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

November 5, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Nov-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 5 November 2002 Mardi 5 novembre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES

LEGISLATION

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

COST OF ELECTRICAL POWER

SOCIAL SERVICES

OWEN SOUND SALMON

SPECTACULAR FISHING DERBY

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

HYDRO RATES

WILMOT CREEK VETERANS PROJECT

VISITORS

WEARING OF PINS

DISTRIBUTION OF LETTER

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND

HYDRO DEREGULATION

HYDRO RATES

TELEMARKETING PRACTICES

HYDRO DEREGULATION

BIOSOLID MANAGEMENT

HYDRO DEREGULATION

RACIAL PROFILING

CHATSWORTH FISH HATCHERY

SLOT MACHINES

AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION

HYDRO DEREGULATION

SLOT MACHINES

VISITORS

PETITIONS

HYDRO RATES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

HIGHWAY 69

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

SERVICES DE SANTÉ POUR ENFANTS /

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

CHILD CARE

DÉRÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

SLOT MACHINES

Tuesday 5 November 2002 Mardi 5 novembre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES

LEGISLATION

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): One year ago today, Citizenship Minister Cam Jackson introduced the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

This, by the way, is the minister who gave new meaning to the phrase "meeting with stakeholders." Many of my Conservative colleagues have said, "How is the act working? Can we have an update on

it?" I'm pleased to provide that today.

Since one year ago today, of the 13 major new commitments that were promised to Ontarians with disabilities, none have been kept.

One year after appointing a new provincial advisory council, only five of 12 have been appointed -- not one woman.

One year ago today, this government committed to working to launch an incentive program to get all sectors to work together to remove and prevent barriers. No

program has been announced. Cam Jackson promised no new barriers. Fifty special education teachers were laid off in Ottawa, a major barrier to special-ed students.

Former Citizenship Minister Isabel Bassett committed to amend the Ontario building code. Consultation took place in the winter of 2001. The reforms were passed

in the spring of this year. Not one new measure included anything on disability access.

Your government said that you would lead by example. Over the seven years, you are still working to try to make your own Web sites accessible.

As far as private industry goes, Pizza Pizza in Toronto clearly demonstrated that they will not provide access to Ontarians with disabilities.

Ontarians with disabilities say to your government, "Where's the beef?"

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): Honourable members, I rise to remind members that November is Wife Assault Prevention Month in Ontario. This is the

17th year that we have recognized this month to highlight the gravity of domestic violence. As we increase awareness, we also underline our commitment to ending it.

Every person has the right to live in safety. The government of Ontario does not tolerate violence against women or their children. Preventing domestic violence

is everyone's responsibility. We need to engage all Ontarians to end domestic violence.

Last September, this government expanded its commitment with a series of new initiatives, bringing spending for 2002-03 to more than $160 million. Since 1995,

spending to combat domestic violence has increased by 70%. While this government continues to improve supports and services for women who experience violence, provincial ministries, community

agencies, courts and lawmakers alone cannot solve this problem. It is a challenge that must be tackled by the whole community. We know there is more to be done, and I encourage all Ontarians to

play a

part in stopping violence against women and children and to help make Ontario a safer place for everyone.

A husband and father's first role is to protect his family. Let's end the abuse now.

COST OF ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): The latest attack on our families, on our businesses and on our communities continues as the

Harris-Eves government's electricity fiasco is nearly bankrupting Ontarians.

Yesterday I met with close to 200 constituents, a lot of them unable to afford to pay their electricity bills. Most of the people I met with are Great Lakes

Power customers. Great Lakes Power is a private company -- I repeat, private company. It was before; it still is. Great Lakes Power used to provide power to customers at very competitive rates and

did so for many decades. I assume they made a profit doing it. However, the Harris-Eves government has forced Great Lakes Power rates through the roof.

Premier, you have rushed forward in this ideologically driven government without regard for the people of Ontario, and it must be reconsidered. For example,

Dubreuil Forest Products has now announced layoffs. They have announced these layoffs because of a 154% increase in the price of their electricity. Russell Reid of the Algoma public school board

warned of school closures, teacher layoffs and classroom cutbacks because of increases to the school system's electrical bills. Frank Buerkle of Lady Dunn Hospital says he will have to cut services

just to keep the lights on. Gilles Begin of the Wawa Valu-Mart tells us that his bill has gone from $5,000 to $10,000 a month. He will not be able to keep his grocery store open.

Stop the rip-off. We need the rebates now and affordable electricity rates right now.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I just returned from the Kimberly Rogers inquest in Sudbury. Kimberly died while pregnant and living in

inhumane conditions as a result of the Conservative government's social assistance policies and cuts. I find it disturbing that a woman and her unborn child died. This government's policies likely

contributed to their deaths, and Premier Eves doesn't even think the ministry responsible needs to be at the inquest. Conservative government policies are costing people their lives. Premier Eves

should take responsibility for his government's mistakes, send representation from the ministry to take

part in the inquest and implement the major policy changes needed to ensure that no one else

dies.

Speaking of dying, have you heard the one about the homeless people who found an abandoned building and fixed it up so that they didn't have to live on the

streets? All Premier Eves needs to do is sign the building over to the city of Toronto, who have agreed to turn it into affordable housing. Has he done this? No. Just as the weather is turning cold

and the nights are going below freezing, the Conservative government ordered the forceful eviction of the people living there. People are freezing to death on our streets and Premier Eves still

thinks investing in social programs is a joke. Nothing about the Conservative government's actions is funny.

It's time for Premier Eves to show some leadership. Invest in affordable housing. Stop the lifetime ban on social assistance, and commit right here today to sign

over the Pope Squat property to the city of Toronto so they can immediately begin to build affordable housing so that more people don't die on the streets this winter.

OWEN SOUND SALMON

SPECTACULAR FISHING DERBY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I rise in the House today to congratulate the success of an event in my riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound

which took place on Saturday, August 31. It was the 15th annual Owen Sound Salmon Spectacular fishing derby. Many members in this House took time to enjoy the festivities and travelled to Owen

Sound for the event. I would like to thank Minister Jerry Ouellette, Morley Kells, Minister Frank Klees, Gary Carr, Joe Tascona and Ted Arnott for joining in. You all made the day more

spectacular.

The 10-day event is one of the largest and longest-running fishing derbies across North America. Co-chairs of the event Fred Geberdt and Rob Wilson, the derby

committee and the hundreds of volunteers are to be commended for their long, hard work and dedication throughout the year in preparation for this event.

The event is held annually by the Sydenham Sportsmen's Association, which is an active outdoor club across Ontario of which I am a proud member. The derby

attracts anglers from all over North America and Europe. The proceeds go toward helping many fisheries and conservation projects, including operating the club's salmon and trout hatcheries. The

success of these hatcheries includes the production of over 300,000 salmon and trout a year, all maintained through volunteer work.

The Sydenham Sportsmen's Association is to be praised for their ongoing contribution and dedication to local conservation. I look forward to next year's salmon

spectacular and hope all members of this House will be able to attend the 16th annual fishing derby.

Mr Speaker, as I say, this is one of the great derbies across Canada, and I thank you for being there also.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): There is a strong wind blowing from the Kawarthas, bringing the call for change, a call for a return to

democracy in Lindsay, Bobcaygeon, Fenelon Falls, Omemee, Sturgeon Point and Bexley. All across the Kawarthas people are fed up with a government that didn't listen to them, that forced amalgamation

on them. Former Minister Clement didn't give them a say on amalgamation.

Now they're saying they're fed up with this megacity, where their taxes have gone up 30%, 40% and 50% in these small towns. The people in Fenelon are fed up. The

people in Bobcaygeon are saying that this undemocratic dictatorship out of Queen's Park never gave them a say. In fact, Minister Clement even took away their name and gave them a name they didn't

want. They want a return to Victoria county. They want their identity back. They want their low taxes back. They are calling for a full-fledged referendum so they can have a say on how they're

governed in those small communities. They're fed up with being dictated to by the present member, who doesn't listen to them.

We had crowds here asking to be heard and petitions from Fenelon and Bobcaygeon. There were 650 people in the local arena in Manvers saying, "We want our

democracy back." They're going to get it back. We're supporting a call for a referendum in Victoria county.

Long live Victoria county -- forever. Long live democracy.

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): The 50th season of the Stratford Festival opened on April 24 with All's Well that Ends Well. As this historic

season draws to an end, it's apparent that the Stratford Festival is very well indeed.

This year the Stratford Festival once again sold more than 600,000 tickets and opened a fourth theatre.

The Stratford Festival success also means success for countless bed and breakfasts, hotels, motels, restaurants and shops in Stratford and the surrounding area.

Visitors to the festival account for about 12% of southwestern Ontario's tourism. They spend an estimated $12.5 million on accommodation and a total of about $170 million in the region.

This year the program was scheduled to end on November 10. However, demand for tickets was so high that they've added two extra weeks of My Fair Lady. If any

members of this House have yet to make it to the performance this year, there is still time left to see Cynthia Dale recite and sing, "The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain."

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the management of the Stratford Festival, especially artistic director Richard Monette and executive director

Antoni Cimolino, and thank everyone involved in the festival for their contributions.

HYDRO RATES

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Murray Campbell from the Globe dubbed the government "the Seinfeld administration" because it's

about nothing. These days, the government caucus is doing their best imitation of George Costanza.

People like Frank Mazzilli, Cam Jackson and Brad Clark are so worried about themselves that they're panicking. They're pushing everyone aside to get out of the

way of the Ernie Eves hydro disaster. They remind me of that Seinfeld episode where a fire starts at a children's birthday party. Instead of calmly leading the children to safety, George panics. He

rushes out the door, pushes the children aside, tramples his girlfriend and breaks her grandmother's arm.

Interjection: Your name is George.

