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

October 2, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Oct-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 2 October 2002 Mercredi 2 octobre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HYDRO RATES

E-LAB

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

APPLE BLOSSOM AWARDS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

TRUCKING SAFETY

PAULA JONGERDEN

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

KYOTO PROTOCOL

MINISTERS' ATTENDANCE

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

KYOTO PROTOCOL

HYDRO RATES

KYOTO PROTOCOL

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

ACADEMIC TESTING

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

JUSTICE SYSTEM

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

INVESTOR PROTECTION

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

MINISTERS' ATTENDANCE

PETITIONS

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

COMMUNITY CARE HEALTH CENTRE

NATURAL GAS RATES

RICK KERR

LONG-TERM CARE

RICK KERR

HIGHWAY 69

RICK KERR

LONG-TERM CARE

AMBULANCE SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUSTAINABLE WATER AND

SEWAGE SYSTEMS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA DURABILITÉ

DES RÉSEAUX D'EAU ET D'ÉGOUTS

Wednesday 2 October 2002 Mercredi 2 octobre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HYDRO RATES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Let me tell you about the senior citizen on a fixed income in Wawa whose electrical bill has increased

60% year over year. Let me tell you about Les and Pauline Hillstrom, dairy farmers near Bruce Mines. Their hydro bill has gone from $1,000 in August 2001 to an astonishing $2,020 for August 2002.

Let me tell you about the small dry cleaner on the Manitoulin whose monthly electrical bill has increased 300%. Let me tell you about the Goulais truck driver, with two small children and a wife

who is disabled, whose electricity bill has doubled.

Let's not forget about the sawmill in Dubreuilville, which has seen electrical bills increase by 110%. Here is what the mill manager had to say: "Our electric

bill has more than doubled in less than three months when there has been absolutely no change in the product or the service being delivered to our mill. The electricity is still being produced less

than 30 miles from our mill, still being distributed over the same grid that has carried the power for the last 40 years and still through the same company. Absolutely nothing has changed, that is

except for the drastic price increase and the huge profits the electrical producers are raking in at our expense."

It is time to stand up for Ontario consumers. Yesterday, Liberals called on the government to roll out the rebate. Today, I call on electricity retailers to

provide payment extensions and flexibility for those who are about to be bankrupted by these unconscionable rates.

E-LAB

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to tell my fellow members about a great public-private partnership that is giving high school

students in my hometown of Listowel the opportunity to learn in a state-of-the-art computer lab.

This project, known as e-Lab, was spearheaded by Listowel District Secondary School teacher Blair McKay and Mike Lazaridis, president and CEO of Waterloo-based

Research in Motion, the creator of the Blackberry.

McKay and the Avon Maitland District School Board also worked with technology companies like Hewlett Packard (Canada), Epson Canada, as well as local partners

including D & D Automation, Ideal Supply, Listowel Technologies, Rockwell Automation, Campbell's Soup, Hammond Manufacturing, and Mornington Communications, to make the e-Lab a reality.

As a result of the commitment shown by these companies, Listowel students will not only be better prepared for post-secondary education and careers in the

high-tech field, but more aware of the opportunities available in this area.

Last school year, I attended the official opening of the e-Lab and saw what a great facility this partnership has created. I think it's a model for other

schools, and boards of education should study it.

I want to thank the Avon Maitland District School Board, Blair McKay and the companies involved in e-Lab for their commitment to improving the technical

education that Listowel students receive.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): This is a government that clearly knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Insulin pumps, at $5,700, have been proven by all experts to be an excellent investment for individuals. It can save the government literally hundreds of

thousands of dollars on kidney dialysis or heart operations.

If you have money in this province or you have insurance, you get it. If you do not, this government will not assist you. Not only will it not buy insulin pumps;

it won't assist families even in buying needles for their children. They do not care about the needs of our population.

What is particularly appalling is this government's handling of macular degeneration. The health minister, with great pride, announced they would fund macular

degeneration. Everyone thought that was wonderful. Following it, he brought in a surprise restriction that said you must be 50% blind before they will fund it. If you're 40% blind, you have a

choice of borrowing money, selling your house or waiting until you have lost 50% of your vision. It doesn't save the government one penny, is the first reaction. It's the same cost if you're 50%

blind or 40% blind. What people are doing is putting up with great financial sacrifice when they are 30% or 40% blind to get the treatment, rather than wait until it's 50%.

What a weaselly, cheap way out of handling our citizens. Why does the government attack our senior citizens? We've heard of a kinder, gentler government. This is

no different from the Mike Harris government. Our seniors are under attack and are being mistreated by this government, and I find it appalling. Fund it fully now.

APPLE BLOSSOM AWARDS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to congratulate the many gardeners in the municipality of Clarington who were honoured with

the Apple Blossom Awards just recently awarded. These awards have become an annual tradition in Clarington.

Businesses and homeowners are invited to enter the contest directly or to nominate exceptional gardeners. Entire streets can also be nominated. The judges of

these gardens are volunteer members of the Bowmanville, Newcastle and Orono horticultural societies. Their evaluation is based on points such as neatness, selection, diversity, arrangement of

materials and the harmony of the garden with its surroundings.

A number of gardens and gardeners were recently recognized in the local press as Apple Blossom winners. These included Judi Radnoti, Deb and Paul Vanherrewegen,

Peter and Joan Tax, and David and Johanna Bryant. The award for the best business landscape went to Northcutt Elliott Funeral Home in Bowmanville. Newcastle Community Hall, the Bowmanville Museum

and the Bowmanville Zoo were each selected for honourable mention in the business category. The Apple Blossom Awards show the care and pride that residents of the riding of Durham take in their

property.

I also thank the horticultural society judges for their great work, and the ongoing support by the municipality of Clarington mayor, John Mutton, and of course

municipal staff.

Members of this House know that each day I stand and pay tribute to the constituents in my riding of Durham. Durham truly is a great place to live, work and

raise your family.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I rise to express my serious concern about the actions of the Attorney General. The shooting death of

Dudley George at Ipperwash Provincial Park is a serious issue, and I believe there is considerable evidence of inappropriate political interference in police actions.

On Thursday, September 26, the Attorney General said he had a signed affidavit from former Commissioner Tom O'Grady, saying it "clearly states that the former

Premier in no way directed the OPP to act in any certain way in relation to this incident." The signed affidavit does not say that. It says the Premier did not participate in "command decisions."

Commissioner O'Grady has never said he was given no direction from the government.

The Attorney General has on a key point said something that is incorrect; he has incorrectly quoted the commissioner on a point where the former commissioner has

always chosen his words carefully.

This issue is central to Ipperwash. Ontario looks to its Attorney General to play a unique role above the political fray. The Attorney General chose to abandon

that role and attempted to attribute words to our former police commissioner that he never said. These words are at the root of the Ipperwash affair, and I believe the Attorney General has a

responsibility to correct the record.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Each year 600 Canadian motorists are killed and another 12,000 injured due to collisions with trucks. That

appalling statistic is poised to get much worse.

New regulations on the number of hours truckers can drive were recently endorsed by transportation ministers. Each province and the federal government must now

pass the regulations to put them into effect.

In Ontario now, truckers can drive 60 hours in seven days, 70 hours in eight days or 120 hours over 14 days. With the changes, a trucker can work 70 hours in

five days and is supposed to take 36 hours off before driving again. But if that driver starts a new driving cycle immediately after 36 hours, that next shift puts him at 84 hours of driving in

just seven days. That's a huge increase from the current standard. That will have a profound impact on driver fatigue and motorist safety on our provincial highways.

Most independent truckers will be hard-pressed to tell employers they're not willing to work 84 hours in seven days if they're told to. When the bottom line is

at stake, some employers won't care about driver fatigue. The real losers are motorists, who will face more weary truckers coming at them on our highways. I predict more deaths and injuries as a

result.

I call on the federal Liberals and the provincial Conservatives to reject longer working hours for truckers. Six hundred dead and 1,200 injured Canadian

motorists each year are more than enough casualties from collisions with trucks.

PAULA JONGERDEN

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): At 6:37 am this past August 23, 49-year-old Paula Jongerden emerged from the choppy waters of Lake

Erie as the oldest person to ever swim across the lake. Mrs Jongerden spent 23 hours and 30 minutes battling wind, three-foot-high waves and strong currents after setting out on her 55-kilometre

swim from Erie, Pennsylvania, across the lake to Long Point in my riding.

Her drive and determination have served as an example for the rest of us 49-or-so-year-olds in Ontario of what we can do when we believe in a cause.

A nurse at West Haldimand General Hospital in Hagersville, Jongerden leapt into the water to come to the aid of the Long Point World Biosphere Reserve. This is

an environmental jewel on our part of Lake Erie and, I might add, one of the most beautiful and pristine areas in southern Ontario.

Mrs Jongerden is a volunteer board member for the biosphere reserve. It's an organization that promotes research, education and monitoring of 8,000 acres of

natural wonder and wilderness.

I'm also happy to say her accomplishment has not gone unnoticed in Haldimand and Norfolk where, after numerous newspaper articles recognizing her achievement,

Mrs Jongerden will be feted by the Long Point World Biosphere Reserve Foundation on the evening of November 2 at the Vittoria Community Centre.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): At the same time as the Premier and the Minister of Colleges and Universities are telling our

students and their families that there is nothing to worry about and that the double cohort has been solved, their own report shows that up to 40% of students may not have a place at a college or

university. This government report, only a small part of which was released, shows that not only are students intending to fast-track this year, but the monitoring of their credits proves this

fact. Yet this government refused to release the report.

To add more insult to more injury, another study from the University of Toronto shows that poorer students are going to university a lot less than they did

before this government came into power. Our poor can't get in because of your cutbacks that led to tuition increases, and the rest of our students won't get in because of your poor planning for the

double cohort. Your private university scheme didn't get you out of this one, did it?

On behalf of the thousands of students and their families, I demand that this government release the report to the public and begin to feverishly do what you

should have done properly seven years ago; that is, plan for the double cohort.

KYOTO PROTOCOL

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I rise today to speak about Dalton McGuinty's and Jean Chrétien's plan to increase our

hydro rates, our gas prices and his plan to send over 100,000 Ontario jobs to Mexico and the United States.

