

the Liberal Web site to see what their hydro strategy was, and there is none.

Premier, I repeat my question: why should anyone in Ontario trust you or Dalton with --

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

Hon Mr Eves: I certainly can't answer for Mr McGuinty. His Web site speaks for itself; it's a blank piece of paper.

We indeed do have a nine-point plan that we outlined on November 11 with the people of the province of Ontario which we believe will protect consumers as we go

forward and develop a generation free market here in the province. I think our nine-point plan addresses all the issues that you've covered in question period today.

The Speaker: New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Premier, I told you and the Liberals over two and a half years ago that hydro deregulation and privatization would be a fiasco; it

would drive up the price so that consumers couldn't afford to pay it and it would create electricity supply shortages. Now that this has become evident to both you and the Liberals, you want to

endorse a pre-election price cap rebate scheme to cover, to hide, the cost of privatized hydro from the consumers.

Premier, rather than you and the Liberals engaging in a cover-up, a pre-election bribe designed to hide the true cost of privatized hydro from the people of

Ontario, why don't you finally admit that privatized, deregulated hydro always costs more? It cost more in California, in Alberta, in Montana, in Pennsylvania and in Ontario. Why don't you do the

right thing? Kill hydro privatization and deregulation now.

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the leader of the third party knows that hydro is not being privatized. Second, he knows that to ensure a future

supply of energy in the province of Ontario, we are going to have to have a competitive marketplace and we're going to have to encourage other players to produce energy in the province of Ontario.

That is part of our nine-point plan.

At the same time, we are protecting consumers while we're doing that. We have a plan. You don't have any plan except the plan that you used when you were in

office for five years: increasing debt to the people of Ontario by $66 billion. That's your plan. Do you think the people of Ontario are going to accept your plan in the next provincial election,

Howard?

Mr Hampton: Premier, the people of Ontario know that right now you are planning to sell off a major chunk of Hydro One. And who are you

talking to? The same highway robbers, SNC-Lavalin, that came in, scooped Highway 407 for pennies, then sold it off at three times that value, and drivers of Ontario are paying prohibitive and

exorbitant rates for driving on 407. You want to make the same deal with the same highway robbers. We know from the experience of Highway 407 that those people will want higher and higher hydro

rates.

Premier, there is an alternative. Hydro Quebec is following it: public power at cost, public ownership. Manitoba is following it. Saskatchewan is following it.

In fact, a number of jurisdictions in the United States have voted to end deregulation.

Instead of trying to cover up the cost with your Liberal friends, instead of a pre-election bribe, admit hydro privatization and deregulation is too expensive

for consumers and kill it now.

Hon Mr Eves: You really have gone a step too far now. You're the last party that should be standing in the Legislature talking about Highway

407. Your policy on Highway 407 -- you were a member of the cabinet that approved this policy -- was to privatize Highway 407, saying that if the private sector operator made any money, they got to

keep it, and if they lost any money, you would reimburse them through the taxpayers' dollars. What a great NDP socialist scheme that is. That's why you were so successful in the 1999 election, and

that's just as successful as you'll be in the next election.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance, and it has to do with the sale of 49% of Hydro One. A

phone call I made late last week to your ministry indicated that the sale is proceeding, I gather, quite quickly, and it's planned to occur over the next several weeks.

I think if there's a message that the government has heard over the last few weeks it's that the public do not want that. It will also be a fire sale designed

to get quick cash into the government's pockets before the end of the fiscal year. It sells off part of a very major public crown jewel.

The question is, why in the world are you proceeding with these plans to sell 49% of Hydro One?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): First of all, I would like to assure him, if he had been paying attention, that there's been no change

in the timing of what we're doing with Hydro One. Secondly, we were very clear that what we were looking for were ways to bring market discipline to the day-to-day operation of Hydro One, to make

sure that we had private sector investment to help improve the transmission lines. As this government has made very clear, what we are looking for is a partnership that's in the best interests of

Ontario consumers, Ontario taxpayers, Ontario electricity consumers, and that will remain this government's bottom line as we decide how to proceed.

Mr Phillips: Well, you are proceeding, I gather, to sell off 49%. It's a dumb idea. You shouldn't do it.

I'm also very concerned about the secret process. It was just two weeks ago, Minister, that you told the public it would be a public process.

We again phoned your ministry. They told us it's all private. It's all done behind closed doors. The request for proposals will not be made public. It's all

done behind closed doors. So I say to you again: the public have spoken. They do not want you selling off part of their major crown jewel, this enormous public asset. They don't want you doing it

behind closed doors.

Mr Eves made the same mistake when he sold the 407 just before the last election.

Back to the sale of Ontario Hydro, 49%: firstly, you said it would be public; we find out from your ministry it's not. We find that you're now selling it as a

fire sale before the election. Why don't you do the right thing and simply cancel the sale of 49% of Hydro One?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The objectives that we laid out for seeking a private sector partner with Hydro One are the same today as they were several

months ago. The timing is the same today as it was several months ago. We are publicly accountable for the arrangements they may make, as we were on Highway 407.

The honourable member likes to bring up Highway 407. I'm glad he does. We have a brand new highway in Durham region because of the deal the current Premier,

the former finance minister, made. That's a benefit for the consumers in Durham region and across the top of the GTA.

We are looking for an acceptable private sector partner for Hydro One. At the end of the day, it is the best deal we're looking for. If there is no good deal,

we do not proceed. We've been very clear about that. Do you know what? There is more public accountability in how we have proceeded with 407 and Hydro One than we have with the Ontario Liberal

energy policy. There's nothing there. We're prepared to be accountable. We table our accounts. We go to public audit committees. Where are they?

KARLA HOMOLKA

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question today is for the Attorney General. Many of us in this House have read with serious

concern -- certainly with great concern in my constituency of Scarborough Centre -- the recent media report surrounding a new book written with the participation of Karla Homolka. According to

these reports, it seems that she corresponded to the writer and shared some of her own experiences and thoughts.

My specific concern is that her participation in this project may have violated the plea bargain that was agreed to for her role in the infamous Paul Bernardo

case. It's an agreement that some have called a deal with the devil.

Minister, can you please inform this House of what actions you will be taking to ensure that these serious concerns are being addressed?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The honourable member has referenced today a very painful

chapter

in the history of this province and, indeed, of this country. The wounds of the communities and, of course, particularly the families who are so directly involved in this series of great tragedies,

haven't yet fully healed. I anticipate they will never fully heal.

In my role as Attorney General, I asked the Niagara regional police force to conduct an investigation into the matter that the honourable member has

referenced. I understand they are looking into this matter as we speak, and in due course I will have their report.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that answer, Minister. I believe that is indeed the right thing to do to get to the bottom of these concerns. As

you have noted, this was an extremely painful

chapter for many people in our province. In particular, there were some in my own riding of Scarborough Centre who were very seriously impacted. I feel

they deserve no less by your actions.