Mr Smitherman: I don't have a girlfriend. When the police question George about his cowardly behaviour and knocking over a grandmother, George's

excuse is, "We needed a leader." My only hope these days is that the so-called leaders rushing to abandon Ernie Eves and his hydro rate hijacking don't injure Margaret Marland when they bolt for

the door.

And poor Ernie. He clearly is no longer master of his domain. The outcry against his hydro rate hijacking has gotten so bad, I hear he's got them answering the

phone in the Premier's office, "Vandelay Industries."

The Ernie Eves government truly is the Seinfeld administration.

WILMOT CREEK VETERANS PROJECT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): That's a difficult act to follow. I am pleased to rise in the House today to pay tribute to a project in the Wilmot

Creek community that honours allied veterans of World War II and those who served in the Korean conflict.

The Wilmot Creek adult community has compiled the names of 201 veterans who are current or former residents. These names have been inscribed on a memorial scroll

that is to be hung in a place of honour in the Wheelhouse Auditorium. The veterans in many communities are part of a living heritage, and I would like to congratulate all the residents of Wilmot

Creek for their support of this project.

Special thanks are due to Madge Cadan, who first suggested the idea of the honour roll to the homeowners' association. Her committee members include Norm Baker,

Frank Smith, Frank Boyle, Doreen Carpenter and others too numerous to mention. I would also like to commend David Rice and Ridge Pine Park for their contribution to the project by framing the

scroll and building a memorial garden with a plaque in honour of this special purpose. Thanks also go to Bruce Hadji, president of the Wilmot Creek homeowners' association, and members of the board

such as Don Bower, who supports the project enthusiastically.

The honour roll and plaque will be dedicated this Saturday, November 9, in a ceremony that will include the federal Minister of Veterans Affairs, Rey Pagtakhan,

invited guests and the Wilmot Creek community. I will look forward to attending myself. This is just one of the many events taking place in my riding of Durham this weekend. All of us paid time to

respect the veterans who gave their lives to support our freedoms.

VISITORS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm proud to have from the great riding of Essex a legislative page, Maureen

Balsillie. With us today in the members' west gallery are her mother Leslie, father Doug, sister Janelle and sister Amelia. Please welcome the Balsillie family from Essex.

WEARING OF PINS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have two points of order relating to the same issue. Number one,

November is Adoption Awareness Month and I would ask for unanimous consent to wear this multi-coloured pin to represent this month. That's the first point.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

DISTRIBUTION OF LETTER

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The second point of order -- and I just want some clarification on this. I came in before the Legislature

opened this afternoon and distributed from me, an honourable member in this Legislature, on every member's desk a letter from me about my adoption bill, Bill 77. When I came back in I found that

they had all been picked up, that the pages were ordered to collect them and I had to redistribute them, which I just did.

I want some clarification. I have done this before in the past. I am an honourable member here. I provided a letter from me to all other honourable members in

this chamber and I'd like to know what the problem is.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It is that you can do that to the members when they're here. We don't allow any member to distribute anything

before because if we do that, the desks will become cluttered, with all members doing that. The only thing we do is, as you know, there is advisement relating to the Legislature to remind members

for committee work. If you need to do that, you have to do it when the members are here. If they come in early and they are laid on the members' desks, we will remove them. So I would ask all

members' co-operation in that. We don't allow anyone to do that. If you have gotten away with that in the past, it was only inadvertently that we didn't catch it. So I would ask all members'

co-operation. If you want to distribute something, you must do it after we begin seating, not before.

Ms Churley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wanted to thank you for your ruling and to thank Mr Murdoch from the Tory caucus for

distributing these to his caucus.

The Speaker: I thank the member, who is always helpful.

VISITORS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to bring the attention of the House to visitors up in the gallery today. They

are grade 11 students from Pauline Johnson Collegiate in Brantford, my alma mater, and their teacher, Jeff Goodall. They got lost in the mall or something and that's why they're a little late, but

I'd like to welcome them to the House to watch democracy in action.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to welcome the grade 10 class from Oakwood Collegiate, who

have come here today to pay us a visit. Let's welcome them as well.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Donald and Kathleen Robertson and Martha Lewis, grandparents and aunt to our page Alexander Steele, are in the

House today from Cambridge and Ingersoll. Welcome.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I would draw to the attention to the members of the House in the opposition gallery, although

constituents of the Honourable Brad Clark of the riding of Stoney Creek: my partner, Denise Doyle's family, Paul and Helen Brenton and their two children, Lucas and Kelli, are here today.

Welcome.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale referred to

something about me being hit as somebody was coming through a door. I just wanted to assure the House that I'm actually very fit, capable and able and I have not sustained such an injury to which

he refers.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Let's not get into it. It's OK. It was all done in fun, I believe.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My questions today are to the Premier and they are on a matter of the utmost importance to the

people of our province, families and businesses alike: hydro.

Premier, people all across Ontario are expressing their outrage at what you have done to their hydro bills. We've heard from families, seniors on fixed

incomes, small and large businesses, charities, and even legion halls who are telling us that they simply cannot afford to pay their hydro bills.

Here's a specific case. Suzanne Fairweather lives in Richmond Hill. She was laid off in April and she's trying to find work. She is struggling to make ends

meet. Her hydro bill has now doubled on your watch. She is terrified that she will no longer be able to afford her house.

There are hundreds and thousands of people like Suzanne right across the province. They can't wait any longer for help. They're looking to you. You created

this mess; it's up to you to take responsibility. They want to know about this rebate you've been talking about. When, Premier, are you going to help these people by providing them with a

rebate?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): There are many factors that go into determining what hydro rates are. We

acknowledge and we understand that there are many people across the province who are having difficulty with respect to, especially, the months of July, August and September, and the size of those

bills and the amount that the rates went up. We understand that. The Minister of Energy is working with a team of individuals to produce a plan that will respond not only to the immediate situation

with respect to rates but also to the intermediate and long-term solution for supply in the future as well.

Mr McGuinty: It's wonderful to hear the Premier express that he feels the pain being experienced by the people of Ontario and that he is

actively pursuing some kind of a plan. Premier, why in the heck did you not prepare some kind of an intelligent, responsible plan before you let this thing unfold in the province of Ontario? You

know, there was a small minority of people left in the province who assumed that somehow there was some minimum level of competence over there when it came to setting up this structure. It is

non-existent.

Let me tell you about another case. The Inn of the Good Shepherd is a non-profit agency in Sarnia. They've got a client on social assistance who has a hydro

bill of $600. His power is going to be shut off today. He's terrified that if he loses his power, children's aid will come and take away his children. The Inn of the Good Shepherd doesn't have

enough money to help him out. The best they can do for him is to offer him a food package.

Premier, I say to you again: you created this mess. You created yet another crisis. You didn't lay the groundwork properly and the people of Ontario are paying

a terrible price. I ask you again: why are you not going to help Ontarians today? Where is the rebate that they need today?

Hon Mr Eves: With respect to the specific question, I presume that the relative utility will act in a responsible fashion and the individual's

power, indeed, will not be cut off.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I have no idea why you make that assumption. Something else you had better check into: those people who are on social

assistance today in the province of Ontario -- you haven't made any provision whatsoever, of any kind, to help out people who find themselves on social assistance, who find themselves in dire

straits as a result of one new factor you've introduced, and that's an exorbitant hydro bill. Nothing has been done on your part to help those people.

Here are a few more cases, since you seem to be unaware of what's happening on this issue. Chris Grant in Ottawa: his bill went from an average of $200 to $420

a month. Sue Clark in Ottawa, on ODSP: her bill went from $53 to $112. Mark Powell, Stoney Creek: last year's bill, $135; this year, $253. Ian McQueen, Stoney Creek: last year's bill averaged $70 a

month; this year it's $180 per month. Howell Printing Co in Toronto: last year they were paying $89 per kilowatt hour; this year, $172 per kilowatt hour. People are experiencing pain as a result of

your gross mismanagement and incompetence on the hydro file. These people need help, and they need it today. I ask you again, on their behalf, where is the rebate?

Hon Mr Eves: It's great to be the leader of the official opposition and take a negative point of view on every single thing that happens. I

would like the leader of the official opposition to predict for the House now what the weather will be like next July, August and September. I'd like him to predict now how many megawatts of power

will be coming on stream next year at this time.

The reality is that there were some 2,000 megawatts of power that Pickering was supposed to have on-line that are not on-line. The reality is that 800

megawatts of power at Bruce were off, when they were expected to be on, because of a mistake made during routine maintenance. The reality is that we had the hottest summer on record in 50 years.

The reality is that rates for residential consumers between May and now have gone up about 23% on average. That is the reality. We understand that even that is too high, and we will be taking

specific action to deal not only with the rebate, but with the interim and long-term supply of energy in the province as well.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is again to the Premier. The reality is that you promised us lower rates. The

reality is that you failed to take the necessary and cautious steps to get this right. The reality is that the people of Ontario today are being hurt as a result of your gross mismanagement and

incompetence on the hydro file. That is the painful reality.

Premier, we are now stuck in a situation where we have the worst of all worlds. We have skyrocketing hydro bills, we have a shortage of supply and we have a

private sector that has effectively turned its back on you and said they wouldn't touch this situation with a 28-foot pole. You've left us with the worst of all worlds.

My question to you Premier is, now that we understand you have created a crisis in terms of a shortage of supply, what specifically is your plan to bring more

supply to the province of Ontario?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We will be delivering our plan in due course, but I want to correct a few

things that he said. The leader of the official opposition --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: They weren't fed today in caucus.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Member for Windsor West, come to order, please. There was patience while the leader of the official opposition

asked his question. There was quiet. I'm going to insist on the other side as well. The people of the province want to hear the leader of the official opposition and the Premier, not the rest of

the backbenchers yelling at each other, and if we have to throw people out, we will. They're capable of providing their own sides on the issue; they don't need the help of people shouting in their

ears. Sorry, Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition certainly will know that investment by the private sector and the energy sector is

experiencing great international difficulties. According to Cambridge Energy Research Associates, in the first quarter of this year alone, 50,000 megawatts of power projects in the United States of

America were cancelled or put on hold; 20,000 were cancelled outright, and 30,000 were put on hold pending changes in circumstances.