Dalton McGuinty has been travelling around Ontario talking about everything under the sun except his support of the Kyoto accord. He's not telling Ontarians why

he's supporting a plan that will kill Ontario jobs.

Dalton McGuinty is fully aware of the facts on Kyoto. He knows that under Kyoto the cost of gasoline may rise to $1.10 per litre, as estimated by the Canadian

Manufacturers and Exporters Association. Dalton also knows that according to CMEA estimates, Ontario homeowners who use natural gas will see their heating bills increase from $40 per month to $225

per month. In addition, according to the CME, electricity rates for a typical Ontario home will rise dramatically, from $93 to $144 per month.

Dalton McGuinty also knows that those nations that produce 80% of greenhouse gases are exempt from or have not signed on to this accord.

Ontarians want to know why Dalton McGuinty and Jean Chrétien are so intent on killing jobs in our province. Why is Mr McGuinty supporting a scheme that will

increase our taxes and home heating costs? It is time for Dalton McGuinty to come clean with Ontarians and say no to killing jobs in Ontario.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of that very provocative and interesting statement, and seeing

the government's desire to debate the Kyoto accord, I seek unanimous consent to waive the orders of the day and engage in a debate where the Ontario Liberal Party will support Kyoto, and let's see

if we can find out just what is the Progressive Conservative Party's position on Kyoto.

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

Reports by committees? Introduction of bills? Motions? Statements by ministries?

Moving along -- we could be out early here -- it is now time for --

MINISTERS' ATTENDANCE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We've been informed that several of the ministers will be here. I only see

two. None of the ministers whom we have questions for are here yet.

Interjections.

Mr Duncan: Maybe the members opposite would like to engage in a debate. We have a lot of questions, but we want the Premier and a number of

ministers, and unfortunately none of them happen to here right now.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I see some of them are coming in.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: This signals clearly to the ministers lingering in their lounge that

they are being called upon and that indeed they are somewhat tardy. It's very frustrating to be notified of ministers who are going to be absent; so be it. But then when question period does start

for those ministers about whom there has been no notification about being late or absent, for there to be this incredible vacuum in the House on the government side, I would surely want, and I'm

sure you would want, to hear from government members. Perhaps the House leader or whip can explain for their caucus as to the absence of these ministers.

The Speaker: I thank you very much, and I think the bus has arrived. A few of them have come in. Hopefully we have the members that have the

first questions.

Mr Duncan: Point of order.

The Speaker: Just very quickly, before we go on to the point of order, it is customary for somebody to handle it if the Premier isn't here --

the Deputy Premier. I don't know if that's been taken care of or not. We don't even seem to have the Deputy Premier.

On a point of order, the member for Windsor-St Clair.

Mr Duncan: Perhaps we could call Bigliardi's to see if the Premier's lunch is finished.

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

I'm looking for some direction on whether the Deputy Premier will be here.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Mr Speaker, I find the comments of the member opposite

regrettable, but the Deputy Premier of the province of Ontario has arrived.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The opposition was informed that the Premier would be here for question period. Our questions are

prepared for the Premier and we would like the opportunity to put those questions to the Premier.

The Speaker: I thank the member. As you know, we did wrap up very early -- one of the reasons maybe for having a set question period time

start. We may want to look at that in the standing orders in the future as way of help.

Hon Mr Baird: I'd be certainly strongly in support of us having a fixed time for the start of question period.

I am informed that the Premier is on his way.

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In response to one of the comments, I have never had a problem being served at Bigliardi's without

a tie, but then I've always picked up my own tab.

VISITORS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I would like to take this opportunity to introduce guests in the members' gallery today: Mike Wszolek;

Josephine Wszolek, his wife; and their sons Len and Tony Wszolek. The two senior Wszoleks are visiting Queen's Park for the first time in their lives.

The Speaker: We welcome our guests.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Mr Speaker, I want to inform the House that yesterday was the birthday of one of our pages, Vanessa Casey

from Hamilton East. I want to wish her -- I'm sure on behalf of the whole House-a happy birthday one day late.

The Speaker: Happy birthday, Vanessa.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While we wait for the Premier to arrive, I seek unanimous consent for second

and third readings of Bill 7,

An Act to amend the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act.

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

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While we continue to wait for the Premier to arrive, I seek unanimous consent for second and

third readings of Bill 20,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to require the appointment of a workplace carcinoma committee.

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

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While we wait for the Premier to arrive, I'd like to take this

opportunity to welcome Mr Wayne Munday from the St Thomas and District Chamber of Commerce to Queen's Park today.

The Speaker: The only problem with waiting for people to arrive is that the pages and I have to keep getting up and down.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting the demolition of rental housing units in the

City of Toronto, as the Speaker knows, is a private bill -- not a private member's bill but a private bill. It's the tradition of this House that whenever a private bill passes private bills

committee, it comes before the House and then, as a matter of course, passes.

For some reason, it has never come forward --

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): No, that's not true.

Mr Bryant: It is true.

Mr Johnson: It's not.

Mr Bryant: Name me a private -- I'm trying to provide a point of order and you want to have a debate. I would love to have a debate on

Pr22.

In any event, in lieu of that, I seek unanimous consent for Bill Pr22 to receive second and third readings in this House.

The Speaker: The member has asked for unanimous consent. I'm afraid I heard some noes.

The member will know that that did happen in the last session, and there is the issue of timeliness.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While we wait for the arrival of the Premier, I seek unanimous consent for second and third

readings of Bill 32,

An Act to provide for an interim freeze in the price of certain petroleum products.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Sorry, there is not unanimous consent.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: After two days' absence of the Leader of the Opposition, 14 cabinet

ministers are waiting for the Liberals to start question period.

The Speaker: I appreciate it very much. My feeling is hopefully we will get a set question period time in the new standing orders.

As you know, when the Premier says he's going to show up and doesn't show up on time, it allows for this to take place. In the beginning it was fun. We kidded

around a little bit, and then all of a sudden the other side gets upset, even though it's their Premier who has not shown up on time. I'll rag the puck for a while.

We can continue to waste time like this, or we can stand down question period and wait for the Premier. In fairness to him, with not having a set period of

time -- question period sometimes starts at 10 to 2, sometimes 10 after 2, sometimes 2:30 -- it's very difficult to plan. I understand that. When the House leaders look at the standing orders in

the future, they may look at that. I know ministers who are out at speaking engagements or luncheons don't know what time to get back for question period as well.

Having said that, we're always here for prayers at 1:30, and if members come in for the prayers at 1:30, they won't miss anything.

We will continue for a short period of time. I am looking for some guidance because if the Premier --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Being a goaltender, I am not used to ragging the puck, but I think we have ragged the puck and killed the penalty, so question

period can begin.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question, Speaker, as you might have anticipated, is to the Premier. Premier, Ontario

families and businesses are continuing to pay a very heavy price as a result of your gross mismanagement of the hydro issue in Ontario. I want to give you some specific examples so it is brought

home to bear on you in a very real fashion.

Mr Monette, living in Ottawa, is a 71-year-old retired man living on a fixed income. His hydro bill has increased by $100 a month compared to what he was

paying last year.

Darlene Falconer lives in Hamilton. She just received her hydro bill. It's $403. Last year at this time it was $194.35. She is on disability and cannot

work.

Here is a case from St Catharines. Mrs Cathy Calder is living at home. She is a widow. She has two children. One daughter, 12 years of age, is severely

disabled. She receives social assistance in the amount of $970 per month. Her rent alone is $515 per month. Her hydro bill was $60. Now it is $221 as a result of four years of your mismanagement

with respect to hydro. She had assistance last time around from the church; she can't get it this time.

My question to you, Premier, on behalf of all those families and thousands of others who are taking it in the shins as a result of your mismanagement: what are

you going to do specifically to help those families?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, the leader of the official opposition will know that this has

been in place since about May of this year. I note with some interest that neither he nor the leader of the third party have stood in the House and complained about the fact that prices on average

were lower in the months of May and June. I didn't hear any questions about why these people were paying less in May and June.

I am hearing now, when we've had the hottest summer on record since 1955, that obviously if people use more energy -- there are two things that go into the

calculation of the price of your electricity in the province: how much power you use and the price per kilowatt hour. Obviously if the weather is hotter and people use more power, they are going to

pay more this year than they paid last year.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, these people have had their bills doubled. They don't want your sophistry with respect to hydroelectricity policy in

Ontario. What they want is some help from you. Their bills have doubled.

And it's not just families. Here is the case of Marc's Fine Foods in Tecumseh. He is a small business man. He operates the place himself, with the help of a

few part-timers. He is selling prepared and frozen foods. His bills have gone up over $1,000 compared to what he was paying before deregulation. His highest bill last year was $1,200; one bill this

year has been $2,200.

You may dismiss this as being something of concern only to poor families in Ontario, but it's also affecting businesses. What are you going to do to help both

families and businesses who are having to experience traumatic hikes in their hydro bills as a result of your gross mismanagement?

Hon Mr Eves: Objective observers and consultants who are in this business and people who have been in this business for a long period of time

have all indicated that it will take a year of operation under a free market system to determine what the price of power is over a year compared to what they paid last year. Obviously on a daily

basis or an hourly basis or a weekly basis, there are going to be wide fluctuations. In the months of May and June the rate was down, I say to the honourable member for Sudbury. I didn't hear him

on his feet, screaming, "Stop, my people are paying less than they paid last year." I didn't hear that.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: And if he will wait --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Premier, take a seat, please. The member for Essex, come to order, please. We can't continue when you're

screaming across like that.

Sorry, Premier, for the interruption.

Hon Mr Eves: If he will kindly wait until the situation has been in effect for some period of time -- we are now responsible, I suppose, on

this side of the House for the fact that it's the warmest summer on record since 1955. That's our fault as well, I suppose, I say to the leader of the official --

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, these people can't wait. These small businesses can't wait. Their bills have skyrocketed as a result of your policies.