Can you advise this House when the investigation may be completed and what actions you believe the government should take after that?

Hon Mr Young: I think it's important that we allow the Niagara regional police force to do their job. I think it's important that we allow

them to do so without political interference of any sort. I think it's important that we not jump to any conclusions as to what the result of that very important investigation may be.

By the same token, I say to you and the members of this honourable assembly, I don't want to rush this investigation. I want it to be done in a comprehensive

manner. I have the utmost confidence that the officers who have been assigned this very important task will do so.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier. I'd like to read a quote of yours in a national paper: "Mr Clement will

be making an announcement about foreign-trained physicians in underserviced areas in the next week to 10 days."

You said that at the end of October -- October 27. You promised thousands of foreign-trained physicians that you were prepared to help, keeping in mind that

you have been the government going on eight long years. Nothing has happened to get rid of barriers for foreign-trained physicians. Nothing has happened to help our own Canadian-born -- people who

are from Ontario who have studied abroad -- to come home, practise and assist the many families in Ontario who do not have a family doctor and where we have communities without many, many

specialists. Why are you denying this help to Ontario families?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Obviously the honourable member would want the ministry and the Minister of

Health to have a full and comprehensive announcement when he makes it, and he will be making it in short order.

To sit here in the House and listen to the honourable member say that it's our fault that foreign-trained physicians are not being recognized --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Try seven years and five months; you never were very good in math over there. You increased the debt of the province by $10

billion, not the $66 billion, I'll admit. You increased the debt of Ontario Hydro by another $7 billion on top of that. You pretended to balance the books and, after an independent review was done,

we found out you were really $700 million in the hole. So I don't need any lectures from Liberals about economics, you who ran up the debt by $17 billion when you were in government.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before the supplementary, to the member for Kingston and the Islands, this is his last warning. If I have to

warn him again, he'll be removed.

Mrs Pupatello: Premier, you do not have a stellar record on debt or on many matters that you're in charge of. You have been the Premier for

months and you have been in the government for seven years and five months, and in that time you have done nothing for foreign-trained physicians. We have 122 communities now that are designated

underserviced.

This is an unbelievable and very unremarkable record for you, Premier. You have had the opportunity. You were given the report by the task force that you

called for. They've had this report since the beginning of October. They have listed many recommendations to remove barriers to have foreign-trained physicians practising in Ontario. Those include

people we've accepted as Canadians here and also people who are from Ontario and trained abroad whom we want to come home to work.

Please don't make excuses and talk about all of these matters. We are talking about the very important work of needing doctors practising in Ontario. We expect

barriers to be removed and you've done nothing. What do you have to say about this today?

Hon Mr Eves: The barriers will be removed. We will solve part of the problem that your government created by reducing the number of medical

graduates in the province of Ontario when you were in government. We will solve the problem that your federal cousins in Ottawa have created through their immigration policy by not giving

foreign-trained physicians a chance in this country. We're going to do it in the province of Ontario, even if your country cousins in Ottawa don't have the guts to do it federally.

Interjections.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Speaker: I would like the member from London West to apologize for giving the finger

to the opposition.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Come to order. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence, I didn't see anything. It's impossible. I was looking for the person. I'm

sure if the member did anything wrong she, would do the honourable thing.

Interjection.

The Speaker: She's saying she didn't.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order right now, everyone. Order, right now. We've had our little fun. The temperature is starting to rise; it always

does on caucus day. Just be warned that we're going to pick people out if it gets carried away, and right now we're at the stage where it isn't one or two persons, it's a group of people. So just

rest assured that if I get up again, people will be going out from any side, it doesn't matter whose it is.

I believe the member for Simcoe North had the floor.

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

Speaker: [Inaudible] accused me of doing, I'm very sorry.

The Speaker: I appreciate that, Minister.

The member for London West on a point of order.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I'm the member for London West. I have no idea what the member is referring to.

The Speaker: I see. I understand from the clarification that he's the member for London West.

The member for Simcoe North has the next question.

HEALTH PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Public Safety and Security. Earlier this afternoon you announced

the proclamation of my private member's bill, Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act. Bill 105 allows front-line emergency workers, victims of crime and good Samaritans

access to a blood test of those who may have deliberately or accidentally exposed them to bodily fluids leading to many communicable diseases such as HIV or hepatitis C. Can you tell the

members of this House why this piece of legislation is important to your ministry?

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

take this opportunity to congratulate the member for his hard work and dedication. The passage and proclamation of this legislation is an outstanding example of how private members can have a real

and measurable impact on the lives of our citizens.

Bill 105 is the first of its kind in Canada and perhaps North America. Bill 105 will further protect police officers, firefighters, ambulance workers,

correctional officers and the thousands of good Samaritans who come to the aid of others every year in Ontario. It will allow local medical officers of health to order blood samples from

individuals who accidentally or deliberately expose front-line emergency service workers, victims of crime or good Samaritans to bodily fluids. It's a sad fact that quite often those who take it

upon themselves to help and protect complete strangers are not given every mechanism possible to help and protect themselves in return.

Mr Dunlop: I too am glad that I was able to do my

part in our government's efforts to protect those who work to protect others, as well as

providing another step toward further enhancing the rights of victims.

In creating this legislation, I heard from many front-line workers and victims of crime who thoroughly supported the legislation. I know there are some obvious

concerns surrounding privacy, but I would like to ask the minister if he has heard the same support, because I think the members of this House should know who is really going to benefit from this

legislation.

Hon Mr Runciman: I too am glad that the member made this significant contribution. Today, as we all know, members of the Police Association of

Ontario are with us, and I know they've been strong advocates of this legislation. Not only will Bill 105 be an important piece of legislation in the lives of Ontario's police officers and other

front-line emergency workers, but today we're also joined by Natalie Hiltz and her family. Natalie is not only a Peel regional police officer, but she is also a victim of crime who was tied up in

mounds of red tape to find out whether she'd been exposed to a life-threatening disease.

I'm proud to support Bill 105 not only for people like Natalie and members of the PAO, but for the thousands of individuals like them who should always have

the right to know.

PENSION PLANS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Very deep within your latest omnibus budget bill, Bill 198, there is a

very nasty surprise for all the hard-working pension contributors across this province. It amounts to giving employers the capacity to unilaterally take money out of their pension plan when there

is an apparent surplus. It amounts to government-sanctioned pension plan robbery. Under your legislation, employers, but not employees, will be allowed to withdraw any apparent surplus from ongoing

pension plans. Secondly, employers will be permitted to use any apparent pension surplus to reduce their own contributions.