The situation we are experiencing in the province of Ontario is no different than it is in the United States of America or other places internationally at this

time. We, like those other jurisdictions, will deal with the problem within our own jurisdiction.

Mr McGuinty: You tell us you're working feverishly now to develop some kind of plan to meet our supply needs. I ask you again, why did you not

prepare that plan and execute it properly long before we came to this situation? Why are we desperately scrambling today to build new supply?

Here are the facts, Premier: you mismanaged Pickering. We're short some 2,000 megawatts there. We still don't have our ties in place to the province of Quebec.

We're not going to get what we should be getting there. The NDP graciously cancelled any proposal we had to establish linkages with Manitoba. We find ourselves once more in a terrible crisis of

shortage of supply as a result of your mismanagement. This was all able to be anticipated. You could have predicted it, Premier. I ask you again, what specifically are you going to do to bring more

supply to Ontario?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition knows, in response to an answer to one of his first three questions, that what was supposed

to be on-line was 2,000 megawatts of power at Pickering and another 800 at Bruce that was down for maintenance for tubes that were damaged during routine maintenance, and of course we needed a

particularly high influx of power into this jurisdiction during the months of July, August and September because of the warmest summer on record in 50 years.

Maybe the leader of the official opposition has a great plan that is going to control temperatures in Ontario next July, August and September. I know what your

plan is: your plan is to build a Beck 3, put it on-stream and create 650 megawatts of power, and take out 6,500 in coal-powered plants at the same time, leaving you with a net deficit of about

5,800 megawatts of power. That is your plan.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): Call an election. Take it to the people.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Vaughan-King-Aurora, come to order, please. The leader of the official opposition for his final

supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Let's see if we've got this right. The Premier blames Mother Nature for our supply problems today in the province. He blames

international markets. He blames Pickering, which you happen to be responsible for, sir, ultimately. At various courses during the course of the summer you blamed Ontarians for using too much

electricity. I suggest to you that what you might want to do, when it comes to assigning blame for the crisis in which we find ourselves, is take a look in a mirror. One more time, Premier, you

created this mess. You have put us in a serious predicament. I ask you specifically, what are you going to do to bring more supply to the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Eves: The only person in this Legislature assigning blame is the member sitting directly opposite. He's very good at that. You see, on

this side of the House, we have to deal with the real world. We don't have Tinker Bell advising us with respect to our energy policies for the future.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. May I say, it's interesting to watch Liberals and Conservatives argue

back and forth about who would deregulate the most and who would privatize hydro the most.

Premier, this morning you finally admitted what everyone else in the province has known for some time: that hydro deregulation and privatization is a disaster

for consumers. Your comment of, "Well, sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong," I think really doesn't speak to what consumers are feeling. I think your caucus members Mr Mazzilli and Mr

Murdoch had it right when they said, "This is a crisis for people," because people have to pay the sky-high hydro bills. My question, Premier, is this: now that you've admitted you were wrong, will

you finally do the right thing and cancel hydro deregulation and privatization?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will give the leader of the third party this much: at least he's consistent

about this issue.

Just to correct the record with respect to what was said in the scrum, what I said was, "People have to make judgment calls on the facts in front of them at

the time, and there are some factors that crop up that nobody could have thought about." That is what I said in my scrum, not what he is alleging I said.

The reality is that over a period of time, we on this side of the House happen to believe that competition will be a good thing. There were several factors

that intervened this summer that have resulted in a rise in electricity prices to the consumers of Ontario of about 23%, from May 1 until now. We will take steps to address that, we will take steps

to address those consumers' concerns with respect to a rebate program, and we will take steps to address the intermediate and long-term supply of hydro in the province.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you talk as if suddenly you became aware of this. Were you not aware of California? Were you not aware of what happened

in Alberta, that the Alberta government had to fork out over $2 billion to try to hide the deregulation fiasco from hydro consumers in Alberta? Are you not aware that today in Montana they are

actually voting to do away with hydro deregulation there? Have you ignored the advice of the Consumer Federation of America which came out a year ago saying, "Don't do this. Yes, it results in huge

profits for companies like Enron, but it's a disaster for consumers"?

Where were you and your government when from all across North America the warning signs were coming over the last year that hydro deregulation is a consumer

disaster? Where were you? Why weren't you listening and watching? Why wasn't your government listening to what's going on elsewhere in the world? What is your excuse?

Hon Mr Eves: This isn't the state of California; this is Ontario. We're in the country of Canada. The jurisdiction in Ontario is capable of

producing more power than it actually needs from time to time. Nobody could have predicted that OPG and Pickering would not be ready to go by now, nobody could have predicted that a tube would be

damaged at Bruce while they were doing routine maintenance and nobody could have predicted the weather we've had, let alone the fact that the federal government would choose to charge GST on a debt

reduction charge.

What we could do, though, is be guided by the IMO and the Ontario Energy Board, both of whom wrote letters to the then Minister of Energy on April 24 of this

year saying that from an adequacy of supply point of view and a retail market point of view, the government would be quite proper and would be acting responsibly, as a matter of fact, to open the

market on May 1.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you talk as if on the one hand it was just hot weather and on the other hand you couldn't have anticipated that maybe

some generating stations would have to go down. But other jurisdictions were telling you that when you deregulate and privatize hydro, you create the incentives for profit-driven companies to do

just that: to withdraw generation, to manipulate the market, to engage in price-fixing and gouging of consumers. All of that was on the record and your government did nothing.

I want to ask you from the perspective of the York region school board, whose hydro costs are up 40% -- that's $2.9 million -- over what they were last year at

this time. They can't afford those prices. They're not getting any more money out of the funding formula. Will you finally do the right thing now -- you've admitted you're wrong -- and cancel hydro

privatization and deregulation?

Hon Mr Eves: We are going to address the issue of a rate increase. We're going to address that. We are not going to address the issue of a

volume increase -- if consumers make a decision to use more electricity, that is their decision -- but we will compensate them for an increase in the rate.

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

Mr Hampton: Premier, you and the Liberals banter back and forth about, "Should it be a rebate or should it be a price cap?" I want to remind

you -- because your energy minister, Jim Wilson, used to remind us. He said, "Oh, don't put in place a price cap. That's what they did in California, and when they put in place a price cap the

whole system melted down."

You and the Liberals can banter back and forth about who wants to deregulate the fastest, who wants to privatize the fastest, who wants to deregulate the most

and privatize the most, and who would give the most lucrative price cap or the most lucrative rebate, but the problem is deregulation. In Alberta, the price that people pay at the bottom of the

bill is up. In California, the price that people pay at the bottom of the bill is up. In Montana, it's up four times over what it was before privatization.

Will you recognize that rebates and price caps are a temporary thing? They will not solve the endemic problems of hydro deregulation. That's what people want

you to do. Will you end it?

Hon Mr Eves: As I said in response to the leader of the third party's initial question, at least he's consistent. He believes that during the

past 50 years the old Ontario Hydro ringing up a debt of $38 billion wasn't costing anybody anything, just like he believed that when his party took over control of the purse strings of the

province, a debt that went from about $69 billion to $114 billion or $115 billion wasn't hurting the average taxpayer at all either. As a result of those actions you took and the huge increase in

debt of all kinds, whether it be with Ontario Hydro, whether it be with the province of Ontario, whether it be with the Workers' Compensation Board in terms of unfunded liability, today it costs

the Ontario taxpayer over $10 billion a year in interest payments alone because of the credit card you ran up.

You sat at the cabinet table, you ran up the charge, and now you're asking everybody else to pay for it. That's where your philosophy gets you in time, but of

course you aren't around to answer the bell now that you have tied the Ontario taxpayer with a debt of over $115 billion, resulting in over $10 billion a year in interest payments alone. How are

you going to pay that back?

Mr Hampton: Premier, just to give you a little recollection of history, you were the government when Darlington was built. You were the

government, with help from the Liberals, when Darlington went from a $5-billion nuclear plant to a $15-billion nuclear plant, a $10-billion cost overrun. That was your government, with the help of

the Liberals.

You, Premier, are the one who has put almost all the money, $2.5 billion over the last three years, back into nuclear. You're the person who's running up the

hydro debt and you're the person who is forcing people across this province to not only pay that, but pay the profiteers, the commission takers and the fee takers.

Premier, this question comes from the Hamilton credit counselling centre, who point out that people just can't afford to pay their bills. Will you recognize

that you can't fool people with a temporary rebate and recognize that hydro deregulation and privatization is wrong for both you and the Liberals? Cancel it now.

Hon Mr Eves: It seems to me I can recall a certain party supporting everything the Liberal Party did between 1985 and 1987, when you're

talking about those Darlington expenditures that David Peterson's government thought were great and invested billions of dollars in. And I seem to recall the Bob Rae government investing $5 billion

in NUGs that don't produce one single kilowatt of energy. Why did you spend that $5 billion and where did that go? Why don't you tell the people in the gallery that, Howard?

HYDRO RATES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the Premier: Premier, the mess you've created in hydro, as I said earlier, is

hitting everybody hard: families, businesses, charities and legion halls. It's also going to affect the government's funding partners. I'm wondering if you're giving that some thought. Hydro bills

are hitting your funding partners like schools, universities, colleges and hospitals. These large institutions are going to be faced with enormous hydro bills they could not possibly have

anticipated.

Premier, can you tell Ontario families who rely on hospitals, who rely on our schools and who rely on our colleges and universities what exactly you are going

to do to make sure programs are not cut in order to pay for your failure to control hydro costs?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Now there doesn't appear to be too much difference between the leader of the

official opposition and the leader of the third party in terms of controlling different costs. They both seem to think that by socialist intervention, they can control the price of just about

everything in our society.