They need help now, and not from the kind of Premier who denies the existence of global warming, not from the kind of Premier who denies that his policies have resulted in skyrocketing hydro rates;

they need help from a Premier who understands some of the basic challenges that families have got to grapple with, day in and day out, when it comes to balancing their budget. They need help from a

Premier who understands that in small business this presents a real and sometimes insurmountable challenge. That's the kind of Premier they're looking to today.

I ask you again on their behalf, Premier: what specifically are you going to do to help these families and these businesses?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition is blustering and going on and on about specific individual cases for a month. He's not

going on and on --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please take a seat. Come to order. This time the member for Hamilton East come to order, please.

The Premier may continue.

Hon Mr Eves: This is the same Leader of the Opposition who voted against a tax cut of 41% for the most modest-income Ontarians. That was all

right to do. "We don't care about the man or woman who has a taxable income of $16,000 a year. We don't care that the government wants to reduce their taxes by 41%. I'm against that. I'm voting

against that. I'm going to make them pay 41% more."

How do you justify those two gross inconsistencies, I say to the leader of the official opposition? How can you vote against every single one of those tax cuts

for modest income earners in Ontario and get up here on your political high horse today and try to cash in?

KYOTO PROTOCOL

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. I will convey on your behalf, Premier, to those families and

those businesses that they should be more than satisfied with their tax cuts. I'll convey that to them.

Premier, the people of Sault Ste Marie came of age in a sad way in the Mike Harris-Ernie Eves Ontario. Yesterday they recorded their first smog day ever and

they had it in October. That's just another in a long line of records that your government has broken when it comes to polluting our air. We had a record number of smog days this year --

Interjection.

Mr McGuinty: Apparently smog is a matter of some humour and levity to the members of the cabinet. The fact that it's killing 1,900 Ontarians

prematurely, that it's sending 13,000 people to emergency rooms --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Take a seat. The member for Brampton Centre, come to order right now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The leader of the official opposition had the floor.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, if it's at all possible, I want to get your position on the Kyoto accord. You're for it one day; you're against it the

next; you're straddling it in between. One day it's going to create jobs; the other day it's going to cost us jobs. I just want to know, are you on Ralph Klein's side or are you on the side of

Ontario families and Ontario Liberals, who are strong supporters of the Kyoto accord?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): These would be the same strong supporters who are supporting Paul Martin, I

suppose. I don't know where you stand on that, but I see that Paul Martin is now saying exactly what I've been saying for six months, which is very simple: surely the federal government must have a

very specific plan as to how it's going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, comply with the Kyoto accord and not cost 450,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector.

They've had five years to think about it. They've had two years since the Prime Minister of this country verbally said he was going to sign on. Most Premiers

across this country are saying what I've been saying for six months: let's sit down and have a very specific plan to reduce greenhouse gases --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The premier take his seat, please. I apologize for cutting the Premier off on the most important part. The member from Hamilton

East, this is your last warning. We're not going to continue with you yelling across like this. We can't keep getting up and down. Again, I apologize to the Premier for cutting that part off.

Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: The Premier's idea of strong leadership when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases and cleaning up Ontario air may be to wait for

somebody at the federal level to produce some kind of plan so that we might make things better here for Ontarians, but that is not our definition of leadership.

We put forward a plan that will take us three quarters of the way to satisfying this province's responsibilities under the Kyoto accord. We've got a plan to

clean up our electricity generation, a plan to clean up our gasoline, a plan to bring back conservation into Ontario. All those things will take us three quarters of the way to satisfying Ontario's

responsibilities under the Kyoto accord.

How much longer are you going to wait for somebody at the federal level to do something about cleaning up Ontario air when we've got a plan right in front of

you today?

Hon Mr Eves: If the leader of the official opposition is standing in this House today saying that any pollution that occurs in Sault Ste Marie

occurs only on the Ontario-Canadian side of the border -- his seatmate is from Windsor, Ontario. If you shut down every plant in Ontario tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock, you would still have over 90%

of the pollution in Windsor, Sault Ste Marie and Sarnia from our great American neighbours to the south. Do you think there's some kind of invisible shield up and down the middle of the Detroit

River?

I can't believe the leader of the official opposition actually thinks that if we eliminated every source of emission of any kind, we stopped every car, every

factory -- all came to a grinding halt at his bequest tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock -- that we would not still have over 90% of the smog in those border communities that we have today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: OK, that's enough. Starting now we're throwing people out. If you want to keep yapping, you're going to be the first one to go.

While we're at it, we're putting the Minister of the Environment on last warning, and the member from Sudbury is on his last warning as well, and we've got Hamilton East and the minister. That's

right. If you want to continue on, you will be out of here. The next person who says a word is going to be the next one out. All the members of the cabinet who are laughing: do you want to take me

up on this? Be my guest and say something and you'll be out for the day. We're not going to continue on like this. We had our fun in the beginning. Now we start throwing people out -- and if it's

just me and the pages left, so be it -- starting right now.

It is now, I believe, looking at the table, the final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: It's pretty obvious we have a do-nothing Premier in charge today in Ontario. This is a Premier who has raised vacillation to a

high art. This is a Premier who says, "So what if 1,900 die prematurely every year as a result of breathing bad air. So what if there are 13,000 who have to go to emergency rooms. So what if the

rate of asthma for kids in Ontario has quadrupled in the last 20 years. So what if it costs taxpayers over a billion dollars annually."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Take a seat. We don't need any of that, because I could have thrown half of your members out too. I will make the decisions in

here. The heat is up today and I would ask all members -- we've got people sitting in the gallery. Half of them are shaking their heads at the performance going on here. Half of you should sit in

this seat for a little bit of time and watch the goings on and see what you look like yelling at each other: duly elected representatives of the province of Ontario and you're screaming at each

other like a bunch of eight-year-olds. I can't believe it.

The leader of the official opposition for his final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, leadership is not an option. You've got the big job. You're going to have to do a few things now. One of those things

you have to do is take responsibility for cleaning up Ontario air. I put a plan before you. I've got a plan. It's going to take us three quarters of the way to satisfying our province's

responsibilities under the Kyoto accord. By the way, they're laughing at us in the States. We can't go to any international tribunal unless we've got clean hands. Let's clean up our act and then we

can assert our rights before the US. I'm asking you again, Premier, where do you specifically stand on the Kyoto accord? Are you with Ralph Klein or are you with Ontario families and Ontario

Liberals?

Hon Mr Eves: If he's talking about the Ontario Liberals who are with Paul Martin, who I presume are vastly greater in number than the Ontario

Liberals who are with him, then they happen to be with our side of this discussion.

We have taken great steps in the province of Ontario -- we've taken them not just through this government but through predecessor governments -- to lower

emission levels in Ontario. He will know that Premier Harris, for example, a few years ago talked about the phasing out of coal-burning Lakeview by 2005. He will also know that this summer I turned

down the sale of Thunder Bay and Atikokan coal-burning plants because the prospective purchaser would not agree to convert them to natural gas or to shut them down. That will be a condition of any

sale or they will be shut down. So those are three of the five plants. Lambton and Nanticoke, he will also know, will have technology on board by next year, by 2003, to reduce emission levels

The Speaker: The Premier's time is up.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question for the Premier. On Monday I visited Paul Eckstein, a dairy farmer near Woodbridge.

Hydroelectricity powers his milking machines, his milk cooling system -- virtually the whole farm operation. His hydro rates have increased by 72%, and his hydro bills have doubled. Like thousands

of small businesses across Ontario, your Hydro privatization and deregulation screw-up has put Paul Eckstein's livelihood in doubt. Does a 72% hydro rate increase tell you that something is

wrong?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the leader of the third party has a differing point of view when it

comes to the marketplace. I know he drove around the province of Ontario in his bus urging people not to sign fixed-price contracts. The same leader of the third party who urged people not to lock

in to low prices is now in the Legislature saying, "For the people I encouraged not to lock in to low prices, their prices are going up and down; they have fluctuation in them." Why don't you make

up your mind which side of this argument you're on? Should people have locked in to low prices or not? Yes or no?

Mr Hampton: I've talked to some of those people you say should have locked in. Their hydro rates have gone up by 40%. Is that the choice? They

can get ripped off at a 40% rate increase or a 72% rate increase. That's Ernie Eves's vision of good electricity policy for the province.

Look, Premier, Paul Eckstein hasn't increased his consumption by even a moderate amount. The only increase in

consumption is 6%, but his bills have doubled, and his rates have increased by 72%. Is that your answer to Paul Eckstein: he should have signed with one of your door-to-door rip-off artists so he'd

only get ripped off by a 40% increase? Is that your answer?

Hon Mr Eves: I would appreciate the details of Mr Eckstein and any other particular cases you have with respect to hydro prices increasing by

40% when they are on a contract, or 72%, I believe you stated, when they're not on a contract. I'd appreciate receiving that information.

Mr Hampton: Paul Eckstein isn't alone. Consumers across Ontario are being hit with huge hydro bills because of your Hydro privatization and

deregulation screw-up. It's also the case in the United States, which you are following. The Consumer Federation of America just released their review of hydro deregulation in that country. That

review is called All Pain, No Gain. You should read this report, Premier, because it details that the costs of hydro deregulation for consumers are 10 times greater than any supposed benefit. One

example is Montana, which one of your former Ministers of Energy used to talk about. Since deregulation in Montana, prices have gone up four times. In fact, Montana wants to get control of their

hydro system again.

Why are you proposing and following a scheme that is all pain and no gain for hydro consumers?

Hon Mr Eves: At the end of the day, what the government hopes to achieve by opening up the market in terms of generation of electric power in

the province of Ontario is to end up with four, five, six, seven or more major players in the marketplace, all of whom will be competing with each other. Even the leader of the official opposition

has said he agrees with that.

Mr Hampton: That sounds like California.

Hon Mr Eves: Well, this is not California; this is not the United States of America. We have the ability to generate power here in Ontario. In

fact, we actually export it at certain times of the year.

KYOTO PROTOCOL

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, you've said that you won't sign on to the Kyoto Protocol unless you know what the effects

will be. The Ontario Medical Association tells you what the effects of signing in will be: it will help prevent 6,000 premature deaths yearly in Ontario due to respiratory problems; it will help

save our medical system over $1 billion a year for treating smog-related illnesses; it will give Ontario a head start in ensuring that any jobs in the old energy sector that are lost are more than

offset by new jobs in green energy and energy efficiency.