Premier, this legislation is grossly unfair and is bitterly opposed by employee and pension groups across the province. Will you sever it from Bill 198?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the Minister of Finance can explain the legislation to the honourable

member.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I appreciate that the honourable member, based on what he's obviously been told, and it's not accurate

information, is concerned. This is not providing employers with an opportunity to raid pension funds. As a matter of fact, it's quite the contrary. It says that where an employer has clear

entitlement, they must apply to the regulator in terms of whether they can have any surplus. The regulator's priority concern is the viability of the pension plan, because in this day of reduced

investment income we have to make sure that pension plans stay viable.

Secondly, it also clearly entitles the majority of employees. It gives them an additional right to say whether an employer should be able to do anything with

surplus on windups. So it is actually giving employees additional rights. It's making the pension plan legislation consistent with other provinces. At the end of the day, it does nothing to

interfere with the earned benefits of any pensioner; it does everything to protect the financial viability of our pension plans. I would think the honourable member would be very supportive of

initiatives that protect the pension benefits of workers out there.

Mr Hampton: In short, balderdash. The Minister of Finance knows that the law in Ontario, as it now stands, says that where there is a surplus

in the windup of a pension plan there must be a negotiation between the employer and the potential pension recipients, that there is no unilateral authority for the employer to appeal to a pension

board and say, "I want all of the surplus."

You'll also know that as the law stands now, when an ongoing pension plan has an apparent surplus for a period of time, employers have no authority to

unilaterally take that apparent surplus for themselves or to have a holiday by themselves without the employees at the same time being able to share in that apparent surplus. What you're saying is

that wherever there is an apparent surplus in a pension plan, it all goes to the employer, it all goes to your corporate friends.

This is grossly unfair, Minister. I'm asking you and the Premier to withdraw it before you create a real war out there in workplaces across Ontario. Do the

right thing. Recognize how grossly unfair this is. Recognize it amounts to pension robbery. Sever this from Bill 198.

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, this has been consulted on, this has been publicly available.

Mr Hampton: No, it hasn't.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member is saying, "No, it hasn't." Do you know what? Then whose people for the Ontario Federation of Labour and

the unions were sitting in the room --

Mr Hampton: That's a bunch of crap.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Minister, take your seat. I'm going to ask the leader of the third party to withdraw that comment.

Mr Hampton: I withdraw, Speaker.

Hon Mrs Ecker: There has been consultation on this, as there should be. Secondly, we will be meeting with all the stakeholders on the

development of the regulations to make sure the appropriate checks and balances are there, as they should be. But this in no way is allowing anyone to walk away with surpluses, because the

protection of pension rights for workers out there, the protection of the financial viability of pension plans, is foremost in our minds.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question is for the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services.

For nearly two years your government has received additional money from the federal early child development accord for the purposes of supporting programs for children and their families. One area

specifically highlighted for support was child care, yet your government has not spent one additional penny of that money on child care. Today in the Globe and Mail, Jane Stewart, the federal human

resources minister, was critical of this inaction by your government. She indicated that most provinces did invest in child care and that the Eves government's resistance to improving access to

child care is making it difficult for federal and provincial ministers to agree on a national child care policy.

Minister, will you commit today that your government will direct a portion of this year's allocation from the federal early child development accord to

increase your support in the area of child care in Ontario?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I thank my colleague across the way for the question. First of all

let's be very clear: this government thinks that good child care is important to the people of Ontario. That's why we have made a very significant investment in child care; in fact, over $700

million. We have a particular program, the Ontario child care supplement for working families. This is a tax credit program where $215 million is directed exclusively to low- and modest-income

families for child care.

Having said that, I referenced the document that talks about the federal and provincial agreement on early childhood development. I want to be very clear on

what was said, and I will quote this: "Quality early childhood development, learning and care have been shown to promote physical, language and motor skills; social, emotional and cognitive

development." We completely agree. "This priority includes supports that promote healthy development, provide opportunities for interaction and play, help prepare children for school and respond to

diverse and changing needs of families. Possible examples include" -- and of course in that is child care.

We have more than made huge investments --

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

Mrs Dombrowsky: Minister, when it comes to child care, your government has been called the ABC government, anything but child care. If you

look at your own government estimates for this year, you are spending less on child care than when you came to office in 1995. Dalton McGuinty has a plan. Our Best Start plan will support 300,000

children with child care costs. We believe this is an investment in our future and sound economic policy, and so do Charlie Coffey and Margaret McCain. It is shameful that Ontario is seen to be

blocking the national child care agenda.

Minister, will you work with the federal government, and will you commit today to use some of the accord dollars to invest additional money in child care in

the province of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I thank my colleague for the question. I would ask her what program she would like us not to deliver with the money we've

invested. How about autism or infant development; children's mental health; or learning, earning and parenting programs? What about the Early Years centres we've invested in? How about the early

literacy programs? Are those programs she would like us to cut because we choose to put it in child care? I am glad she is beginning to talk about a number of programs, but I would reference one of

her very own letters where she says to me, "I urge you to include additional resources for children with autistic spectrum disorder." Nowhere in your letter do you reference child care.

But more importantly, if the federal government is interested in putting together a national child care program, we will wait until we see the details. This is

a program they have talked about for 10 years, and I say "talked about" only. We'll wait for some action, because clearly here in Ontario we know what it is to create programs, fund them and, more

importantly, deliver. Yesterday I added an additional $58 million to --

The Speaker: The minister's time is up.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): My question is for the Deputy Premier and Minister of Education. In recent weeks there has been coverage in the

media and from our friends in the opposition regarding the overcrowded schools and the need for new schools. Every student in Ontario deserves a quality education, which includes effective and safe

accommodation. Could you tell us what this government is doing and has done to accommodate the growing number of students in this province?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): Our government recognized that it was important to fund new student places

because we do have a growing population and many of our students were in portables. So there is now the flexibility and the ability to build schools where and when they are needed throughout the

province of Ontario. I am very pleased to say that our funding has actually supported the construction of approximately $3.6 billion in new projects, which means that since 1998 school boards have

built 183 new schools and 247 additions or major renovations.

Mr McDonald: Minister, that's great news. I know, for instance, in my riding of Nipissing there have been new construction and renovations

taking place in a number of boards. In fact, I've heard from constituents commenting on the new construction. I just want to know what your experience is. Have you heard from local schools on this

issue?

Hon Mrs Witmer: There certainly has been a tremendous amount of opening of new schools in recent months and years, and major renovations, and

I can tell the member from Nipissing that parents are grateful, trustees are grateful and teachers are grateful. In fact, all of the stakeholders appreciate the fact that we are building new

schools.

Last week I participated in the opening of a new school in Waterloo, the Lester B. Pearson school. Recently I was down to Strathroy. They have a very unique

arrangement between Thames Valley District School Board and London District Catholic School Board. They actually have a joint facility between Strathroy District Collegiate Institute and Holy Cross

Secondary School. I can tell you, it's good news. People in the province are happy with the funding they have to build schools when and where they're needed.