We will take care of hospitals, as we did this year with a 7.74% increase to their budget, an $8-billion-a-year increase in health care funding in the province

of Ontario, since we became the government -- $8 billion a year. If your federal cousins in Ottawa did as well, they'd be spending between $20 billion and $30 billion more a year on health care,

and they're not. So I would ask you to use your good offices to phone your good friend Jean Chrétien and ask him where the $20 billion a year is.

Mr McGuinty: That is quite a creative flight of fancy. How can we go from hydro bills being paid by schools in Ontario to something somehow

connected with the federal government? I can understand why the Premier doesn't want to talk about hydro, but you're going to have to sooner or later.

I'm talking about institutions that are funded by the government to provide essential services: health care for our families, education for our kids. You're

putting those transfer partners into an impossible situation where they're going to have to choose between keeping the lights on or keeping the programs going.

Hamilton Health Sciences centre, an institution which is struggling today -- they just recently made the decision to let 250 people go -- tell us that their

hydro bill this year will increase by $2.2 million. The Greater Essex County District School Board estimates their hydro bill will soar this year by more than $500,000. Every single hospital, every

single school board, every single university and college is going to be hit with extravagant increases. Parents and families want some assurance from you, Premier, as the man who created this mess,

that programs won't be cut in their schools, their hospitals, their colleges or their universities. Will you guarantee that right now?

Hon Mr Eves: We will take care of our transfer partners with respect to increases in hydro rates. But I don't want the leader of the official

opposition to stand in his place and leave an impression with the public out there. The Hamilton Health Sciences centre, the very centre that he talks about, this year received an increase in base

funding of $36 million, or 8.5%, bringing their annual total to $464.6 million, and we supplied them with an additional $2.6 million in one-time funding in this fiscal year -- a far, far cry from

what Elinor Caplan did when she was Minister of Health in this province. We are spending $8 billion more a year on health care; we are $8 billion more committed to health care in this province than

you were.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Come to order. We've had our little fun. Come to order. We will start the clock again.

TELEMARKETING PRACTICES

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member for Windsor West, this is her last warning. If I have to get up again, I will remove you.

You can start all over, member for Scarborough Centre.

Ms Mushinski: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. I'm particularly concerned about telemarketers who are using

Ontario as a base to scam Americans and people in other jurisdictions. Specifically, concerns have been raised about deceptive telemarketers who are peddling phony credit cards with a one-time

advance fee. These scam artists look for the most --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Ms Mushinski: I wish you would stop yapping over there and listen to this very important question.

These scam artists look for the most vulnerable targets: the elderly, the poor and even working families who are struggling to make ends meet. I've also heard

of scams that try and convince individuals to pay an upfront fee for an incredible loan with a really low rate, only to find out that neither the rate nor the loan ever existed. Minister, could you

please tell us what this government is doing to stamp out this kind of despicable crime in our province?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I appreciate the question from the member for Scarborough. She's right: it's a

despicable crime that tends to target seniors and other vulnerable individuals and working families. Fortunately, work like Project Phonebusters is able to shut this scam down on targeting

Ontarians. However, there still is an ongoing concern about using Ontario as a base to go after Americans and other jurisdictions.

The Ernie Eves government is doing its best, in co-operation with police forces and the federal government, to turn up the heat on these so-called boiler room

operations. This ministry took the lead in 2000 and set up a strategic partnership with Canadian and US law enforcement. Here are some of the results. To date we have laid 134 charges and shut down

42 of these boiler rooms. The most recent bust on October 22 shut down two boiler rooms running one of these advance fee credit loan scams. We appreciate the partnership of Phonebusters and the

police forces, which have commended the ministry and this government on their work in fighting these deceptive schemes.

Ms Mushinski: Minister, I'm really pleased to hear that you're taking telephone fraud so seriously. I would argue that forming a relationship

involving the three levels of government in Canada as well as with US officials is definitely the best way to go. But it has also been pointed out that penalties are much tougher in the United

States. I realize that most of these cases are tried under the federal Criminal Code or other statutes they administer, but I want to know, Minister, what we can do as a province through tougher

laws and tougher enforcement to protect innocent victims.

Hon Mr Hudak: The member makes a very important point. In the partnership, we decide under which set of laws to prosecute, whether it's the

Criminal Code or, in some cases, the Loan Brokers Act under provincial offences.

One common scam is the advance fee loan, as was mentioned by the member, where they demand a fee upfront and never deliver on the service -- illegal in the

province of Ontario. In fact, Bill 180, our CP21, consumer protection in the 21st century, that is before the Legislature now, if passed, will see the fines more than double as well as increased

jail terms of up to two years less a day. Basically, our CP21 legislation, which I hope to see passed by all members of this House in the near future, will help us in partnership with the federal

government, police forces and our colleagues across the border in the States to continue to crack down and shut down and take the steam out of these boiler room operations.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Premier. Week after week we have been standing on this side of the House calling for the

government to roll out the rebate to compensate Ontarians for Herculean hydro prices. At first you and your energy minister thought that was a crazy idea; now you seem to think it's a pretty good

idea. What people want to know now, Premier, is: when are you going to be rolling out the rebate and how much is the average rebate going to be?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): You're going to find that out in short order.

Mr Bryant: Don't you think you might have done this before you opened up the marketplace? Don't you think that when you were the finance

minister sitting around the cabinet table you might have weighed in on how the marketplace was going to look? Don't you think that as the Premier of Ontario you had a responsibility not to open up

a marketplace that wasn't ready?

You had an option, sir, to exercise leadership. You shouldn't have opened up a marketplace that wasn't ready for Ontario. You sold the consumers of Ontario a

lemon, and now they're paying the price. You have lost the confidence of this province when it comes to the governance of Hydro and electricity. My question is, why didn't you do your homework

before you opened up the marketplace in May?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member for St Paul's certainly does have a lot of enthusiasm. There's no doubt about that.

Throughout the last few months and throughout Ontario's electricity restructuring process, the Liberal Party of Ontario has been in favour of opening the

market. That has been their stated position. Now, when there has been a fluctuation in prices, which we acknowledge and will take care of, they seem to be saying they're not in favour of opening

the market. In a few more months, in six months, when all appears to be well, they'll be in favour of opening the market again.

I heard the member for St Paul's on a radio show the other day talking about, "Why don't we just split Ontario Hydro into four or five equal chunks and sell

them to the nearest fire-sale bidder, and then we'll have equal competition?" That's your solution to the problem. No doubt your leader will have a different solution to the problem tomorrow, and

the day after that you'll have another solution to the problem. But we're actually going to solve the problem.

BIOSOLID MANAGEMENT

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of the Environment. I was going to ask a question on Kyoto, but I

think it was answered, so I'll ask a question on biosolids.

Constituents in my riding of Simcoe North have asked me about the storage and spreading of biosolids on agricultural land. I'm aware that the practice is

approved by the Ministry of the Environment. Minister, can you explain what safeguards are in place to ensure that the spreading and storage is not harmful to the environment and to local residents

as well?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Many of the more rural members of my caucus have talked to me

about this. The members from Northumberland, Peterborough, Grey-Owen Sound, Wellington -- a few of them -- have come to me with respect to the biosolids issue.

The current practice of using biosolids on agricultural land is protective of the environment when conducted within ministry guidelines and rules. Management

of biosolids --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): Everyone else is leaving too, Chris.

Hon Mr Stockwell: There's only one guy I wish would leave right now.

Management of biosolids is controlled under the Environmental Protection Act,

part V. MOE controls transport and land application. Only when biosolids meet

provincial requirements and standards can they be applied to land.

Currently, work is being done under the Nutrient Management Act, and MOE is also conducting a review of its land application programs. The standards being

developed under the Nutrient Management Act will be consistent with Justice O'Connor's recommendation. Furthermore, there needs to be more information given to local municipalities that accept

these biosolids and to the communities around them, so they know how much, when and where it's going to be applied.

Mr Dunlop: A biosolids hauling company in my riding is concerned that the new nutrient management --

Interjections.

Mr Dunlop: Isn't this unbelievable?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Come to order. Order. The yelling when the microphone is on is even worse. Come to order, please.

Mr Dunlop: As the former Minister of Energy, you know the IMO --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Last warning for the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale. If he yells again, he's out too. I'm not just going to get down and two

seconds later you're yelling. Last time.

Sorry again, member for Simcoe North.

Mr Dunlop: Minister, as the former Minister of Energy you know that the IMO changes every five minutes, just about the same number of times

the Liberal Party flip-flops on this issue.

A biosolids hauling company in my riding is concerned that the new nutrient management regulations will adversely affect its business. What will the new

regulations mean for small waste management businesses in my riding and across the province?

Hon Mr Stockwell: The proposed regulatory requirements will mean the haulers, which are often applicators, will need to be trained and

certified. MOE and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will be consulting on these regulations in the near future. We want to hear what regular citizens and people in the industry have to say.

It's important to our government to find out what questions and concerns our stakeholders have. It's why Minister Johns and I have travelled across Ontario listening to those concerns and ideas.

These standards will provide clear, environmentally protective standards that apply evenly to haulers and applicators, ensuring a level playing field.

I will say that when it comes to environmental issues and concerns, it is this government that has taken a lead on Drive Clean, on the 2005 closing of

coal-fired plants, on emissions into the air and on cleaning up the environment. I'm proud of the record of this government with respect to the environment. Rather than talking about the issues,

which is what the opposition parties did when they were in office, this government is taking real, sincere action that can be measurable and approved for a better environment for the people of

Ontario.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Premier. Finally, after months of defending the indefensible, many of your own

colleagues are starting to listen to the thousands of people who are suffering on hydro privatization. The member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound says it best: if you ignore them, you ignore them at your

own peril.