Premier, now that respected organizations like the Ontario Medical Association are telling you what the positive impacts will be, will you make Ontario a

leader by supporting the ratification of Kyoto?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the leader of the third party, obviously the province of Ontario and every

other jurisdiction that I can imagine is in favour of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I agree with his statements about green energy. I think this is a great opportunity not only for Ontario but

for Canada as a whole.

But the Kyoto accord is not the only way to achieve that. All I have said is that leaders across this country should sit down with the Prime Minister and

hammer out a plan of exactly how it's going to work.

Are you, for example, advocating the loss of 450,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, the majority of which are in Ontario, as the Canadian Manufacturers and

Exporters Association projects? Are you in favour of eliminating 30,000 jobs in the steel sector of the economy, as that industry suggests might be the effect of signing on to Kyoto without a game

plan in effect?

Everybody is in favour of improving the environment. I argue that we can do better than Kyoto. Kyoto is not some magical solution. It is one suggestion as to

how you can reduce greenhouse --

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

Mr Hampton: I think the people of Ontario just got another lecture from your corporate friends on Bay Street. Premier, 77% of the people of

Ontario were opposed and are opposed to your scheme of Hydro privatization and deregulation, yet you are listening to your corporate friends on that one just as they rip people off. Some 77% of the

people in this province want you to support Kyoto. But what are you doing again? You're going to listen to your corporate friends on Bay Street.

Premier, it is very clear. It's the oil industry, the coal industry and people who want to preserve the corporate profits they have now and who are not willing

to make changes that will benefit all of us who are telling you not to support it. Just once, will you listen to the people across Ontario and not pay so much attention to your corporate friends on

Bay Street?

Hon Mr Eves: There isn't a great coal industry that I'm aware of in the province. Maybe the leader of the third party is aware of one that I'm

not.

When you're talking about 77% of Ontarians supporting Kyoto, do those 77% support Kyoto if they lose their job as a result of implementing it willy-nilly? You

might want to ask the question fairly when you ask them the question.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Tourism. This is just one volume of the expenses that you submitted to

the government for taxpayers to pay in the last two years. You and your staff billed over $100,000. Included in this total, you spent $3,000 at --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Member, you can refer to it, but you don't need to hold it up as a prop, please. Continue. Sorry for the

interruption.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you. You spent $3,000 at Morton's of Chicago Steakhouse. You spent $3,000 at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse. You spent more than

$14,000 on Toronto luxury hotel rooms even though you live 45 minutes away and you can drive; you have access to a car and a driver. You once billed a meal that cost $842, $252 of that on

booze.

Minister, we think you should explain this kind of excess in your ministry, and specifically on your expense account. I think the taxpayers deserve an

explanation.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I want to thank the honourable member for her question. In fact, upon review of our

ministry's complete expenses and those of our staff, it was discovered that some of the expenses were inadvertently submitted and claimed in error. Upon learning of this, we immediately took

action; we put procedures in place. The money was reimbursed to the government fully and the matter has been taken care of.

Mrs Pupatello: There is nothing inadvertent about your repayment of those bills. It wasn't inadvertent that you found 44 or 48 of the 752

bills to repay. There are bills in this book of samples that you didn't repay, which include alcohol. On what basis did you choose your 48? There was nothing inadvertent. This was wilful. It was a

wilful, repeated and regular submission of expenses to the taxpayer far in excess of what the members of the public would deem to be reasonable as part of your job. This from a government that

purports to be a defender of the taxpayer; this from a government that was supposed to be the tax fighter.

Minister, I think you owe us a better explanation. There was nothing inadvertent about 48 bills that you decided to pay one day before you knew this was going

to be released to the public. How many more bills are in here that should not have been paid by the public, that you yourself should have paid for, bills that are completely inexcusable? As the

public, we think we deserve an explanation for these bills.

Hon Mr Jackson: First of all, these expenses fall within a comparable range of previous governments and ministers, both Liberal and NDP. That

is a matter of public record.

Cabinet ministers in this province, both in the present and in the past, have been routinely called upon to perform functions, to host delegations, whether

they be heads of state, whether they be foreign or domestic journalists, and even lobbyists. Frankly, earlier this summer we hosted a major delegation from the Vatican on three separate occasions

during World Youth Day. Ontario wine was served at those functions. Last Sunday night I hosted 21 Asian journalists who were here doing travel stories about Ontario. Again Ontario wines were served

at that reception. This Friday night I will be in London, hosting 88 international travel buyers and journalists; I will be hosting those individuals, and again Ontario wine will be served.

ACADEMIC TESTING

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Deputy Premier and Minister of Education. As you well know, on Monday the

education quality assessment organization released some very promising numbers with respect to literacy in Ontario. From my understanding, 87% of students enrolled in the academic stream passed

both the reading and writing sections of the literacy test. For me, this is good news and is proof that our tough new curriculum is working and that the students, teachers and parents in the

province are rising to the challenge.

But as you know, a portion of these students, particularly those in the applied stream, did not do as well. Can you perhaps explain the results to us in the

House, the rationale for this test and what those numbers in the applied stream mean?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): If we keep in mind the reason the government created the test, this really was

in response to the request of the public -- parents, employers and others. They wanted to ensure that students who were graduating had the essential reading and writing skills they would need in

their future.

If we take a look at the applied results, although the pass rate was 44%, I think we can be proud of the fact that students and teachers worked very hard, and

that is an improvement of 14% from the year before. But, having said that, there is more that needs to be done and we certainly will continue to support our students and teachers to achieve better

results in literacy.

Mr Dunlop: I realize there is more to do and I am happy to hear that such a marked improvement has occurred in the results not only of our

academic stream students but also of our applied students. Clearly, these improved results can be attributed to Ontario's hard-working and excellent teachers, along with our dedicated and

hard-working students who are rising to the challenge of our tough new curriculum.

But, Minister, I am still concerned about the applied students. I am worried that many of these students may be at risk of dropping out or simply giving up on

school because they can't pass this test. What is our government doing to address the needs of these students to ensure that they have their basic literacy components and can graduate with an

Ontario secondary school diploma?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I've had the opportunity on two recent occasions to actually meet with students and teachers who are involved in some of the

applied programs. I've travelled to Burlington and Guelph. I can tell you that there has been a personal commitment made on the part of school boards throughout Ontario, on the part of dedicated,

hardworking teachers and principals. There's a tremendous desire for the students to improve the rate of success, the achievement.

If we take a look at the Limestone District School Board, for example, they decided after the first results came out that they could do better and they got to

work as a team. I have to tell you, they actually increased their results this year by some 19%. They did that by giving their students extra help during the summer, by bringing in tutors from

Queen's University and by providing other remediation programs. What this information we've just received is going to allow us to do is to better help those students.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I'd like to return to the Minister of Tourism. Minister, you suggested a moment ago that you had a number

of inadvertent submissions of expenses, that at the 11th hour, one day before your expenses were to be made public, you repaid $7,000. There is nothing inadvertent about the expense claim form you

have to fill out and then sign at the bottom. It's not a matter of an expense chit that got in the pile by accident and, "Oh, Jeez, that was inadvertent." This is your statement that you have to

sign. You are the authorizing signature on it.

I believe the taxpayers need to have an explanation for the kind of excesses that are found in your ministry of over $100,000 -- Toronto's finest steakhouses;

the best hotels, when you live 45 minutes away. You come from Burlington. You have a car and a driver available to you. We are here trying to defend people who can't pay an electricity bill and

you're out having the best steak at Morton's. Please stand up and give us an explanation for this kind of excess. It's just not to be tolerated.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I have indicated, first of all, that I do not have a driver. I drive myself, and I

have throughout my tenure in cabinet. I do not have accommodation in downtown Toronto. Management Board guidelines are very clear. They were not violated. In fact, it specifically says that members

and staff, if they are detained or required for late-night meetings or early morning meetings, can apply for accommodation support from time to time.

The fact of the matter is that, as minister, I'm called upon to host international dignitaries. In fact, in November I will be hosting all of Canada's tourism

ministers. I really wasn't thinking of taking them to Swiss Chalet. I was figuring on taking them to a nice restaurant because Toronto is very proud of some very good restaurants in this city.

Mrs Pupatello: I can't accept that as an answer because when you did your cursory review to come up with the $7,000 you should repay for those

expenses that were against the rules, you forgot this one. You forgot the one from Bigliardi's that included $120 just in the tip alone. You forgot this one. Of your $145 dinner bill, $40 was in

booze. It's against the rules, but you didn't pay this one back.

My question is, how can we be certain that the $7,000 you decided to pay back is in fact the correct amount that was against the rules? These are your rules.

You know what they are. You didn't inadvertently slip them in, because you had to fill out these statements of expenses and then sign them, so it wasn't inadvertent, it was deliberate, it was

methodical and it was repetitive.

This has got to stop. Your repayment has to go far beyond that $7,000. Everyone in this House is embarrassed by the fact that you look like you're living a

gluttonous lifestyle on the back of the taxpayer. Please give us an explanation for these excesses.

Hon Mr Jackson: I have indicated that it has been the practice of this government and previous governments, Liberal or NDP -- I believe one of

the reasons the question is being asked by an opposition member who's never served in a previous Liberal or NDP government is partially because they don't get the responsibilities as has been the

custom in this province. I'll give you one example. When Jim Bradley was the minister, in a Liberal government in a Liberal cabinet, responsible for marketing the Niagara Peninsula, would you have

us believe that every time international delegates came to look at purchasing wine, he would tell them they must drink water and not drink Ontario wine? That was his mandate in those days, and it's

the mandate of the new minister to market this province. I think it would be inappropriate to suggest that these activities have not been going on for years.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Attorney General. Monday's speech from the throne addressed a number of important justice

issues. There are pledges from Ottawa to reform the Criminal Code to increase penalties for abuse and neglect, and also to improve service for children involved in the court system as victims or

witnesses. There is also a promise to reform family law with a greater focus on the interests of children, as well as an expansion of the Unified Family Court system. More interestingly, there is a

promise that they will work with provinces to renew the legal aid system so that Canadians can access legal representation. What is your reaction to these announcements?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the honourable member for the question. Certainly there

are a number of commitments in the federal throne speech that we welcome. I want to particularly highlight the fact that they have announced a willingness to move forward with an expansion of the

Unified Family Court system. It is a system that has proven to be one that shows greater sensitivity for the needs of those involved in very difficult and emotional court proceedings.