ONTARIO SUPERBUILD CORP

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I have a question for the minister responsible for SuperBuild. According to this SuperBuild document,

$13.2 billion has been committed to projects as of September 2002. Three years and $13.2 billion later, and still you have failed to produce an audited financial statement as you are legally

required to do by the Development Corporations Act. Minister, I raised this question four months ago and still you have failed to comply with the law. As a result, you are failing the public by not

being accountable for these huge sums of taxpayer dollars.

My question to you is this: of the $13.2 billion committed to date by SuperBuild, how much of that has been actually contributed by the private sector?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): We are quite prepared and do on a regular basis -- we're audited. Ministries put their information out

about what plans are going forward for capital plans. We announce publicly when there are public-private partnerships. We list on a Web site the projects that are out there, that are going on under

the greatest capital infrastructure investment this province has ever seen, under this government, where we are actually putting new investments -- whether it's roads, whether it's sewers, whether

it's hospitals -- important infrastructure investments that not only improve the quality of life in our province but also help us keep economic prosperity.

Mr Cordiano: She hasn't answered the question. I asked how much has come from the private sector. We know that of the $13.2 billion, $11

billion has come from public sources -- federal, provincial and municipal governments -- and only $2.2 billion has come from the private sector.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Only?

Mr Cordiano: That's right, only $2.2 billion.

Minister, when SuperBuild was announced three years ago, you stated -- with great fanfare, I might add -- that $10 billion was to come from the public sector

and another $10 billion was to be leveraged from the private sector. Only $2.2 billion has come from the private sector. That means you are $7.8 billion short of your stated $10-billion target that

was to come from the private sector.

My question is this: would you not agree that after almost three years and 3,000 projects, SuperBuild has failed to attract enough private sector funding and

that SuperBuild is a super bust?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Only the Liberals would think that 3,000 projects is not successful. Only the Liberals would think that the new construction at

our hospitals, at our schools, on our highways, on our sewage and water plants and on our post-secondary institutions is not a success.

The capital investments of this government are duly accounted for. We have numbers in the budget; we have a Web site that lays it out. We are publicly

accountable for this, as we should be, and we will continue under SuperBuild, with the co-operation and the working of all the different ministries, to make new investments in important economic

infrastructure in this province, as we promised we would do.

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I know how hard the

associate minister and our government are working to make sure that the high standards of our province's long-term-care facilities are met. That's why I want to ask the associate minister about the

current situation of Royal Crest Lifecare Group. I understand that Ernst and Young has currently been appointed interim receiver of Royal Crest Lifecare Group as trustee in bankruptcy for all of

Royal Crest's nursing and retirement facilities in southern Ontario.

One of these facilities, Norcliffe Lifecare Centre, is located in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, in Hagersville. For the benefit of my constituents who

are residents at Norcliffe, as well as for the benefit of their families, could you please provide an update on the facilities formerly operated?

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm pleased to respond to the honourable member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant.

I want the people of his riding to know how hard my colleague works on their behalf at Queen's Park and just what an effective member he is.

The financial creditors of Royal Crest Lifecare Group have received approval from the court to appoint an interim receiver -- in this case, Ernst and Young --

to operate the long-term-care facilities and retirement homes owned by Royal Crest. During this period of transition, the ministry's role hasn't changed at all. Our role as government, and my job

as minister, is to ensure that the safety and well-being of the over 61,000 residents receiving care in long-term-care facilities in Ontario continue. Regardless of who owns a long-term-care

facility, we will ensure our regulations and our strict standards for resident care are met or exceeded. That's exactly what we do each and every day of the year, and that's what we're doing in

this situation.

Mr Barrett: I certainly thank the associate minister for his response. I'm very pleased to hear the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is

keeping the health and well-being of facility residents as their number one priority. I know the residents of Norcliffe and their family members are very pleased to hear this as well.

I would like to ask the associate minister if he could provide some additional detail as to how the ministry has monitored and will in the future be monitoring

these facilities once owned by Royal Crest to make sure the residents receive the care they deserve. I know my constituents would like to know that.

Hon Mr Newman: I'd like to inform my colleague, and indeed this House, that Ernst and Young has advised the ministry that it has chosen

Extendicare (Canada) Inc to assume responsibility for the day-to-day management of their homes as agent of the interim receiver. We're working very closely with Extendicare to ensure that residents

receive the care they need. I want to reassure the residents and their families that we have every confidence our strict standards will be met or exceeded. The ministry has enhanced our monitoring

at all long-term-care facilities owned by Royal Crest. Our staff has been in every one of the 11 affected facilities, and monitoring will continue throughout this transition period.

I would also like to thank the ministry staff, and especially Paul Tuttle, the director of the ministry's long-term-care branch, who have been putting in the

extra hours required during this challenging time. They are true professionals.

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services. Demand for women's

shelters is soaring, yet we hear that in Thunder Bay you are going to shut the Community Residence Women's Shelter, the biggest shelter in town. Police, city council and the community are demanding

with one voice, "Don't close that shelter." I'm demanding, "Don't close that shelter." Promise today that you will not close that shelter.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): It's very important to us that facilities are available for women

who find themselves in a crisis situation and need a safe refuge at a terrible time in their lives. We've made a tremendous commitment to women's shelters across this province, adding new ones this

year.

My understanding of what is occurring is that my ministry's northern region is working with the city of Thunder Bay and the Community Residence Women's Shelter

to explore options that will best meet long-term needs. It's my understanding that, yes, there is a plan that's being discussed as to what will happen with the shelter beds in the city of Thunder

Bay. It's my understanding that a consultant has actually been hired by the city of Thunder Bay. It's my understanding that conversations are occurring as to what is in the best interests of the

region and that no decisions have been made at this time.

Ms Churley: Let me tell you the plan: shut the shelter and ship women and their children three and a half hours away to another shelter, where

you're shutting eight out of 10 beds, while occupancy jumped 42% in 2002. Minister, that's the plan. Murders of women by their spouses are up 25% in Ontario in only one year. Mothers, daughters,

sisters and their children need protection, and you're throwing them on the street and playing with their lives. Stop. Listen to the police, city council, the community, and listen to me today:

withdraw the plan to close the Thunder Bay women's shelter now.

Hon Mrs Elliott: Let me try again. This is not our plan. A community plan is being devised as to what would be the best way to place these

shelter beds within the community so that it works for the community. It's a decision to be made by the community, in the best interests of the women who need help.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to correct the record with regard to

my question on federal dollars for child care in which I have asked the minister to commit. I did put that in a letter to the minister. I think the minister indicated otherwise in her remarks that

in fact my letter suggested --

The Speaker: You can correct your own record. You can't correct somebody else's record.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin petitions, we have a new group of pages that I'd like to introduce.