I have a few examples here. Sinead, who is under 30, lives in Toronto and worked so hard to start a business, said you and your government are going to

bankrupt her. She asks that you call an election and she'll show you how she feels. Philip of Toronto said, "This is beyond bleeding. We are going to hemorrhage to death with privatization." Joan,

a Toronto pensioner, writes, "I can't afford to pay $333 in one lump sum -- the excess wipes out my entire food allowance for the month." But Glen, who used to be a Tory supporter, says it best,

"This is the most obscene decision this government has made. You have disappointed, failed and misled the exact people who are responsible for you being in the position you are in. I hope you

realize when election time comes anybody and everybody who is remotely" --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member can't say that word, even though he's quoting somebody else. I ask him to withdraw it. He's got

about five seconds to place the question as well.

Mr Prue: My question is, will you explain --

The Speaker: First --

Mr Prue: I withdraw the statement.

Will you explain today why you have not listened? Will you tell us today that you're going to cancel your plans for the sell-off and keep hydro in public

hands?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We are keeping hydro in public hands and we are going to respond to the

concerns of not only his constituents but the constituents of every single member of this Legislature.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Premier, that's not going to cut it. People across the province are hurting and you want to sit there

and laugh. Do you know there are seniors who are having to choose between buying food and paying their hydro bills?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I am naming the member for Simcoe North and asking him to leave the chamber right now. We're not going to put up with this.

Yelling and screaming and anger are not going to be acceptable. When there is fun-loving humour and some yelling, that's fine, but we're not going to have yelling and anger like that. There will be

no warning and you're out if you do it.

Mr Dunlop was escorted from the chamber.

Mr Christopherson: I say again to the government members, there's nothing to laugh about. There a lot of people across this province, in my

community of Hamilton and in other communities, who are hurting. There are people who are having to choose between paying their hydro bill and buying food, between paying their hydro bill and

buying necessary medicine. These choices are being put upon people because of your decisions. You made this decision. You can blame it on the weather all you want. Your decision is hurting people.

I personally find it insulting that a lot of you want to sit there and laugh. There are a lot of people in this province who aren't laughing.

Premier, rebates are not going to do it. Tinkering with the legislation isn't going to do it. Passing a new regulation isn't going to do it. Cancelling your

privatization and deregulation will.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): Wrong and wrong.

The Speaker: Take your seat. Order. I'm also naming the member for Etobicoke North and asking him to leave the chamber as well. I won't

tolerate members sitting there making faces at me either. If I have to clear you all out, I'll do it.

Mr Hastings was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Sorry, Premier, it was your turn to speak.

Hon Mr Eves: Nobody takes the plight of Ontarians, especially those on fixed incomes and seniors, lightly. We are going to come up with a

solution that not only addresses the cash outlay that these people have made, and many of them, as I appreciate, are on fixed incomes, but we are going to come up with a solution that deals with

the intermediate and long-term supply of energy in Ontario.

I understand that he has a disagreement in principle with the opening of a retail market with respect to hydro. Nobody said there wouldn't be the odd glitch

along the way, and there has been. I just want to assure him that on this side of the House we all have constituents who relay their concerns to us. We all have seniors -- I was at a seniors' home

last Friday in my riding -- who relay these concerns to us. We appreciate the sincerity and the severity of their concerns in some cases, and we are going to act as quickly as we possibly can to

address them.

RACIAL PROFILING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Premier, here in Ontario we enjoy the privilege of experiencing

cultures from all over the globe every time we leave our home, but not every Ontarian feels that their culture is celebrated or that they are even treated equally.

You will be familiar with a series of articles that appeared in the Toronto Star recently. Those articles served to reinforce something that every black mother

in this province knows: sadly, their sons are often treated differently.

Last week a coalition of leaders from the black community sent you a letter. I thought they made a very compelling argument to the effect that the time for

study was over. They're asking that you take action. Premier, I'm sure you've now had a chance to review that letter. What action will you now be taking?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): This is an issue, as the leader of the official opposition points out, that I

think a lot of Ontarians take very seriously, and certainly we do on this side of the House. Not only is it imperative to make sure that there is no such thing as racial profiling that goes on in

this jurisdiction, or in this country for that matter, but it's also important to get home the point that it doesn't even appear to be going on, let alone going on.

I have consulted with various people in the black community and I will continue to do that. I was talking to the Honourable Lincoln Alexander just the other

day. We do want to respond in a positive way to the concerns being raised by many in the black community, to make sure they can feel that there is no such special treatment, if you want to put it

that way, of black youth in this province.

But I do want to say that the Toronto Police Services, I think, have an excellent reputation for dispensing justice in the largest cosmopolitan urban centre in

the world. I can't think of any other city in the world that has the cultural diversity this city does and responds so well to it.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I hope you appreciate that we have been studying this issue in one form or another since 1977. That's some 25 years.

What we need now are some concrete steps that are going to restore confidence in our citizens and in our police.

I'm sure you can understand the frustration felt by members of the black community who see this come into fashion at different points in time. Then it

disappears, and studies are collected and they gather dust on a shelf somewhere. We need to take those studies and turn them into action. My colleague Alvin Curling has called for an implementation

task force to put those studies into effect. Premier, will you take this action so we can start addressing a very serious issue in a very serious way?

Hon Mr Eves: As I said to the leader of the official opposition in my initial response, I indicated right off the bat that I am prepared to --

the very day they had their press conference here at Queen's Park I happened to be at the Royal York, speaking at the Terry Fox Foundation annual luncheon. I said immediately that I would be happy

to sit down and meet with the leaders of the black community to see if we can't come to some agreement as to how we proceed from here to address the very concerns he has made.

CHATSWORTH FISH HATCHERY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Last week the Minister of Natural Resources was

in my area -- and I certainly appreciate that -- and opened up a new fish hatchery which is state of the art. I understand it's probably one of the best fish hatcheries in Ontario. It has one of

the best springs in Ontario.

I would like the minister to explain to the House some of the money that was spent there. Would he be interested in having a visitors' centre there so we could

show the rest of the people of Ontario, not only the ones in Bruce and Grey but those all over Ontario. what a beautiful spot it is and what a great asset it is to our area?

Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member for the question. Yes, last Friday we opened a new hatchery in

Chatsworth and I was very proud to be there. Something must have frozen over because I made it through the snowstorms and everything else. I wouldn't miss the member's opening up there.

It's 46,000 square feet and it cost about $6.5 million. We're increasing the number of fish that are being produced there. Up to 2.8 million fish will be

released annually in Ontario, and I think that's good news for natural resources here in the province.

Mr Murdoch: As the minister knows, we did have some difficulty with some of the bureaucrats who work in his ministry. They just didn't seem to

want the people of Ontario to see this spot. They have difficulty showing us. I would like to ask the minister if he's prepared to put some private discipline into this fish hatchery, or at least

some partnerships with some of the sporting clubs in the area.

Hon Mr Ouellette: As I mentioned earlier, it was definitely a pleasure to be there, and I know the member is very active. We have a

commonality in that youth programs are a strong initiative. I know and I expect that we will be seeing tours in that facility in the very near future. As well, we are always open to partnerships

and bringing in relationships with other clubs -- the clubs that were in attendance there, the Sydenham club or the Bruce Trail groups. We're always more than happy to sit down and discuss how we

can best benefit natural resources in the province of Ontario.

SLOT MACHINES

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): I have a question for the Premier. Last week, on Thursday, October 31, 2002, Mr Flaherty revealed that the

decision to allot up to 800 slot machines to Picov Downs under certain conditions was made in December 2001. However, in a letter to Mr Norm Picov dated April 10, 2002, Minister Tim Hudak stated

that in December, cabinet directed the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp to complete a business case for slots at Picov Downs and Quinte Exhibition Raceway. Mr Hudak goes on to state that in March,

four months later, cabinet reviewed and approved the business case as part of the provincial gaming strategy. It is clear from a leaked cabinet document, as revealed by Susanna Kelley of TVO's

Fourth Reading, that the decision to allocate up to 800 slot machines under certain conditions was made on March 6, 2002. Premier, your Attorney General, in several responses to me, stated that no

decision has been made and that one of several options being considered is not providing any slot machines to Picov Downs. Could you tell us which of these positions is the correct one?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It is my understanding that a decision was made with respect to Picov Downs

but that the decision that was made, as he pointed out, said up to a certain number of machines. There are certain protocols, procedures and processes that one normally goes through. As he would

know, 15 of 18 licensed tracks in Ontario have licensed slot machines today. There are three, of which I believe Picov Downs is one, that do not. With respect to that, it's my understanding that

the Ontario Racing Commission, which is a totally independent body, as I'm sure he is more than aware, has their input, and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp has their input. That has been the

way these decisions have been arrived at for every one of the other 15. I'm sure that's the same process that Picov Downs or for that matter any other track that doesn't have licensed machines but

is a licensed track will have to go through.

Mr Kwinter: Premier, if I understand you correctly, you've just confirmed that the decision has been made, subject to certain conditions. If

that is the case, then your Attorney General is wrong, because he keeps saying that no decision has been made. The other question I'd like to ask you is that there are two other dates that have

been put on the record, one by Mr Flaherty saying the decision was made in December and another by Minister Hudak that says it wasn't done until four months later, in March. Could you please

confirm today on what date that decision was made?

Hon Mr Eves: I don't believe that's what the Attorney General is saying at all. I believe what he is saying -- and unfortunately he's not here

today to respond himself -- is that "up to 800" means that. There's a big range between zero and 800, and the number, according to the advice we receive from the Ontario Racing Commission and the

Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp, could be zero or it could be 799.

AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I know you have introduced, and we have

debated here in the House, legislation that is an important part of protecting agricultural workers in this province. My thoughts immediately go out to my constituents in the riding of Durham and I

think of Price's fruit and vegetable market and Pingle's fruit and vegetable market, and of course other agricultural business. I and a number of my colleagues have discussed this proposed

legislation with family farms across our ridings, and there is no question that the agricultural sector supports our approach.

Minister, could you inform this Legislature of the consultations your ministry has conducted on this important legislative initiative and what you've heard

during those meetings?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'd like to thank the member from Durham for the question and thank him for his

involvement with his agricultural community, which he has been doing all summer long.