We would appreciate having amendments to the Criminal Code that would allow for greater penalties and for stronger protection of children who find themselves

in abusive situations. I would ask the federal government to mirror the changes we have made to the Child and Family Services Act. Similar action by them would certainly be welcome.

There was also reference to legal aid in there, and I appreciate that. The federal government used to contribute about 35% of the total legal aid budget in

this province -- they're down to about 12%. For those of you who think that sounds familiar, it is because of course it's very analogous to what has happened in health care. We hope the federal

government will re-enter this field and allow for greater spending in this very important area.

Mrs Munro: Certainly a greater commitment by the federal government would be welcome. However, there were a number of long-standing issues

that were not discussed in the throne speech. There was no commitment to move forward on needed amendments to the DNA data bank. There was also no mention of changing the Criminal Code to require

reverse onus bail hearings in domestic violence cases. Are you concerned that these issues will not be part of the federal government's agenda this fall? Will you keep the pressure on Ottawa to

address those problems?

Hon Mr Young: I'll be meeting with Minister Cauchon in about 10 days' time. That is in anticipation of the federal-provincial -- territorial

conference that will begin early next month. There are a number of issues that we have prioritized and intend to bring forward again.

I must tell you first and foremost is that of the DNA data bank. It is our view that there some amendments that must be made in order to collect DNA evidence

from those in custody right now, some of whom will be released. There are some very easy changes that should be made that every province has agreed must be done. I will continue to encourage the

federal government to move in that direction.

Similarly, as was indicated in the Hadley jury recommendations that we received, it is essential that there be a change to the Criminal Code, in our respectful

opinion, that would ensure that for anyone involved in a domestic abuse situation, if they breach their bail they automatically go to jail. We would encourage the federal government to move in that

direction forthwith.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Premier. A report released today by the Ontario Association of Radiologists is

truly shocking, in terms of the number of people who are waiting for basic diagnostic tests and the number of communities where people are waiting. In the north, for example, people are waiting 17

weeks for an ultrasound in Sault Ste Marie, seven weeks in North Bay at the Scollard site, six weeks in Kenora. They're waiting 12 weeks for nuclear medicine tests for cardiac disease in Sault Ste

Marie, six weeks for the same in Kenora and Timmins.

Premier, the lists are long and the waits can be deadly for some of these patients. The association this morning presented your government with a series of

recommendations to deal with these waiting lists. Are you prepared to implement them?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll refer the question to the Minister of Health.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): We have just obtained a copy of the report ourselves and are reviewing it in quite a

detailed manner. I can tell you that the last time this organization did take

part in these examinations, some inaccuracies were found, for instance in Peterborough and Windsor.

I can tell you that in the 2002-03 budget, the Ernie Eves government has committed $250 million in additional funding for diagnostic services. I can tell you

that another report, the Fraser Institute report that was published recently, said that Ontario had the shortest waiting lists in Canada.

I will take this report as seriously as it deserves to be treated. I understand there were some methodological issues that we will examine, and we will give it

the fullest consideration.

Ms Martel: Minister, I don't think you can underestimate how serious this situation is. Let me give you some more examples: in Sault Ste

Marie, people are waiting seven weeks for a mammogram. Women who are at risk for osteoporosis are waiting 12 weeks in Sault Ste Marie, 10 weeks in Sudbury and seven weeks at the Scollard site in

North Bay for a bone density test. These waiting lists for these tests are repeated time and again right across the province in communities that are big or small and in community-based or large

teaching hospitals.

You need to look seriously at these recommendations, and frankly you need to implement them as soon as possible. Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Mr Clement: I want to assure this House that the Ernie Eves government takes its responsibilities extremely seriously. You mentioned

mammography and the Ontario breast screening program. My information is that the average waiting time to have mammography done is approximately one to two weeks, not the five, seven or nine weeks

you just mentioned.

Again, I am confronted with this data; it seems to be at variance with data that has been put forward by other reputable organizations. However, I take the

report seriously. I want to examine the report and ensure that data we are collecting from other independent sources is verifiable. If this report uncovers some additional information, of course

we'll take it seriously. But I have to say this report is at variance with other independent tests that have been done of our health care system that have said Ontario is either the best or

absolutely tied with the best with what is on offer in the rest of Canada, and we in this government are proud of our record.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. I want ask about the behaviour of your Minister of Tourism and

about your standards as Premier and first minister. I think most Ontario families, when they become aware of these facts that have been put forward today and will appear in the media this evening

and tomorrow, will be shocked. I think most families struggle to make ends meet, day in and day out. I think most families are very interested in where you stand on this kind of behaviour in your

cabinet and in your government. Can you tell me exactly what are you going to do, understanding what this minister has done?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): There are rules that cabinet ministers are supposed to follow. I will

certainly look into whether or not this particular minister has followed those rules in this particular case -- we had this discussion in the House a few months ago with respect to another cabinet

minister. I firmly believe that if ministers have stepped over those bounds, inadvertently or otherwise, it is incumbent upon them to repay to the province and to the people of Ontario any and all

sums of money that were spent in excess of or outside the bounds of those rules.

Mr McGuinty: I gather there's going to be some kind of process. I'm sure there's going to some independent review of these expenses, which

will be made public, and we'll understand which were inappropriate and which should be reimbursed. It's pretty clear that some of these are patently inappropriate; some of these are absolutely

shocking. What I want to know from you is what responsibility you will now assume as Premier. What are you going to do to set the standards so you can apprise all other ministers of your high

standards and so you can tell Ontario families you're not going to put up with this kind of nonsense, you understand the daily struggles that they go through, you understand what it's like to have

to pay 200 bucks more for a hydro bill? What they want to know from you today, Premier, is, what exactly are you going to do, knowing what this minister has done?

Hon Mr Eves: As I said to the leader of the official opposition in response to his initial question, I will look into the matter of this

particular minister's expenses; I will reassure you and the House and the people of Ontario that the rules that are set for conduct for cabinet ministers are not breached. I haven't prejudged the

expenses of the honourable member, but I will certainly look into it and I will make sure that the right thing is done.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, this House passed unanimously the Oak

Ridges Moraine Protection Act. My constituents and people across the province are particularly interested in how that act is being implemented. I want to thank you for meeting in my riding at the

Oak Ridges Public School to discuss with the teachers there, as well as the students, who particularly have a vested interest in the future of this province, how that Oak Ridges Moraine Protection

Act is being implemented. I'm interested to know how stakeholders are responding to that piece of legislation that this House passed unanimously.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As the member mentioned, this was a great accomplishment. I had the pleasure of

being with Mr Klees at a school in his riding to launch a booklet to explain it. It's being implemented in a number of ways.

The Legislature unanimously approved the plan, which was created by a panel of people representative of environmental groups, municipal leaders and business

leaders. This is truly a great accomplishment. It was recognized by the Environmental Commissioner last week in his report where he's giving the award this year to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs

and Housing for this great accomplishment.

Municipal governments have to bring their official plans into compliance. There's money for conservation authorities to come up with the water budget. Truly,

this is an accomplishment that we should all be proud of in this House.

Mr Klees: The Environmental Commissioner, in his report, also specifically made the following statement: "It is essential that the elaborate

details of the proposed land swap and the details of implementing the broad plan on the ground are carefully monitored and adjusted where necessary so that the spirit and the intent of the plan are

realized." Minister, can you tell us what you're doing to ensure that that in fact will be done?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As the member points out, this plan will be implemented, what was passed by the Legislature and what was recommended by the

advisory panel. We couldn't find an on-site solution for the Richmond Hill corridor, and it was a very important feature of the Oak Ridges moraine to have it connected across 160 kilometres east

and west. They wanted to have a robust corridor. The panel recommended that David Crombie mediate a settlement that was before the OMB, and that was successfully done. But it requires a land

transfer and a land swap with lands that are in the local municipality's official plan for a settlement in Seaton. Mr Crombie is right now consulting on the principles for that swap, and it's

following according to plan.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier of Ontario. Many of us have been aware of these expenses out of the

Minister of Tourism for some time. We'd like you to tell the House when you and your office were aware of these excessive expenses from that minister. Just tell us when you became aware of

this.

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): A few weeks ago a member of my staff came to me and suggested to me that the

minister's expenses along with, I might add, other members' expenses had been asked for under the freedom of information legislation. My response was just to ensure that the minister does the right

thing if there are any breaches of any rules or guidelines that have been set down; that they are complied with, and if they haven't been complied with, then the individual, whoever it is, will

have to repay that amount to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and to the people of Ontario.

Mrs Pupatello: Premier, you're the representative of all the members of your cabinet. You knew a month ago about this kind of excess. You knew

the details a month ago. Today we ask a question about it in the House and suddenly you decide that you're going to get on a white horse and protect the taxpayer. You have not set up a process to

say that the $7,000 that was paid back was in fact all of the appropriate expenses to be paid back. I want to know, Premier, if you've set something in motion to ensure that your own cabinet

ministers are actually paying back expenses, and if they aren't, they have broken the rules.

We have a host of examples where bills were not paid back by this minister and they included expenses that the taxpayers should not have been paying for. If

you knew a month ago and you didn't see to it that all the inappropriate expenses were already paid back, I'm asking you, Premier, what kind of standard are you setting, to walk into the House

today, after we've made it public, and suddenly become the taxpayers' protector?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member obviously didn't listen to the answer to the first question. I did not have knowledge of the particulars of

this particular minister's expenditures until today, as a matter of fact. You asked me when I first had knowledge of the request for Minister Jackson's expenses and I said that I learned through my

staff several weeks ago that his expenses had been FOI'd. I asked that the right thing be done. If the right thing has not been done, I will see to it that it is done.