We have Michael Barrett from Don Valley West, Theresa Bernard from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, Nicole Black from Prince Edward-Hastings, Anthony Boland from

Oshawa, Ian Bradley-Perrin from Oakville, Nicholas Butte from Ottawa-Orléans, Olaniyi Dawodu from Windsor West, Sarah Donaldson from Perth-Middlesex, Brian Farrenkopf from Sarnia-Lambton,

Annelise Hawrylak from Kenora-Rainy River, Evan Holt from Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Adriana Mazzone from Thornhill, Victoria Miller from Toronto Centre-Rosedale, Alka Sara Mohan from Toronto-Danforth,

Garnet Paton from Ottawa Centre, Jared Paty from Whitby-Ajax, Sarah Penney from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Michael Schonberger from Sudbury, Lauren Van Leeuwen from Peterborough and Molly Willats

from Trinity-Spadina.

Please welcome our new group of pages.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is the continuing petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding the multi-laning of Highway 69

from Sudbury to Parry Sound.

"Whereas modern highways are economic lifelines for the north; and

"Whereas the stretch of Highway 69 from Sudbury south to Parry Sound is a treacherous road with a trail of death and destruction; and

"Whereas the carnage on Highway 69 has been staggering; and

"Whereas in the last three years 46 people have died needlessly along that stretch of highway; and

"Whereas so far this year, 10 people have died on that stretch of highway between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has shown gross irresponsibility in not four-laning the stretch of Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas immediate action is needed to prevent more needless loss of life; and"

Whereas the Premier of this province is going to Sudbury this Thursday for a fundraiser; and

Whereas the people of the community of Sudbury and northeastern Ontario want the Premier to announce a start date for the four-laning of Highway 69 from

Sudbury to Parry Sound; and

"Whereas," as he knows, "it is the responsibility of any government to provide safe roads for its citizens and the Eves government has failed to do so;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Eves government to begin construction immediately and

four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

Of course, I affix my signature, and give it to our new page Evan to take to the table.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas charitable organizations are now being required to obtain licenses for small in-house raffles, such as 50/50 draws; and

"Whereas the small amount of revenue charities are allowed to retain to cover necessary expenses is arbitrarily defined by government officials; and

"Whereas increased competition from the provincial casinos and commercial gaming establishments for local money is constricting the ability of local charities

to raise funds vital to the life of the local community;

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

"

(1) Immediately direct responsible officials to meet with affected charities to work out a mutually accepted agreement which permits the charities to

accomplish the charitable objects of the organization and defines reasonable and necessary expenses allowable in the management and conduct of a lottery;

"

(2) Conduct a review of the impact of large casinos and commercial gaming and lotteries on small, non-profit charitable organizations dependant on charitable

gaming for their existence;

"

(3) Review the criteria used to define reasonable and necessary expenses allowable for the operation of fundraising events by small, charitable

organizations;

"

(4) Develop new policies to guide the licensing system that recognizes local needs, particularly those of small, charitable organizations."

This is signed by 200 of my community residents over a period of two days, and I sign it as well and send it down with Garnet this afternoon.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Despite the government's mess on hydro, we still have the problem with the retroactive

delivery charge with Union Gas. I want to continue to read petitions related to that.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act disallowing the retroactive

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

further retroactive rate increases."

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

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "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

the 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.

"Bill 112 imposed liability on the owner of a vehicle that fails to stop for a school bus that has its overhead red signal lights flashing...."

We ask for the support of all members of this Legislature, and I too have signed this petition.

ONTARIO TEACHER

QUALIFYING TEST

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

"Whereas the Ontario government in accordance with the teacher qualifying test (OTQT) sets out to standardize the teaching profession, we the teacher

candidates feel that the OTQT is part of an ongoing attack on public education and would like to take this opportunity to make our voices heard. We believe that there are some fundamental problems

with the OTQT established by the Ontario government and the Educational Testing Service (EST); and

"Whereas the Ministry of Education has failed to be accountable in providing consistent and equitable access to information regarding the registration,

content, format and evaluation of the Ontario teacher qualifying test to all teacher candidates; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Education has failed to subject the OTQT to sufficient assessments of validity and reliability; and

"Whereas the Ontario College of Teachers that oversees the profession standards, development and accreditation of all its members has not been involved in the

development of the test; and

"Whereas a strong body of research demonstrates that standardized testing such as the OTQT program is an inadequate indicator of ability and performance and

does not keep with the principles of equity and social justice; and

"Whereas the Educational Testing Service (ETS), the company contracted to develop the OTQT on behalf of the Ministry of Education, has predetermined `correct'

choices that may be subject to discriminatory practices;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"Teacher candidates implore the Legislature of Ontario to make the Ontario teacher qualifying test a pilot test and for it not to be considered a requirement

for certification by the Ontario College of Teachers."

As you will see, this has been signed by a large number of people training to be teachers in Ontario, and I affix my signature in agreement with their

concerns.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid for 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 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 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 with the sentiments expressed in this petition.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I continue to submit petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario dealing with the four-laning of Highway 69

between Sudbury and Parry Sound.

"Whereas modern highways are economic lifelines for the north; and

"Whereas the stretch of Highway 69 from Sudbury south to Parry Sound is a treacherous road with a trail of death and destruction; and

"Whereas the carnage on Highway 69 has been staggering;" and

Whereas in the last three years 46 people have needlessly lost their lives on that stretch of highway; and

Whereas so far this year 10 people have died tragically between Sudbury and Parry Sound on that dangerous stretch of highway; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has shown gross irresponsibility in not four-laning the stretch of Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas immediate action is needed to prevent more needless loss of life;" and

Whereas the Premier of this province, Ernie Eves, is going to Sudbury on Thursday for a fundraiser; and

Whereas the people of the community of Sudbury in northeastern Ontario want the Premier of this province to announce a start date and an action plan for the

four-laning of Highway 69 from Sudbury south to Parry Sound; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of a government to provide safe roads for its citizens, and the Harris-Eves government has clearly failed to do so;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Harris-Eves government to begin construction

immediately and four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

I affix my signature to the petition and again give it Evan, our new page, to take to the table.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition signed by 720 good citizens of Cambridge which reads:

"A petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government has stated its commitment to ensuring affordable hydro rates for the citizens of Ontario;

"Whereas the past summer's unusual demand for hydro and the failure to bring all plants up to operating capacity has resulted in a significant increase in

hydro rates;

"Whereas these hydro rate increases present a great burden to many young families, seniors and those on fixed incomes;

"Whereas the province still owns Ontario Power Generation that produces most of" Ontario's "electricity and it has stated that a review of hydro rates and its

regulating agency, the Ontario Energy Board, is necessary;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the province be directed to immediately freeze hydro rates to last year's levels during its current review of the Ontario Energy Board's mandate, that

the province work with the federal government to eliminate the GST on Hydro One's debt retirement charges and that the province ensure stronger consumer protection for all citizens of Ontario

against such hydro rate increases."