Subsequent to the Supreme Court of Canada decision, our ministry has consulted widely on the legislation that's before the House. We talked to the labour

issues coordinating committee, which is a coalition of farm groups all across the province. We talked to the United Food and Commercial Workers. In addition, we had public meetings in Vineland,

Kemptville and Leamington during September of this year.

The farm community is very supportive of the proposed legislation. They understand that there are constitutional requirements to provide workers a framework

with which to approach their employers about workplace issues, and this bill provides the opportunity for them to be able to do that. This bill is a balanced approach where the agricultural

employees are treated in a consistent manner. However, it is also important to ensure that the farmers of the province are not vulnerable to risks of labour dispute.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for that informative answer, Minister. I also want to compliment you on the passion and hard work that you

bring to your ministry.

Minister, we know the farm community's position; you've just outlined that. Our government's position is very clear and it's clear that the NDP has a position

staked out on this. But what's puzzling to me is, what is the opposition Liberals' position on this important issue to rural Ontario? It seems, like everything, they're on both sides of the picket

fence. Minister, could you explain what the Liberals are doing on this proposed bill?

Hon Mrs Johns: To the honourable member, you are quite correct: the Liberal stance is quite confusing. I recall that on first reading the

Liberals abstained from the vote because, as they said at the time, they hadn't sufficient information to be able to make a decision.

But as I said earlier, we had consulted quite extensively with stakeholders before the introduction of the bill, and some of those stakeholders had spoken to

the Liberals. So it was surprising. Furthermore, last week as we were working on the second reading debate, the Liberals again seemed to want to derail the legislation and they asked for

adjournment of the debate on second reading, which was very surprising because of course the farm community wants this bill passed.

They then voted against a time allocation motion, when the farming community had once again asked them to move forward because it is very important to the

community that we get this finished before June --

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

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Premier. Premier, day by day the pressure is growing on you to stop the hydro

sell-off. Bribing people with their own money isn't going to convince anyone that your scheme is good for consumers. All over the north people are suffering real financial pain because of hydro

privatization. Ann and Morley warn you not to fall into the deceptive trap of privatization and deregulation of our hydro power.

All across the world they say it is being demonstrated what a mistake that is. Even now, in our own town of Wawa we have an advanced warning of just where that

leads. That's Wawa, where the private company you sold to drained a lake to maximize its profits this summer and where everyone is paying more for hydro.

How many more thousands of citizens do you need to hear from before you call a halt to this silly idea of yours to sell off the people's hydro and deregulate

hydro prices?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will say this for the NDP members: at least they are very consistent on

this issue. Despite what the answer is to any question that we have given in the House, they have their scripted questions and, come hell or high water, they're going to ask them.

I think I have addressed the concerns raised by the honourable member in response to the leader of the third party and in response to some of his colleagues in

question period today.

First of all, nothing is being privatized in hydro. You preface every one of your questions with "privatization of hydro." What did happen of course is that

the market was opened on May 1. That is not privatization; that is opening the market for competition so that other players besides Ontario Power Generation can compete with respect to generation

of power in the province.

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

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): To the Premier for the supplementary: The people who have to get off their script, quite frankly, are

you on your whole script of privatization and deregulation, because what's clear is that people across this province are waking up to their hydro bills. Once they open up the envelope, they're

looking at it and falling to the floor.

I've got a number of examples here from people from my constituency, people from Kapuskasing. Morris, who sent me a copy of his hydro bill from September of

last year, quotes his hydro bill as being $103.74 for September 2001. Guess how much his hydro bill is for September 2002? It's $322.59.

If anybody's got to get off the script, Premier, it's you, your Minister of Energy and your entire government. When are you going to cancel privatization? When

are you going to get off the deregulation kick and allow people to get back to some sanity when it comes to their hydro bills?

Hon Mr Eves: We are going to respond to the concerns from Ontarians with respect to their electricity rate increase, but we are also going to

try to lay out a plan with respect to the intermediate and long-term supply of energy in Ontario.

To the honourable member and the members of his caucus: I don't hear them, when they stand up and ask this question, explain how they spent $5 billion on NUGs

that don't produce one kilowatt of power. Why did you do that? Why did you raise the debt in the province from $60 billion to $114 billion, $115 billion or $116 billion? Why do you think it's more

important to spend over $10 billion a year on interest payments instead of spending it on the very people you claim to be concerned about?

SLOT MACHINES

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): I'd like to go back to the Premier. The information that I want and haven't got from you as yet is this. We

now have two options. Mr Flaherty stated last Thursday, October 31, 2002, that the decision to give Picov Downs up to 800 slot machines, under certain conditions, was made in December 2001. Mr

Hudak, the Minister of Tourism, sent a letter to Mr Picov on April 10, saying the decision was made March 6. We have December 2001 and March 6, 2002. On which date was that decision made?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I don't believe that is exactly accurately what those two individuals said. I

think the combination of those meetings in December and March led to the result, but the result is going to be determined by independent bodies, as it should be: by the Ontario Racing Commission

and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. They are independent bodies, and they will come forward with the recommendation to the government, and the number will be somewhere between zero and 800. He

will have to wait until they have finished their deliberations to give him the actual answer as to how many machines, if any, Picov Downs will be allowed.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Speaker: You know that this afternoon, unfortunately, Mr Garfield Dunlop was

ejected from the House. I don't want to get into the reasons why, but the point of order I want to make is this: we're supposed to be at the estimates committee this afternoon doing the estimates

for the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. Mr Garfield Dunlop is the parliamentary assistant, along with Mr Raminder Gill. Does that now mean we can have Mr Gill represent the estimates on

behalf of Mr Dunlop, who can't be there?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: That's something we'll

worry about.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Dunlop cannot go in there, unfortunately. He won't be able to be in the committee.

VISITORS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): On a point of order, Speaker: It's my distinct pleasure to welcome another Lauren as a page in the House.

Lauren Wilson from Burlington is here with her father, Rick Wilson; her mother, Susan Montgomery; her sister Catherine; and her best friend, Marla Patterson, from John T. Tuck school. I know

everyone in the House would like to welcome the Wilson family.

PETITIONS

HYDRO RATES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's time for petitions, and we'll start with the member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will tell your mother you've been kind to me this week.

This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas electricity bills have skyrocketed under the Harris-Eves government's flawed electricity plan; and

"Whereas some consumers have signed higher fixed-rate contracts with retailers, without adequate consumer protection; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has failed to address electricity supply shortages in Ontario, forcing the purchase of American power at premium prices,

driving up prices still further; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government appointed a board of directors for Hydro One that has been paying themselves extravagant salaries, compensation packages

and severances for senior executives; and

"Whereas Hydro One bought 90 municipal utilities, serving about 240,000 people across Ontario, at premium prices and with borrowed funds. These purchases with

borrowed funds have increased Ontario's debt burden; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has added additional fees and taxes on to local electricity distribution companies. These charges have also been passed

along to consumers;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris-Eves government take immediate action to ensure that Ontarians have fair and

reasonable prices for the necessary commodity of electricity in Ontario, and that the Harris-Eves government and its leader, Premier Ernie Eves, call an election on the instability of the energy

market so that Ontarians may have a voice on this issue."

I affix my signature.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government's plan to privatize and deregulate Ontario's electricity system will lead to higher rates because private owners will sell more

power to US customers, whose rates are typically 50% higher than Ontario's; and

"Whereas selling coal plants like Nanticoke to the private sector will lead to more pollution because the private owners will run the plants at full capacity

to earn maximum profit; and

"Whereas electricity deregulation in California has led to sky-high rates and blackouts; and

"Whereas Ontario needs a system of public power that will ensure rate stability, environmental protection and secure access to power;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the undersigned call on the government to scrap electricity deregulation and privatization and bring in a system of accountable

public power. The first priority for such a public power system must be incentives for energy conservation and green power. Electricity rates and major energy projects must be subject to full

public hearings and binding rulings by a public regulator instead of leaving energy rates to private profit."

On behalf of my constituents, I add my name to this petition.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it concerns the multi-laning of Highway 69 between

Sudbury and Parry Sound. It is part of the 28,000-name petition I have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas it is the responsibility of any 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."

I of course affix my signature and give it to Hin-Hey, our page, to bring to the table.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): November is Adoption Awareness Month and I have many petitions calling on the government to pass Bill

77. This petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in Ontario adopted adults are denied a right available to all non-adoptees, that is, the unrestricted right to identifying information concerning

their family of origin;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child;

"Whereas these rights are denied to persons affected by the secrecy provisions in the adoption sections of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts of

the province of Ontario;

"Whereas research in other jurisdictions has demonstrated that disclosure does not cause harm, that access to such information is beneficial to adult adoptees,

adoptive parents and birth parents, and that birth parents rarely requested or were promised anonymity;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to permit adult adoptees

unrestricted access to full personal identifying birth information; permit birth parents, grandparents and siblings access to the adopted person's amended birth certificate when the adopted person

reaches age 18; permit adoptive parents unrestricted access to identifying birth information of their minor children; allow adopted persons and birth relatives to file a contact veto restricting

contact by the searching party; replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling."

Of course I will affix my signature to this petition.

SERVICES DE SANTÉ POUR ENFANTS /

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): « À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

« Attendu que le gouvernement planifie la fermeture du service de chirurgie cardiaque à l'hôpital pour enfants de l'est de l'Ontario;

"Whereas the Conservative government plans to centralize all cardiac services for children in Toronto;

« Attendu que la chirurgie cardiaque est un service essentiel pour les enfants de l'est de l'Ontario et pour les enfants francophones de toute la

province;

"Whereas the lives of children may be at risk if forced to travel to Toronto for cardiac care;

« Attendu que les enfants et leur famille se verront imposer des dépenses et des soucis inutiles s'ils doivent se rendre à Toronto pour

obtenir des services cardiaques;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Conservative government halt immediately its decision to close cardiac surgery

services at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa."