INVESTOR PROTECTION

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, many of us have followed the news of accounting and

corporate problems in the United States. Obviously reports of those scandals and the effect they've had on the markets are quite troubling. Brampton is home to numerous corporate headquarters and I

have people in my riding asking me about Ontario's markets and what protection we have for the people of Ontario. What is Ontario doing, not just to ensure the jobs in these companies but also for

the protection of our consumers?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I'd like to thank the member from Brampton Centre for the excellent question. It's extremely important

that we take steps in Ontario to protect our consumers and investors, to make sure there is not fraud in the system and to make sure that we have strong, competitive markets here in Ontario and in

Canada.

While we have some advantages in the rules we have in Ontario -- for example, continuous disclosure has been part of the regulatory regime here -- we recognize

the need to do more. The Ontario Securities Commission has been working with the industry, with government and with our colleagues across the country to do that. For example, they have increased

enforcement. They work with the Canadian Public Accountability Board to ensure more rigorous oversight of accounting firms that audit public companies. We have the five-year review. There are a

number of things we have been doing, reviewing the disclosure of our major companies through the OSC and proceeding with regulatory changes this fall.

Mr Spina: There were comments made this morning by David Brown, the chair of the Ontario Securities Commission. In speaking to the economic

club of Toronto, Mr Brown discussed the potential benefits of a national regulatory system. This idea was raised in the federal throne speech; I'm not sure they're going to go very far with it.

Nevertheless, what is our response as a province to this proposal that there be a solid, consistent national regulatory system?

Hon Mrs Ecker: If we are looking at making sure we have effective regulations, good consumer protection and good, strong markets in Canada, I

think moving away from 13 separate regulatory bodies is an important step. Ontario has long been in favour of moving to a national securities regulator or national securities regulation to

harmonize our rules. Through the OSC there have been a number of informal consultations and conversations with our colleagues across the country to this end and we are prepared to work with either

the federal government or the other provinces to see if we cannot indeed improve protection for investors and consumers here in this province and make sure our markets are attractive for

investment, not only from across the country but from overseas as well.

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday the Minister of the Environment went on a bit of a diatribe

about the residents of the Toronto Islands community. Without a shred of authority or evidence he wants to literally force people from their homes. He dismissed people with legal and lawful binding

contracts as squatters. The legislation is quite clear as to what is prescribed that can be done. It is the purchase price for sale of homes, prescribing the amounts to be paid to the island trust,

or prescribing a purchase price for land lease.

Premier, a two-part question: first, who speaks for your government on this issue? Is it you, is it the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing or is it

Chris Stockwell? Second, will you stay within the law as it exists at this time and allow the law-abiding citizens to get on with their lives?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks for the government on this issue.

Different members may have different opinions on different subjects at different times. This is an issue that I understand the Minister of the Environment feels very passionately about.

Unfortunately for him, it's not within his purview to make those decisions.

MINISTERS' ATTENDANCE

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Reluctantly, the government House leader on a point of order.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: No, Mr Speaker, mine is a point of order arising from earlier on today. Under the standing orders that we have before this

House, there are opportunities for opposition parties, should a minister or the Premier not be in the House at the time they wish to ask a question, to set the question aside. I appreciate the fact

there is some leeway and latitude provided for that. It seemed like today was one of those perfect opportunities -- I will make this a point of order and ask you to consider it -- when we could

have set those questions aside. It clearly didn't happen and it turned into a rather rambunctious period of time. I would only ask, if you could consider it, that in future we invoke this clause in

the standing orders.

The Speaker: The problem we've got is that sometimes there are members here to ask what's happening. I looked at the benches and there was

nobody here, including yourself, to ask. You are very helpful, I know, in circumstances like this in saying, "The Premier's just coming."

I explained that it is very difficult without having a time frame. Question period could be in 45 minutes and it's very difficult for ministers, and

particularly for the Premier, who's very busy, to plan his time.

Normally what we do -- we have done this in the past. The member for St Catharines has some fun doing a point of order and the member comes in. In future, what

will happen is, if the Premier or ministers are late because of the time difference and we get through quickly, perhaps someone could please let us know what the circumstances are, but when we look

at the government benches and there's no one there, it makes it very difficult, quite frankly.

Today was an exceptional day. We got through very fast. We will take it into consideration. What I find strange is that we normally can have a little bit of

fun in here and carry on. Quite frankly, it was the government benches. There was nothing out of the ordinary. There's a little bit of fun. We were going into some of the bills doing unanimous

consent, and it was the government members who turned it into something rather nasty with their point of order as well.

In future, I would ask that all members, if they are planning to be here, be here on time, and if they're not going to be here, the very simple solution is to

let everybody know.

I thank the member for his help. I'm sure, like we've done in the past -- holy smoke, the most difficult question is, what's going to happen next on

petitions?

I would ask all members' co-operation in this. It is not something that should take a great deal. This House should be able to operate on something as simple

as members arriving without getting into heated exchanges and heated debates. I understand that when we get into matters of policy that isn't always possible, but surely the honourable members can

work it out, getting the questions on in an orderly fashion.

I appreciate the government House leader's intervention. I believe it is now time for petitions.

PETITIONS

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I have a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents living in communities like Pembroke,

Petawawa, Beachburg and Deep River. These petitioners request the following:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province is considering closing the cardiac unit at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, we request that the Legislative Assembly

refrain from this action which will cost the lives of children in this area who require emergency care;

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

"Keep open the full cardiac unit at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario."

I'm happy to personally endorse and sign this said petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that has been sent to me by St Paul's United Church in Sudbury. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Conservative government increased fees paid by Ontario seniors and other vulnerable people living in long-term-care facilities by 15% instead of

providing adequate government funding for long-term care; and

"Whereas the Conservative government has therefore shifted the costs of long-term care on to the backs of the frail elderly and their families; and

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

"Whereas in 1996 Ontario abandoned its minimum requirement of 2.25 hours of nursing care per nursing home resident; and

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

"Whereas, according to the government's own study, government cutbacks have resulted in Ontario seniors receiving just 14 minutes a day of care from a

registered nurse; and

"Whereas the report also found that Ontario residents receive the least nursing, bathing and general care of nine other comparable locations;

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

"We demand the Conservative government eliminate the 15% fee increase for residents in long-term-care facilities, increase the number of nursing care hours for

each resident to a minimum of 3.5 hours per day, and provide stable, increased funding to ensure quality care is there for Ontario residents in long-term-care facilities."

I agree with the petitioners, and I have affixed my signature to this.

COMMUNITY CARE HEALTH CENTRE

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"Whereas Sarnia-Point Edward and area is experiencing a crisis in a shortage of health care professionals, specifically doctors; and

"Whereas community health care centres are a proven primary health care system that can attract professionals and deliver primary health care in a

cost-effective, efficient manner;

"Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario approve a community health care centre for Sarnia-Point Edward and area as soon as possible."

NATURAL GAS RATES

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy

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

will protect consumers from further retroactive rate increases."

This petition is signed by a number of residents of Chatham, Blenheim and Ridgetown.

RICK KERR

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my privilege to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on behalf of my constituents. By the

way, most of them are students from Durham College.

"Whereas Rick Kerr has distinguished himself as a dedicated member of Durham College through 25 years of service; and

"Whereas his commitment to student success and professionalism has set an outstanding example for Ontario's college education sector; and

"Whereas his nickname of `Captain KPI' should in no way diminish his accomplishments of organizing program mapping when no one else would; and

"Whereas Rick's proficiency as a squash player and his status as the most physically fit person on campus has earned him only passing glares; and

"Whereas his commitment to student fashion has made the police foundations program clothing order an international event for the textile industry; and

"Whereas the Kerr family has an outstanding reputation in the community for teaching, and Rick also teaches;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize Rick Kerr's long service and dedication to the Durham College community as

follows."

I'm going to sign this in support.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

effective August 1, 2002; and

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

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

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

and

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

nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I will sign this in support and, Carley, I will ask you to give it to the table.

RICK KERR

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I'm happy to present this petition on behalf of the people of Ontario as well as my

esteemed friend the member for Durham. The petition reads as follows -- I know you're paying full attention; I see that.

"To the Ontario Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas Rick Kerr has distinguished himself as a dedicated member of Durham College through 25 years of service; and

"Whereas his commitment to student success and professionalism has set an outstanding example for Ontario's college education sector; and

"Whereas his nickname of `Captain KPI' should in no way diminish his accomplishments of organizing program mapping where no one else would; and

"Whereas Rick's proficiency as a squash player and his status as the most physically fit person on campus has earned him only passing glares; and

"Whereas his commitment to student fashion has made the police foundations program clothing order an international event for the textile industry; and

"Whereas the Kerr family has an outstanding reputation in the community for teaching, and Rick also teaches;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize Rick Kerr's long service and dedication to the Durham College community as

follows."

I'm pleased to send this petition down to the table with Rachel.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is 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 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 Eves government has failed to do so;

"Therefore,

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 I give it to our page Carley Gallagher from Peterborough to bring to the table.

RICK KERR

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): "Whereas Rick Kerr has distinguished himself as a dedicated member of Durham College through 25 years of service;

and

"Whereas his commitment to student success and professionalism has set an outstanding example for Ontario's college education sector; and

"Whereas his nickname of `Captain KPI' should in no way diminish his accomplishments of organizing program mapping when no one else would; and

"Whereas Rick's proficiency as a squash player and his status as the most physically fit person on campus has earned him only passing glares; and

"Whereas his commitment to student fashion has made the police foundations program clothing order an international event for the textile industry; and

"Whereas the Kerr family has an outstanding reputation in the community for teaching, and Rick also teaches;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize Rick Kerr's long service and dedication to Durham College."