I sign my name thereto.

POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION FUNDING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

since 1998."

This is a concern of hundreds and hundreds of students attending Lakehead University in Thunder Bay. I affix my signature in full agreement with their

concerns.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I want to read a similar petition to my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario

"From the Lakehead University Student Union, Local 32, Canadian Federation of Students:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

since 1998."

As my colleague said, we have hundreds and hundreds of names on these petitions. I'm happy to add my name to the petition.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): These are some more petitions with regard to the four-laning of Highway 69.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas modern highways are economic lifelines for the north; and

"Whereas the stretch of Highway 69 from Sudbury south to Parry Sound is a treacherous road with a trail of death and destruction; and

"Whereas the carnage on Highway 69 has been staggering; and

"Whereas, in the last three years 46 people have died needlessly along that stretch of highway between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas so far this year 10 people have been tragically killed in motor vehicle accidents between Sudbury and Parry Sound on Highway 69; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has shown gross irresponsibility in not four-laning the stretch of Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas immediate action is needed to prevent more needless loss of life; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of a government to provide safe roads for its citizens, and the Harris-Eves government has failed to do so;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Harris-Eves government to begin construction

immediately and four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

I, of course, affix my signature to this petition and give it to Jared to bring to the table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

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

order or special order of the House relating to Bill 180,

An Act to enact, amend or revise various Acts related to consumer protection, when Bill 180 is next called as a government order the

Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the standing

committee on finance and economic affairs; and

That the standing committee on finance and economic affairs shall be authorized to meet for one day at its next scheduled meeting time for the purpose of

consideration of the bill; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report

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

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

amendment; and

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

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

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Hudak has moved government notice of motion 63. The minister.

Hon Mr Hudak: I'm very pleased to speak to Bill 180 and the motion that's before the House today. In fact, I have enjoyed the debate to date

on Bill 180. To refresh those watching at home, Bill 180 is the consumer protection for the 21st century legislation, CP21 for short. This is groundbreaking legislation to help bring into modern

times our consumer protection legislation in the province of Ontario.

The last time this legislation was overhauled in any fundamental way, the time when many of these bills were brought forward, was a time, in the 1960s and

1970s, when computers were the size of transport trucks, when the only people who had computers were NASA scientists and the Internet was simply the figment of a science fiction writer's

imagination. In today's day and age, 2002, we have come a long way in terms of the way we do business in the province, the way contracts are signed and the tools we use to communicate, to research

and therefore, through e-commerce, to purchase goods and services as well.

CP21, the consumer protection for the 21st century legislation, addresses those areas. It makes sure that our laws are up to date so that consumers, whether

they be a senior citizen or a student away at the University of Western Ontario for the first time, will have protection if they're targeted by unscrupulous business operators.

I think every member of the House probably feels the same way as I do. I said in my remarks that I believe the vast majority of these businesses that practise

in these fields are honest operators with legitimate practices, and they are careful to make sure that their product is described accurately. They try to maintain good relationships with their

customers. After all, they would like their friend or neighbour or fellow student or somebody else in the senior's complex to similarly buy their product. Unfortunately, in many areas we do have

unscrupulous operators who target the vulnerable, try to take advantage of them and often abscond with the money and set up a scam operation somewhere else.

In fact the ministry, every year, puts out its list of top consumer complaints. This year our top five scams in the province of Ontario to help to alert

consumers about some of the issues out there that they should be aware of -- the first lesson is always to exercise common sense. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to

be true. Secondly, you should always read the fine print. I think, always in dealing with areas where you are making a significant purchase -- a house, auto repairs, buying a new car -- it is

important to ask a lot of questions and look for advice from people who are in the consumer industry, your friends, you neighbours, somebody whom you trust to make sure you are dealing with an

operator who has a good reputation in the community. But, of course, those types of precautions don't always work.

That's why we need laws like CP21. If passed by the House, it will help protect consumers in vulnerable situations. I have had the pleasure of being here

through, I think, the vast majority of the debate, through second reading on this bill. It seems to me that I have heard significantly a weight on behalf of supporting the bill. I know that the

opposition parties, as well as the government, of course, voted in support on first reading. I hope we'll have similar support across the floor on second and third readings as well. In fact, when I

have listened to the debate when I have been sitting here in the afternoon or evening House sittings on Bill 180, I tend to hear general support from across the floor. I know a lot of my government

members and colleagues have spoken in favour of this legislation. Many of the ideas, quite frankly, they have brought up in caucus. They've encountered senior citizens, for example, who are

targeted by an unscrupulous driveway paving operation that does a shoddy job and takes off with the money and leaves the senior citizen in the lurch, or a telemarketing operation that calls a

student saying, "We can get you a loan at a very low rate, below the bank rate. We have some patient money that is coming in from overseas. Only if you give me $1,000 up front, if you write me a

cheque, I'll get you this low-interest loan." You write the cheque, the money disappears and there is no loan as a result. I know many members of the assembly have encountered this on the part of

their constituents and have done their best to try stamp out these operators.

Our legislation, if passed, will help us do an even better job of prosecuting and tracking these people down and putting these illegitimate businesses out of

business. I've been pleased with the support that I have heard from the government members and from those across the floor.

I look forward to an opportunity, as the motion reads, to take this to committee for consideration. There have been some issues that have been brought up --

some that I'll address here today, others that I believe will be addressed through the committee process and then put to a vote for second and third reading. Certainly, as the minister responsible

in this area, with the work of my predecessors, particularly Minister Sterling, who did a lot of work in this area -- Tsubouchi and Runciman as well -- we're all looking forward to seeing this

project completed, to be brought to its final fruition and then giving our prosecutors, our investigators, the ability to go out there and do an even better job than they are currently doing to

crack down on these operators.

I want to say too, I think we have a very enviable record at the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services, whether it's co-operating with other provinces or

states, working with police forces to crack down on these types of scam artists. In fact, as I mentioned in the House yesterday during question period, over $2 million in the last little while was

returned to consumers, over $1 million in penalties, as well as months and years of jail time have been assigned by the judges in the cases that our prosecutors have brought forward. In fact, our

staff have been recognized with international awards for their work, particularly in shutting down telemarketing scams that may use Ontario as a base and target seniors in other provinces or

states. There were many great victories in that area.

Nonetheless, our view here in the Ernie Eves government is you don't rest on your laurels. You try to improve; you try to do a better job on behalf of those

who pay the bills, the taxpayers, on behalf of our constituents. Certainly Bill 180, if passed, will allow us to do so.