J'y appose ma signature avec fierté.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

causes the price of electricity to skyrocket; and

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

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

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

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

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

Hydro One executives;

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

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

This is signed by a number of residents from Blenheim, Charing Cross, Chatham and Morpeth. I too have signed this petition.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have petitions that have been sent to me by Mulberry school in Kingston, Norah Love Children's Centre in

Sioux Lookout, CUPE Local 1764 in Durham region, and Last Tango Productions in Toronto. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas 70% of Ontario women with children under the age of 12 are in the paid workforce;

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

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

enhances early childhood development;

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

"Therefore,

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

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

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

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

DÉRÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): J'ai une pétition de 739 noms. Maintenant nous avons atteint 3 000 signatures et

il y a des milliers d'autres à venir.

« À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

« Attendu que le gouvernement Harris-Eves a déréglementé le marché de l'électricité ontarien le 1 er mai 2002

sans que cela ait fait

partie de ses programmes de 1995 ou 1999 et sans mandat de la population de l'Ontario;

« Attendu que le prix de l'électricité a atteint des niveaux outrageux, augmentant parfois de 100 % depuis le 1 er mai 2002

et causant de graves difficultés financières aux Ontariens et Ontariennes;

« Attendu qu'Ontario Power Generation (qui appartient au gouvernement de l'Ontario) a demandé à la Commission de l'énergie de

l'Ontario la permission de réduire de 20 % le rabais promis aux Ontariens et Ontariennes si le prix de l'électricité dépassait les 3,8 cents le kilowattheure...;

« Attendu que le gouvernement Harris-Eves a autorisé le versement de salaires et primes exorbitants de l'ordre de 2,2 $ millions par

année à l'ancienne présidente de Hydro One et au-delà de 1,6 $ millions par année au vice-président d'Ontario Power Generation;

« Nous, soussignés, demandons au gouvernement Harris-Eves de prendre des mesures immédiates pour faire en sorte que les Ontariens et

Ontariennes payent ce service essentiel qu'est l'électricité à un juste prix et demandons également que le gouvernement conservateur et son chef, Ernie Eves, déclenchent

une élection générale sur l'instabilité du marché de l'énergie pour ainsi donner aux Ontariens et Ontariennes la parole à ce sujet. »

J'y ajoute ma signature.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have another petition that reads as follows:

"To the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the Harris government's plan to privatize and deregulate Ontario's electricity system will lead to higher rates because private owners will sell more

power to US customers whose rates are typically 50% higher than Ontario's; and

"Whereas selling coal plants like Nanticoke to the private sector will lead to more pollution because the private owners will run the plants at full capacity

to earn a profit; and

"Whereas electricity deregulation in California has led to sky-high rates and blackouts; and

"Whereas Ontario needs a system of public power that will ensure rate stability, environmental protection and secure access to power;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on the government to scrap electricity deregulation and privatization and bring in a system of

accountable public power. The first priority for such a public power system must be incentives for energy conservation and green power. Electricity rates and major energy projects must be subject

to full public hearings and binding rulings by a public regulator instead of leaving energy rates to private profit."

I agree with the petitioners and I've signed my name to this petition.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have close to 1,000 signatures out of over 120,000 submissions from people from the Ottawa area. It has

to do with the children's hospital, and it says:

"Whereas the Ontario government is shutting down the heart surgery unit at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario; and

"Whereas every year CHEO treats 140 cases of seriously ill children close to home; and

"Whereas centralization of children's heart surgery in Toronto would force patients and their families to travel 400 to 600 kilometres away from home....

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately override the government's decision to close this life-saving program and to

ensure that top-quality accessible health care remains available to every child in eastern Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition as well.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The petition 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 cost 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 Ontario 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. I've signed my name to this.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special

order of the House relating to Bill 148,

An Act to provide for declarations of death in certain circumstances and to amend the Emergency Plans Act, when Bill 148 is next called as a government

order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the vote on third reading may, pursuant to standing order 28(h), be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "Deferred Votes";

and

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

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before the member begins, and it apparently does need to be the member too, I wanted to make some

announcements.

Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Davenport has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given yesterday by the

Minister of Health concerning foreign-trained doctors. The matter will be debated today at 6 o'clock.

Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for York Centre has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Premier

concerning Picov Downs. Again, this matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Further debate? The chief government whip.

Hon Mr Galt: I'm concerned about Bill 148 as an important piece of legislation, and it certainly gives me a lot of pleasure to be able to

speak on this particular bill that's so important to the government and to our emergency services workers.

I'd like to take a few minutes to address some parts of the legislation that unfortunately can affect Ontarians even in times of peace. I'm of course referring

to the loss of loved ones where, for whatever reason, there is no absolute proof of death or a person disappears and is presumed dead but no body is ever recovered. Boating accidents and plane

crashes are just two good examples of this.

Prior to our government's introducing Bill 148, the surviving family members were required to go through a long, painful and often frustrating process, making

individual applications for declarations of death with insurance companies, probating a will, with pension plan administrators, with the courts for purposes of marriage and a host of other

situations.

I'm pleased to say that Bill 148 provides a new process for obtaining a court order declaring that a person is dead in circumstances where no physical evidence

is available, but it is reasonable to presume death. It streamlines this process by enabling the person or persons seeking a declaration of death to make one, single application that will cover all

these circumstances.

The new legislation will allow the courts to make an order declaring that an individual has died if the court is satisfied that the individual has disappeared

in circumstances of peril or, in the absence of a specific peril, that the person has been missing for at least seven years. In order to obtain a declaration, the applicant must also show that the

individual hasn't been heard from since the disappearance, that no other person has heard from the individual since the disappearance, that there's no reason to believe the individual is still

alive and there is sufficient evidence to find that the individual is in fact dead.

This legislation will lighten the hardship families and other survivors frequently experience when a loved one disappears under unusual circumstances.

Before, they were severely restricted in their ability to go about their daily lives due to the fact that joint assets, for example, were frozen in the event

the person was later discovered to still be alive. This legislation can never eliminate the hurt associated with losing a loved one under unusual circumstances, but it can and does make it easier

for the survivors to deal with the reality that the person won't be found alive. It enables family members to make a single application for a declaration of death so they can get on with their

lives.

There is a second important component to this legislation that I'd like to discuss here today. If necessary in times of emergency, the Attorney General can

recommend to the Lieutenant Governor that provisions in certain statutes, regulations, rules, bylaws or orders of the government of Ontario be suspended temporarily by an order in council. It is

important to note that this power is limited and applies only to legislation that establishes a limitation period, provides for a benefit or compensation payable as a result of the emergency or

requires a payment of fees in respect of court proceedings or in connection with anything done in the administration of justice.

Bill 148 would have been a big help, for example, during the ice storm in eastern Ontario that occurred in 1998.

In addition, the power can only be used if, in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, temporarily suspending the operation of the provision would

facilitate providing assistance to victims of the emergency or would otherwise help victims and other members of the public to deal with the emergency and its aftermath. This aspect of the

legislation is meant to be temporary and has a maximum time frame of 90 days from the time it is enacted.

In addition, the Ministry of the Attorney General is providing help to victims of crime and their families; dedicating a specialized crown attorney to provide

expert advice on terrorism; committing to vigorously prosecute the perpetrators of terrorism related to hoaxes to the full extent of the current law; calling on the federal government to enact a

new Criminal Code offence to specifically deal with the terrorist hoax; and introducing legislation that will improve the security of vital statistics documents and protect Ontario citizens' birth

certificates and other important documents.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a short presentation on the time allocation motion on Bill 148.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I appreciate the opportunity to once again talk about 148, but I want to bring a couple of things to the attention of

the House first as a reminder.

This is a time allocation motion. I want to let people know that in this session, as of May 2002 to now, there have been 18 bills that were sent to time

allocation situations out of 36 that were introduced. So 50% of all the bills we've had in this House have been time-allocated.

As the member indicated in his first remarks, this is an important piece of legislation and I would assume that anyone who was interested in creating the best

possible legislation would want this debated fully, to ensure that all of the points are brought up. A little later on I'm going to go over and review with you some of the things that have been

suggested that have yet to be acted upon by this government in terms of this particular bill.

On the government side, I would grant that some of these pieces of legislation may not necessarily have needed to be debated as fully and as deeply as possible

because they were a little bit on the straightforward and simple side. But 18 out of the 36 pieces of legislation, 50%, needed time allocation? I think not. I think this was more, "We're going to

shoot for a record here to see how many times we can do that."

I would also point out to the House that I looked back at some of the records. I did a little bit of homework and digging. In the 32nd Parliament of

Davis-Miller, from March 1981 to 1985, how many times was time allocation used? Three times. And how many government bills were passed? Some 292. So time allocation was used only three times, out

of 292 bills. I think people need to know this in here.

I will get to 148, Speaker, because there are some ideas I floated earlier and I think we may hear rumblings that the ministry might get into talking about

them because they realize they are good. But we're stuck with time allocation and unfortunately we can't really digest those ideas that are necessary.

The 33rd Parliament, the Peterson minority government, from 1985 to 1987: how many times was time allocation used? Once. How many pieces of legislation? There

were 129. The Peterson majority government from 1987 to 1990: three time allocation motions. How many pieces of legislation? There were 183. We're talking about a very small percentage, like point

something per cent, of legislation that needed to go to time allocation.

What are we talking about? In this session alone, 18 out of 36 -- 50% of all our legislation -- going to time allocation. I say it's time for us to take a

good, hard look at what the agenda is. What's the agenda on that side? Is the agenda to say, "We passed legislation and got it done, because we had a busy" -- or did we pass the best possible

legislation for the people of Ontario?

We're now finding that amendments are being offered on this bill by that side. Amendments were offered by both the opposition parties, and some of them got

acted upon and some got defeated. But here we go again. I want to remind the constituents out there. What happened in the year we started to do that tax law stuff? How many different bills had to

be introduced? Eight different bills had to be introduced on the municipal tax laws to get it right. Time after time they kept messing it up. They didn't take the time.