I'm proud to present this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have hundreds of signed petitions here from people from Oakville, Kingston, Markham, Toronto,

Cornwall and many other places. It reads as follows:

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

diem, effective August 1, 2002;

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

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

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

and

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

nursing and personal care; and

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

and

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

government support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I agree with the petition and I've signed it accordingly.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

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

"Whereas the Ontario Conservative government hastily amalgamated Niagara's ambulance dispatch services into the Hamilton Central Ambulance Communication

Centre;

"Whereas an independent review of Hamilton Central Ambulance Communication Centre found several major shortcomings, including inexperienced dispatchers, high

call volume and out-of-date equipment, hindering the dispatch of ambulances in Niagara and in other parts of the province;

"Whereas poor training of central ambulance communication centre dispatchers by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has led to improper emergency coding,

resource misallocation and waste and increased wait times for those requiring ambulance services;

"Whereas the Central Ambulance Communication Centre dispatchers are handling 1,300 more calls a year than recommended by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term

Care;

"Whereas these shortcomings in ambulance service restructuring are putting lives at risk in Niagara, Hamilton and throughout the province;

"Whereas the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has been in possession of the independent review since October 31, 2001, which provides recommendations to

greatly improve ambulance dispatch services in Niagara and Hamilton;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately act upon recommendations presented in the independent review of the Central

Ambulance Communication Centre and eliminate the grievous imperfections which are placing our citizens at risk."

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

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Excuse me. I hate to interrupt the conversations going on back and forth across the floor; I really hate

to. But I'm going to, and I will. I'll even stop them if it's necessary.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a further petition dealing with long-term care which is slightly different from the

earlier one I read. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

for nursing and personal care;

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

and

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

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

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

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

"We 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 the

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

government's own funded study."

I also agree with this petition. We request that the government act accordingly and I will file it now with the clerk.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask for

unanimous consent to see if the House would agree to put forward the following motion without debate and have a vote on it:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario ask the CBC to reinstate Ron MacLean.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I think the standing orders define points of order and that probably qualifies, but I'm really

questioning it. But I will ask the members here: is there unanimous consent? No. I assume that was a little frivolous.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUSTAINABLE WATER AND

SEWAGE SYSTEMS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA DURABILITÉ

DES RÉSEAUX D'EAU ET D'ÉGOUTS

Mr Stockwell moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 175,

An Act respecting the cost of water and waste water services / Projet de loi 175, Loi concernant le coût des services d'approvisionnement en eau

et des services relatifs aux eaux usées.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): To start off debate, there will be leadoff time, and that will be used, initially anyway, by the

Minister of Environment and chief government whip.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I'm splitting my time with Mr Martiniuk and Mr Hardeman before I

start my speech.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this bill. I think it's a good bill to have a good debate on. I think it's a bill that we can discuss in rational terms

and come to what I think will be a consensus amongst this House. I'll tell you flat out that I'm not opposed to seeing this bill go to committee. I'm not opposed to seeing this bill dealt with at

committee and amendments offered up by both sides. It's a bill --

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): An hour or two?

Hon Mr Stockwell: No. I think it's a bill that is truly non-partisan, because, obviously, everybody understands the water issue we face today

and the cost of sustainable water and sewage systems in Ontario. It's hard to imagine sewage systems being a political issue. I used to say, on local council, it's hard to believe we can have

political issues on poop-and-scoop bylaws. In a lot of respects you would get down to the point that we all are trying to achieve the same thing with this bill. We're trying to achieve clean, safe

drinking water, properly treated, properly capitalized and properly dealt with for the people of Ontario.

I'm looking forward, frankly, to the discussion on this bill. I don't think it will be a lot of rhetoric. I don't think there is going to be a lot of

hand-wringing and name-calling, because I think we can probably get ourselves together on this one to try and build a bill that the people in Ontario would accept. I know my friend from St

Catharines is stalwart at looking for compromise, never political, hardly ever partisan, and will find his way clear to maintain that apolitical composure he brings to this place and will be

speaking only when he truly wants to speak on certain issues, not just jumping up at any point in the discussions to offer an opinion, get his mug on TV or be looking for CAT scans or anything like

that for his local municipalities.

Petitions would be a perfect example. He brings in a number of good petitions here. We've seen them with two or three people's names on them, so he's obviously

done a lot of road work.

This government is sparing no effort to give Ontario residents access to clean, safe drinking water. We are committed to enforcing the best and toughest

drinking water standards in the world. I think that clearly, from the Walkerton report by Justice O'Connor, and the embracing of that report by the Premier of Ontario, it's fairly obvious. All 93

recommendations were embraced by the Premier and were given his unilateral commitment to move forward, and all those recommendations would be implemented. I don't think there's anyone in this House

who would say that you could have come forward with any more of a ringing endorsement than what the Premier gave to the O'Connor report, or Walkerton two, as it's known in the Legislature.

We must ensure that Ontario's water supply and water services are safe and sustainable for the future. Here may be the wrinkle, and I understand there could be

a bit of a wrinkle with respect to services safe and sustainable. I know that there are going to be members across the floor who want to talk about watershed protection and that there's a lot of

concern that possibly, in Bill 175 and potentially when the Safe Drinking Water Act comes in, we aren't dealing with the watershed protection portion of that.

I can only say to the members opposite that watershed protection is going to take a little bit more time, I think, than Bill 175 or the Safe Drinking Water

Act. First and foremost, you have to basically study and determine exactly what the watershed protection is, what the tributaries are, what the water flow is in Ontario, and determine how best to

go about protecting that. It isn't simply done by passing a piece of legislation. There's a lot of groundwater, a lot of groundwork, no pun intended, that needs to be implemented to ensure you can

do proper watershed protection, can introduce a bill into the Legislature that can in fact do what you want it to do.

Rather than operate willy-nilly on that front, we thought as an administration that it would be better to move forward on the Safe Drinking Water Act component

of it, and on Bill 175, with the third component being the watershed protection. We put out $21 million to the conservation authorities around the province to help assist us in developing this plan

for Ontario. I think I can safely say that I don't think there's anyone on the opposition benches who would oppose that: having the conservation authorities, funded by us by $21 million, assist us

in having a comprehensive review of the watershed in Ontario. That's where we're at, at that point.

We would be pleased to take

part in debate, and I'm very pleased to take part, on the Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act, which is before us today.

Now to the legislation itself. This legislation continues the decisive action we have taken since the summer of 2000 to ensure clean, safe drinking water. We

believe in Commissioner O'Connor's report of the Walkerton Inquiry and, because of that, have committed to implementing all of the 121 recommendations he made. We agree with him that sustainable

municipal water and sewer financing is essential. I think we're all going to have to deal with this in a very pragmatic, systematic way.

We know we need sustainable municipal sewers in Ontario. The question then becomes the financing portion of this process. There is no magic number. There is no

magic person in this Legislature who is going to snap their hands and figure out a financing program for this particular act. The devil is in the details, they often say, and yes, that is the part

of the details that the devil is in fact in: the cost component. There are wide variations of how much it will cost to make it a sustainable, state-of-the-art system for the entire province. Some

of those numbers have operated up in the billions of dollars. But before we can move forward to make those kinds of decisions, we have to pass the act that will allow us to implement them. That

would be Bill 175.

I'm hoping that both the NDP and the Liberal Party will support this bill. I think it's a good bill. I think it's a bill that's down the right road, and I'm

not really sure if there is anything in the context of this bill that they would oppose. Possibly there are things, as I said earlier, that may not be in the bill and that they wanted to see in the

bill, but if they just wait, the time will come with the water protection that will be in the following bill. So I'd be surprised if there is anything in this bill that you would oppose, because

fundamentally it's looking for safe drinking water.

Sustainable financing makes for good planning. It promotes water conservation and will help provide clean, safe water. There has been an argument over the

years about what is clean, safe water and how you make it sustainable, and the cost recovery component. There's an argument made, and I'm not so sure I disagree with it, that as long as you

subsidize water and it doesn't have a full cost recovery component, people will use it differently than if it had a full cost recovery component. If they knew what it cost to turn on the tap, they

might have a better conservation idea about how they should be using water appropriately. If it's subsidized to any great degree and they turn on the tap and don't have an appreciation of the cost

of turning on that tap, they may in fact use it differently.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): How about oxygen? You could do the same thing.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I say to the member for Timmins-James Bay, this is something that your party has often campaigned on, and I'm not so sure

you're all wrong on that one. In a non-partisan way, I think when all is said and done, if you have the total cost of water, people will have a better understanding of what it costs to produce

clean water and they may conserve it to a greater degree than if you subsidize it at a great level. I've heard your party argue that point of view, and I'm not so sure you're all wrong.

I know the member for St Catharines has said that as well, and I think it's important that we determine exactly what it costs to provide water to people's

homes and let them know that's the cost. They will have a better chance of conserving it, in my opinion, if the cost does go up. Obviously, in providing water and these kinds of capital

improvements, the cost of water is probably going to have to go up. Sustainable financing makes for good planning. It promotes, as I said, water conservation.

I'd now like to turn to the details of the proposed bill. If passed, the Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act would require all owners of these systems to

undertake a full-cost accounting of their water and sewer systems. Now, I'll tell you something. It probably happens in jurisdictions around Toronto. I'm not so sure about St Catharines. I think St

Catharines probably has full cost recovery. I look to the member opposite from Don Mills. I know the member for -- I don't know your riding today, but it used to be Riverdale.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Toronto-Danforth.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I know our water is pretty much cost recovery, because we have set aside accounts where we charge people who drink the

water, and that is put into a special account that is spent specifically on water.

In a lot of jurisdictions around the province, it isn't like that. The question then becomes, how much is water subsidized, and how do you afford to make the

capital improvements for clean and sustainable water if you're in a small town of 600 or 700 people and your cost of water improvement under capital programs could total in the neighbourhood of

$200,000, $300,000 or $400,000? That's the question we need to ask. But if we're all committed to providing clean water, I'm sure we can find our way clear to figuring out a capital program that

will help pay for it.

The systems are to undertake a full cost accounting of their water and sewer systems. Detailed analysis would include

all operating and capital costs, all sources of revenue, and the investment required to maintain and expand their systems. A lot of the small communities out there don't have the capacity to expand

their systems as their cities grow. We know that first-hand. I know areas surrounding Windsor and surrounding St Catharines have small communities that don't have the capacity to pay for the water

and the capital improvement costs they need to have clean water.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I heard the comment that we should charge the developers a lot more.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): No, I said that's why they charge developers.

Hon Mr Stockwell: You're right. It's true. In larger urban centres, they can get the money from developers. But in these small, rural

settings, there isn't development, so when they need clean water and capital improvements, there's no developer to charge.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): So they have to go to you.