One area that I know has come up for discussion during debate has to do with the Internet. As I mentioned in my earlier comments, for the first time consumer

protection legislation under Bill 180 will take into account the new economy, the new e-commerce, and give consumers the same protections on the Internet that they would receive from regular

face-to-face contacts that we customarily associate with consumer protection laws. We will expand consumer protection into e-commerce. We do this in a number of ways. For example, we are bringing

in a 30-day delivery rule that says that if you ordered goods, the goods would have to be delivered or the service provided within 30 days of when you were told you would get that good or service.

If you don't, you can cancel the contract, no questions asked. That type of rule exists for goods and services. We are now expanding it to the Internet for that type of protection.

Similarly, we are bringing forward rules that allow for contracts through the Internet that will describe the goods accurately and, secondly, are either in

e-format or any kind of printable format so the consumer, when making that purchase, will have a permanent record of what he or she had purchased. Just like if they walked into a store and made a

purchase, they would have that contract describing the goods; they would have some standing in a court of law or working with the ministry if something had gone wrong.

Thirdly, we ask for a bricks-and-mortar address so that a consumer will know where they can go for face-to-face contact if something has gone awry with a

product that they had ordered.

This is all part of a harmonization strategy as well across the various provinces. I think all provinces have signed on to this. Ontario happens to be quite

advanced now in the legislative process to actually put the principles into law. But the goal is that, from one ocean to another to a third, we would have similar laws across Canada. So we could

work with British Columbia, for example. If there's a scam artist at work in Ontario who uses the Internet to take advantage of somebody in British Columbia, we could work with each other to

prosecute that individual and put them out of business. Similarly, we want to work with the States and other jurisdictions in that area.

Obviously, you're not going to solve all the problems overnight. There will be operators at work in other countries where we don't have these agreements.

That's true, and that's why the bricks-and-mortar law is important, so that you know where the business operates from. If the country is far away and it may not have the best reputation for

lawfulness, you should probably be cautious in terms of buying a good or service from that country via the Internet.

Nonetheless, this is an important step forward, at least within the North American context, that now is expanding to other parts of the world to help have

similar laws and support each other's prosecutions if people have been taken advantage of. I think that will respond to many of the concerns I've heard today. I think it's an important step

forward.

Certainly many members have brought up, I think because it was a hot issue at the time, how hydro prices are impacted by this bill. But as I said during debate

and I'd remind members today, the previous Bill 58 that was passed by the assembly takes many of the same principles that we have in Bill 180 and puts them into force. That was Bill 58, the

Reliable Energy and Consumer Protection Act. Just like Bill 180, it eliminates negative renewal options, taking away negative-option billing, often an odious process that takes money from people

for things they didn't order and they didn't want. Bill 180 eliminates that across the board for goods and services, and similarly Bill 58 with respect to energy prices includes that.

We also have in Bill 58, already passed, replacing a 10-day right to cancel with a 30-day period; I had mentioned in our legislation a 30-day delivery rule.

People could get out of contracts if not delivered within 30 days of the contracted delivery date.

Bill 58 has a 15-day cooling-off period before a new contract can be reaffirmed. Similarly in this legislation, we expand the cooling-off period. For example,

if an individual feels pressured by high-pressure sales tactics -- vacation clubs are an example of that -- this cooling-off period gives them a chance to rethink, to maybe get in contact with and

get some advice from somebody they trust and get out of that contract, no questions asked, if they were the victim of these types of high-pressure sales tactics, which we certainly get complaints

about at the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services.

That was one area, the e-commerce, that I think I've responded to. Bill 58 includes similar provisions with respect to the hydro market that are included in

Bill 180 for e-commerce for goods and services outside the hydro side.

As well, I want to say that we have made every effort, to some comments from members, to do a broad-based consultation on this piece of legislation, CP21. In

fact, this is not something that we did overnight. This is something that came about after several years of work by ministry staff and some of my predecessors. In fact, a blue paper --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Hudak: Well, it was a document with a blue cover. Maybe it's not technically a blue paper, but a document was put out some time ago and

dispersed broadly and we had a great deal of response. It was also posted on the Internet and given to all members of the assembly, I understand. Through those consultations, including hearings, I

believe, in eight or so different communities, we received over 1,200 different submissions from consumers, from business groups and other interested parties. As I mentioned, these proposals came

about because we analyzed 40,000 different sets of information, whether they were complaints, calls, inquiries or other pieces of data, to bring forward our recommendations to the assembly for

changing and modernizing the laws.

Let me give you some examples. Here are some third-party quotes: "Having participated in your department's consultations two years ago, we have been eagerly

awaiting this legislative initiative." Now Mr Michael Janigan, the executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, should be happy because the consultations have come forward with a bill

that is before the House and to date has received support from all parties.

Another quote from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre: "We are writing to congratulate you on the excellent and much-needed consumer protection law reform

initiative Bill 180," CP21, "that you tabled in the Legislature last week." They "are particularly pleased to see that the right to access the publicly funded justice system, in particular via

class actions, will be protected" through this legislation.

The Consumers Council of Canada, some folks I had in my office just two weeks ago to discuss consumer issues, are very pleased with this legislation and with

progress through the assembly. I'm sure they would like to see it passed into law. Joan Huzar, the president of the Consumers Council of Canada, said, "Our organization has been involved with the

development of this proposed legislation to provide better consumer protection since its initiation and applauds the government for its interest in helping promote fairness in the marketplace." So

an important constituency group is supportive that has as their sole mandate the protection of consumers and getting information to consumers on how to deal in the economy.

There are some other issues that have been brought forward, one last night. Some may not be best put in a consumer protection piece; they're issues that we all

react to, I know, but sometimes they have other homes. My colleague from St Catharines talked about the PSA test last night, the prostate test, which probably, on consideration, wouldn't belong in

a consumer protection bill. I think it would belong in the Ministry of Health reviewing what tests work. It is a valid point. I think it's important for us to try to help those who have prostate

cancer, obviously, or to help anticipate developments so we can treat them early on. But I think that's something that is best done through the health process rather than CP21. I appreciate the

member's input on this important issue but, upon review, I'm not going to move any changes to the bill with respect to the PSA.

I know there are other members on the government side of the House who are in rapt attention and who want to speak to this bill. I will just finally summarize

some of the highlights as we go through this motion and then, hopefully, into votes for second and third reading, some of the major changes that I think will be important to constituents and

taxpayers.

The 10% rule in this legislation basically says that if you get an estimate, for example, for a home repair, the final price would have to be within 10% of

that estimate. So a situation where you were getting a home repair, for example, for $2,000 and you get a bill for $20,000 would not be allowed under this legislation. The maximum price would be

$2,200. Of course if you as the owner, as part of the contract, agree to -- say you wanted to add a roof. If you're agreeing to that, then that would allow an increase in the price. But you'd have

to agree to consent to that; no more lowballing the price and then coming back with a much higher bill. It's an important consumer protection. It currently exists in the auto repair sector. We're

expanding it to other areas. Most importantly, I think, home repair is one area.