Hon Mr Stockwell: So they have to come to the provincial government. You're absolutely right. The member for St Catharines is once again

bang-on in answering that. He must have been a great student. I would have loved to be his teacher. He has all the answers, eh, Bob?

Mr Bob Wood (London West): He used to be a teacher.

Hon Mr Stockwell: That's right.

If passed, Bill 175 would also require system owners to develop comprehensive asset management reports and then provide a plan for implementing full cost

recovery. That's the private systems as well. We got them into the situation where the public system and the private system are providing the same clean water. I live in Toronto, and the people in

Toronto have clean water. It's fully cost-recoverable. But when they travel in this great province to outlying posts, to their cottage and so on, they want to be equally certain that the water they

are drinking there --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: -- or Ottawa -- is just as clean as the water they are drinking in Toronto. I think we as a government have a fiduciary

obligation to ensure just that.

If passed, we would implement this bill in two stages. Count on it. The first step is aimed at assessing the full cost of water and sewage services in each

municipality -- that's the first stage. Obviously we've got to figure out much it costs.

The second stage would involve bringing full cost recovery forward in a way that makes sense for municipalities. It hearkens back to the argument I made about

smaller rural settings that don't have the capacity to tax to put those capital improvements in place to provide that kind of water.

I want to be very clear about the apolitical nature of this debate. You can go on and on and on about that, and you can demand and demand and demand. But the

reality is, if certain communities have 60 or 70 homes and their water capital improvement cost is going to be $1.2 million, the simple fact is that they can't afford it. So in the second stage

we're going to have to figure out how we finance this over a long period of time, if we're dealing in billions of dollars. I think everyone agrees that if we're going to do that, we'd better put a

financial plan in place.

Justice O'Connor said, "In my opinion, if passed into law" -- and he was speaking about this act --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Well, it's basically the same act.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: That's a good question. I'll you why. What happened was, when the shuffle came and Mr Bradley got his way and energy and

environment were separated, Mr Baird was put into energy and I stayed as Minister of the Environment. All water-related legislation or activity was put on to the Ministry of the Environment. Bill

155 was at municipal affairs. They moved that over to the Ministry of the Environment. The reason I had to reintroduce it was because it was under municipal affairs. I reintroduced the exact same

bill, only under the Minister of the Environment, to be in order in this august chamber, rather than under the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: It's a matter of splitting hairs, I suppose, but it's exactly the same bill; they just changed the front cover.

So Justice O'Connor said, "In my opinion, if passed into law, the act will address many of the important issues concerning the financing of water systems."

You've got to admit it's a ringing endorsement from a learned man like Justice O'Connor when he says, "If passed into law, the act will address many of the important issues concerning the financing

of water systems." I would ask you in opposition to think about that when you're thinking about voting against this, because when you vote against this bill you're not just voting against the

government, you're not voting against Chris Stockwell, you're not voting against Bob Wood, you're voting against Justice O'Connor, and I don't think anybody would want to do that.

Mr Bradley: Nonsense.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Oh, no, he said that.

Mr Wood: You have a moral duty here.

Hon Mr Stockwell: You have a moral obligation on this one. I'll read again what Justice O'Connor said: "In my opinion, if passed into law, the

act will address many of the important issues concerning the financing of water systems.... The requirements for full cost report and cost recovery plan, as generally expressed in the proposed act,

are in my view appropriate." Now, that's not a ringing endorsement for me. That is from Justice O'Connor, the learned justice who produced the two Walkerton reports that you embraced. I'd hate to

think you would disagree with Mr O'Connor, that you'd go back on what he wanted us to do. I know you won't. I have such great faith in the opposition parties; I know you won't challenge Justice

O'Connor's thinking.

Mr Bradley: That's histrionics.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Histrionics? I know the good members opposite will not challenge Justice O'Connor's thinking.

He also strongly supported the implementation of asset management and full cost recovery plans in relation to drinking water treatment and distribution

systems.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): That's going to be tough.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Again, that's what he said, and here it is in this bill. I know there may be a bit of give and take in the House at times

and a sense of political gamesmanship, but I know the honourable members opposite to be good people and I know they will not vote against recommendations that were in the O'Connor report. I know

that.

I know this bill is not new to the members of this Legislature; it was first introduced in 2001 by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. So with great

respect, you've had a long time to digest the bill, you've had great opportunity to review it and I think you're fairly well read on this issue.

Mr Bradley: Why didn't you proceed with it in the fall?

Hon Mr Stockwell: That's the same question your friend Mr Caplan just asked. When you got your way and they separated environment and energy,

and energy went to Baird, water was put into environment. Look, the Premier listened very carefully to you and said, "OK, Bradley has a good point." So we separated them and I got all the water

management asset decisions. So I'm looking to you knowing that you won't want to disagree with your decision to separate the ministries and you don't want to argue with Justice O'Connor. It's a

fait accompli. I'm not even worried. You'll vote in favour. Even if your own caucus is opposed, I know you're in favour.

The Ministry of Environment is now bringing the bill forward, in keeping with the Premier's announcement in August that I would have responsibility for leading

Ontario's comprehensive water strategy, which Mr Bradley was calling for for a number of months.

There is good reason for tabling this act at this time as well. In the months since the previous bill was tabled, the Walkerton inquiry concluded, Commissioner

O'Connor made far-reaching recommendations, as members of this House know. We're implementing all of them. I say to the member for Toronto-Danforth: that's something, isn't it? Have you ever seen a

government take a recommendation such as the Walkerton report and say categorically, "We are implementing every single recommendation in that report"?

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: There you are. You're late. Do you have a late slip?

Commissioner O'Connor made far-reaching recommendations and, as members of this House know, we're implementing all of them.

Consultation is essential. I believe in consultation. I consult as often and in as wide and varied a way as possible. I consult with members opposite; I

consult with their constituents. As we have done with the proposed Safe Drinking Water Act and are currently doing with regulations for nutrient management -- two other wonderful acts, I might add,

that I'd be very, very surprised if the opposition opposed. Frankly, it would be unusual to see them oppose those two bills, which work toward the same goal. Again, Justice O'Connor said we should

be doing those two things. I don't even expect a lot of debate on this. Justice O'Connor said, "Let's do this," and we're bringing a bill forward. They've all said they agree with Walkerton. I

don't expect a lot of debate. They're probably going to whistle this through.

We encourage public and stakeholder involvement. We will hold extensive meetings with our municipal partners and others to ensure that decisions made on this

bill make sense. I am telling you that I'm prepared to listen. I want to go to committee, and I want to hear the amendments the opposition brings forward. This is a non-partisan approach, and I

think it's good if you have good amendments that live up to the spirit and design of the Justice O'Connor Walkerton report -- and I think we should bear in mind the spirit and design of Justice

O'Connor's report. Those are the kinds of amendments that can make this bill stronger, and we will embrace them.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I would hate to see that we'd ever get to time allocation on a Justice O'Connor bill. It would be a frightful day for the

opposition to stand up in this place and suggest they actually expect time allocation on the Justice O'Connor Walkerton report bill. We're hearing potential time allocation? Oh my goodness.

Interjection: It's practically obstruction.

Hon Mr Stockwell: That is obstruction, and we don't want to see that. We do not want to see that on the Walkerton report bill. That would be

just unbelievable. I was fully expecting total co-operation. I thought we'd whistle this through in no time flat.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: We will. Let's go down to committee. Let's get this out of here and on to committee and public hearings as soon as we can --

bada-bing, bada-boom, as they say they say in that radio commercial. I can't believe Mr Caplan is suggesting he's going to hold this bill up. I don't want to tell the good people of Ontario that Mr

Caplan is planning to hold this bill up, forcing the government into time allocation. Surely you can't be serious. Surely your conscious won't allow that; it can't possibly. I'll pretend you didn't

say that.

We want to hear from people who will be most directly affected. They have the experience and expertise to come up with the needed solutions.

Dollars and cents -- this is kind of cute, because the "cents" is "sense." So it's not just "cents," it's "sense." That's a little play on words.

The Ernie Eves government is investing more than half a billion dollars in the next two years on clean, safe drinking water for the people of Ontario -- half a

billion dollars alone in the next two years. The government will deliver on its budget commitment to establish a $50-million clean water legacy trust and a Clean Water Centre of Excellence in

Walkerton. The parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of the Environment, Bill Murdoch, the hard-working member for Grey, was in Walkerton just last week announcing to the people of Walkerton

that we are moving forward on the centre of excellence. I must tell you how warmly he was received there and how excited they are about the centre of excellence in Walkerton.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Stockwell: There's a heckle. I'm not quite certain what it means, but we can chit-chat after.

I want to tell you how well received he was and well received was this idea of the report. I've met with the people of Walkerton, the committee in Walkerton

who want to talk about the centre of excellence. Their concept for the centre of excellence in Walkerton dovetails nicely with what the Conservative government believes the centre should be as

well. So there's going to be $50 million set aside -- it has been set aside. We're starting to march down that path to get the centre of excellence up and running with the full support of the

people of Walkerton, the full support of the parliamentary assistant member from Grey -- Walkerton is in his riding -- full support from the Premier's office and, no doubt, and I may be speaking

out of turn here, with full support from my good friends the honourable members across the floor. I know the member for Toronto-Danforth would not oppose and will not hold up the centre of

excellence in Walkerton. I know she won't. I know it. She is an honourable member.

It will provide access to the best scientific knowledge, research and technology and training in the management and monitoring of our safe drinking water. It

will be a centre of excellence. It's where people will come from around the world to learn the up-to-date technologies of how to assess drinking water and assure you of safe drinking water.

I look forward to seeing this come about. I look forward to stopping spitting on Bob Wood.

Mr Wood: It's happened before. Don't worry about it.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I look forward to seeing this centre of excellence open and I'm excited about it. I'm excited for the people of Walkerton,

I'm excited for the people of Ontario and I'm equally excited for the opposition members, because now I know they will have an opportunity to come together and vote as one for the good people of

Walkerton and the province of Ontario.

To date, our government has provided municipalities and conservation authorities with over $14 million to conduct ground