I had mentioned the 30-day delivery rule. It's common, currently under door-to-door direct sales, that if you feel intimidated by a salesperson at your door

and sign a contract, then you would, as I mentioned, have a cooling-off period and the final good would have to be within, now in the legislation, 30 days of the delivery date. Previously it was

two weeks for door-to-door sales; now it's to 30 days and, as I mentioned, for the first time Internet sales are going to 30 days. So regardless of when the contract was agreed to, if a delivery or

performance commencement date is missed by 30 days without the consumer's consent in writing, then the consumer has a right to cancel that contract.

Time-sharing is a hot issue that we deal with often in our constituency offices. For example, a couple attends a time-share presentation and is bombarded with

all kinds of promises of a glorious location, access any time they want, by a very aggressive salesperson. Exasperated and somewhat exhausted, they agree to buy, sign the contract and make a $2,000

down payment and commit to a further $8,000 down the road. But the next day, when they get home and read the contract in greater detail, they realize they will not be getting the location they had

wanted or the time entitlement they had been promised based on the sales presentation. When they try to cancel the purchase, the seller refuses to allow the purchase to be cancelled. They hire a

lawyer to help them out, but after paying thousands of dollars in legal fees, they can no longer afford to fight that claim.

Unfortunately, under the current consumer law which I mentioned, most of which was developed in the 1960s and 1970s, this really wasn't anticipated, and as

such, no specific concerns can be addressed through that legislation. Time-shares are not defined, and that leads to confusion in the law, which is not of great benefit to somebody who is scammed

in this particular area. Consumers do not have cooling-off rights under current legislation in that situation.

Under the proposed legislation that is before the assembly today, CP21, time-shares would be clearly defined and consumers would gain a 10-day cooling-off

period within which they could reconsider their purchase and get out of that contract with no questions asked. Basically, it helps them to escape being victims of high-pressure sales tactics.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I've been in those sales meetings. They are high-pressure.

Hon Mr Hudak: You've seen that before. The member for Niagara Falls has been in them, but he outwitted them, obviously.

Mr Maves: I just said no.

Hon Mr Hudak: He's a clever fellow. But often people do fall victim to these types of scams, and we try to do our best to help. This

legislation, if passed, will go a lot further toward addressing that particular issue.

Finally, as always, the enforcement side is very important. This legislation will help to more than double the fines. Whether it's individuals or a

corporation, the fines will at least double. As well, jail times that can be assigned by judges will go up to the provincial maximum of two years less a day. We also bring some consistency to the

time periods for prosecution. What often happens is that a consumer will bring a complaint forward about how they have been taken advantage of in some of the areas I've mentioned here before the

assembly today, but by the time they take it forward to the complaint level and we begin to investigate, the time period expires to bring forward an effective prosecution. We are advancing and

bringing consistency to that time frame to two years. That gives our prosecutors much greater ability to do their investigations and get retribution for the consumers who have been taken advantage

of.

Lastly, we deal with three areas that the ministry has had a very strong relationship with, some of the biggest purchases people make in their lives:

automobile, home, or a big vacation. This legislation deals with REBBA, the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, as well as legislation dealing with the Ontario motor vehicles incorporation that

helps to set the rules in terms of who can enter into automobile sales and the high standards that must be set to ensure there is confidence in that industry. As well, there are some enhancements

to govern the travel industry. After all, if consumers are making large purchases in these areas, we want to make sure they are dealt with in a professional way and that if they are taken advantage

of, they will have some sort of retribution, that there are disciplinary possibilities, codes of ethics, in these important areas.

Most importantly, having high standards will reinforce the confidence that people have in these industries. These strong councils, these strong administrative

authorities, then will lend their reputation so that consumers will know that if they are going to buy a car or a house and they don't get what they asked for, they will have some opportunities to

get some retribution in those areas, and similarly for vacations. We've enjoyed our relationship with these authorities and we look forward to this legislation passing, strengthening their ability

to deal in these areas and strengthening their relationship with the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services and the Ernie Eves government.

My last point in that respect is that this is also good for business. By ensuring that consumers have confidence in businesses and by weeding out those who

take advantage and often bring unwanted media attention to an industry, it helps strong, legitimate operators to grow, to prosper and to hire more people. If you have a car dealer who is an

unscrupulous operator who keeps selling poor vehicles to consumers, that hurts other dealers in that community and in the whole province. By having high standards, a code of ethics and such, we can

help existing businesses, the vast majority of which are strong, legitimate operators, to grow, to flourish and to hire more people.

I hope we will see this motion pass today and it would be nice to see all-party support for Bill 180, CP21, consumer protection for the 21st century. There was

a lot of effort, a lot of consultations. It's a good piece of legislation that will take a giant step forward in helping consumers deal with the top five scams in Ontario.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: To your right, one of the pages sitting down is Michael Schonberger from

Sudbury, and I'd like to point out Michael's mother, Mrs Deb Schonberger, who is in the members' gallery today, and welcome her to the Toronto experience.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): That, of course, is not a point of order, but we welcome you.

Further debate.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was wondering whether the minister would get around to a couple of clippings I saw in the paper. He was

quoting third-party commenters on his legislation. There's one, Jacob Ziegel, who is a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto faculty of law. He is not quite so complementary as some of

the interventions the minister mentioned before.

Another one, from Bob Aaron, says, "Pointing Out `Hudak's Folly.'" I don't know how he could come up with that. But he has this final paragraph, probably very

unfair. The final paragraph says, "Hudak may go down in Ontario history as the minister who protected consumers from smooth door-to-door renovators, but in the real estate community, his failure to

implement meaningful changes to the law is destined to be forever known as `Hudak's folly.'"

I don't know why he would say that. I'll leave these for other Liberal members, since I know the member and I don't want to insult him personally with these

other references. But I knew he had mentioned a couple, so I thought I might share with him a couple of other comments.

As well, since we're talking about a time allocation motion that allows a little bit of flexibility, I was pleased to see the member for Niagara Falls here. I

was down at Niagara Falls just this past week when they were announcing the Liberal policy of proceeding with Beck 3. I remember it: I was down with Dalton McGuinty at the edge of the Niagara

River. The mayor of Niagara Falls was there at the time. We were saying -- once again -- that we should proceed with the tunnel project and, ultimately, probably the full project at Beck 3. I want

to tell my friend from Perth that government members were dismissing it. They said, "Well, we can't afford to do that; it's not practical at this time," and so on -- many negative comments.

A few weeks later I'm down there and the government is announcing the same policy. I'm glad to see that conversion. The media asked me on that occasion, "Are

you annoyed with them? What do you think of all this?" I said, "I'm always pleased to see them take the good ideas from the Liberal opposition and implement those ideas." So I want to compliment

them on that particular project.

The Minister of the Environment has reappeared after his conference call on Kyoto that he was just involved in. I hope that in that conference call he was

talking about matters