Now we've got an example of 18 out of 36 times where we're using time allocation. It could be devoted to honest-to-goodness debate, understanding, more

information to make good legislation. That's the

part I'm disappointed in about this.

Will we be supporting the bill? Of course we support the bill because of what it's trying to do. I want to refer to the presentation of the Ontario

Professional Fire Fighters Association. They made it quite clear that in Bill 148 they like the direction the government is going in, but they would make sure that all stakeholders, as referred to

by Minister Turnbull when this was first introduced -- it's now Minister Runciman -- would be involved in the formulation of those emergency plans and that the legislation would be made such that

participation was mandatory, not that you're going to ask those people to say, "What do you think? You want your two cents in?" Get them to the table, because regulations are as important as the

legislation itself, and we have to make sure that's protected.

I've got a litany of things I could go over, but I'm going to make sure that some of the things we've referred to on this side of the House are brought to the

attention of the government on that side. We ask that we reconvene the Legislature's all-party committee on terrorism. That was done back in the 1980s. As we know, a lot of the response that has

taken place in Bill 148 has to do with responding to September 11. Because of September 11, a lot of the responses in this bill are to basically make things a little easier and more convenient.

Let me speak to that. In 1980 a select committee on the Ombudsman prepared a report on the ways in which the assembly may act and have its voice heard against

political killings, imprisonment, torture, terror and terrorism. In 1989 -- nothing's been done since that point. We had the introduction in 1980; nothing's been done since 1989. Dalton McGuinty

went on record quickly after September 11 and said, "We've got to reconvene this all-party committee that the Ombudsman suggested in order to put it back together." It was scoffed at by members on

that side. All of a sudden I'm hearing good things: "Do you know what? It wasn't such a bad idea." This is the last time we have an opportunity to put it to the table. This is the last time we have

an opportunity to make sure we're doing the right thing.

I'm disappointed it took this long for them to acknowledge that an idea came from this side and it was an improvement to the legislation, not an embarrassment

but an improvement, to ensure we get it right the first time.

The other thing we asked was for all the mayors to review their emergency plans and to make sure we had that. Then what happens? We have a report that

immediately comes out after that fact. It's interesting to point this out. We find out in a report that after the ice storm in eastern Ontario and Quebec we weren't prepared. The report came out

and said we weren't prepared. Did any action get taken after that? Absolutely not.

Let me talk to you for just a moment of the problem I pointed out -- I was hoping it would get addressed and it wasn't -- that we had people understanding that

the municipalities said that 91% of our municipalities already had an emergency plan. But this is what's going to disturb people: 72% of the municipalities had not conducted the exercises in over a

year to evaluate whether those plans would be successful.

We've got 91%, and I know that in actual fact that's grown since this report was done, so we are talking about over 95% of our municipalities now having that

emergency readiness plan in place, but unfortunately and sadly, 72% have not even practised them. It makes no sense to have a plan that's not going to be enforced, that's not going to be practised,

that's not going to be put to use in order for us to do that. Why do I say that?

I say that as a principal on leave from education. Inside my 23-year career, 12 years as a principal, I had the responsibility of doing fire drills. We had to

do three a year. Inside of that, we practised them over and over again, not to be tested, but we had to do them. If the fire marshal or an official came to your school and they said, "Do a drill,"

you didn't have any preparation. You simply had to do the drill, cross your fingers and hope that all that practice came into being. I referred to this once before in my leadoff on 148 and I refer

to it again. The schools that I am aware of across the province all have done fire drills and practised. When they do go through these practices, the people who are doing the investigation, whether

they be from the fire marshal's office or the local fire department or the emergency measures department inside a municipality, tell us that schools do an exceptionally good job of doing their

evacuation process and their emergency response. Why? Because they practise over and over again. Quite frankly, it costs teaching time, it costs time on task for the kids to learn, but tell me that

it's not the most important number one priority that a school principal or a teacher or parents or anybody else wants: the safety and security of their children. That comes first.

Once we have this practice done, we know that when that bell goes off, those kids are out of there. Most times it's under a minute, or between a minute and two

minutes. Each time you practise it, the idea is to shoot for a better time in getting out safely and securely. Sometimes they throw a little curve at you. Sometimes the police or fire marshal's

office or whoever is doing that testing will come and put a rod in one of the exits, because you're supposed to have two exits, or an alternate route. That's happened. In particular, it happened to

me, as a principal. They put a rod inside the door and it was blocked off. The kids couldn't go through, and they automatically turned around and went down to the other exit. They knew exactly what

to do because we practised.

I look over at our pages, and I know they've gone through it over and over again. They've done fire drills. Sometimes they do it to you in the middle of

winter, don't they? You sometimes even have to go outside without your coats, because it's the rule and you do it.

Let's go back to 148. The very premise I'm talking about is practice. So what are the municipalities saying? What are the firefighters saying? What are other

groups saying? Well, you know what? It's pretty easy to set those standards, but the municipalities have been downloaded. This is a different time and era in municipalities. First of all, they are

not taxing. Second of all, they are downloaded. They've been given more responsibility and very few funds to do that. Now the ministry is going to step up and say what? "We are going to have to do

all this practising, and you've got to forfeit some money in order to do that." Well, quite frankly, I'm challenging and I've charged the government with the responsibility of providing the

resources in order for them to do those things. Those evacuation plans, those emergency response plans, they cost an awful lot of money.

I want to bring up at this point the fact that in my riding, the county of Brant put on one of these exercises, and they had so many people involved: they had

industry; they had an oil refinery; they had hospitals. It was amazing. As soon as they said they were doing it, they all got on board and said they wanted to be part of this great big massive

exercise. I say, compliments to them. And do you know what happened? What happened was they found out there were some glitches in their plan, but it was a rather good plan. The volunteer

firefighters responded, and they didn't know -- not everybody knows about this, so they had it all planned and the day that it happened only those people up at the top knew that it was going to

happen and the rest of them had to respond. They passed with flying colours. They did a great job. But do you know what I found out? It cost a lot of money to do that exercise. They didn't have one

dime given to them by the province, unfortunately; no provincial funding.

I'm suggesting to you that the bill is flawed in terms of not providing those resources. I'm hoping that when it comes to regulations and forming the essence,

the meat and potatoes, behind this, they're going to say, "We're asking them do a lot, but we're going to come to the plate and help them out. We're going to make sure of that." That's an important

aspect here.

I want to bring up another point I made in my lead, and that was Bill 141. Bill 141, a private member's bill I introduced, is

An Act to amend the Fire

Protection and Prevention Act, 1997. I want to read it to you; it's a short bill, but it would help the government in this particular attempt -- in 148 -- to improve our emergency response. It's

very simple: "The purpose of the bill is to require that any proposals to reduce or restructure fire protection services be approved by the fire marshal before being implemented. The fire marshal

would be required to report annually to the minister on the proposals reviewed."

How simple is that? It's simple, but do you know what? It doesn't happen. I am not chastising any municipality, but I'm saying generically to municipalities

that reduce their fire services, "Shame on you if you haven't looked at the consequences of what you're doing." In some cases, unfortunately, do you know what has happened? We've had one

firefighter on a truck go to a call. That is absolutely unacceptable, unheard of and dangerous.

Interjection: And they're probably going to cut him.

Mr Levac: And they're going to probably cut him too, because they can't afford it.

Somebody on the other side told me at one time, "We've never given money to fire services. It's a municipal responsibility, and it should stay that way." Guess

what? Times have changed. We've had our lives changed. And your priority, apparently, as you've said, and as many people on record have said, 148, is an extremely important piece of legislation.

Well, if it's changed that much and we have to reprioritize, I think it's time for you to buck up. Step to the plate and say, "We really do respect our fire services. We really do respect our

emergency services. We're going to provide you with some funds in order to do that." That's an important aspect of it.

What's important to understand is that the first questions that come out of the mouths of people on that side are, "How much do you want? How much do you want?

How much are you going to raise taxes?" That's the first thing they say. Yet they turn around and tell municipalities, "We're going to regulate you. We're going to tell you exactly what standards

to meet." But then they say to the municipalities, "Tough luck. Do it yourself. You find the money." How's that for a partnership?

What I'm looking for is a partnership from this government. The one thing I ask for -- I got giggles from the other side when I asked this; they thought it was

funny when I asked them the first time. I said, "I think it requires municipalities to sit down with all the stakeholders out there and start formulating improvements to our system, so that all our

citizens get protected. Let's go the federal government. Instead of yapping at them all the time, let's go to them and say, `We need to talk about this. We need to protect our citizens.'"

Instead of doing that, we're going to rush a bill through and find out later on that maybe we had an opportunity to put some regulations in there that say

we're going to sit down to the table for a change, and why not? It's for the citizens; it's for the individual citizen. They're expecting that, they demand that and they want that. It's time for us

to step forward and say, "We're tired of fighting." If you haven't heard it, I have. They're tired of fighting with government after government to try to make sure these things work.

It's easy to set those standards. It's easy to say, "You must do this," because you've put responsibility on everybody else to pay for it.

Get up to the plate. Show them where their money is. We offered that; we had the Ontario security fund proposal: $100 million. Simply reprioritize some of the

spending, like partisan advertising and a few other things. Simply take that $100 million and split it in half; $50 million for province-wide services and $50 million directly to municipalities,

instead of the $25 million this government said.

Is this the right direction to go? Of course it's the right direction to go. As a matter of fact, it was interesting that you finally got it.

There are so many things I wanted to talk about, but there are other people who want to continue. I want to simply challenge the government to stop the

bickering and fighting, get along with people and make sure we can collectively solve the problem that is outlined in 148.

Thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate it.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): It's a pleasure for me to participate in the debate this afternoon. I should state that this is going to be

the second of three time allocation motions the government is moving this week. I say that because last week I couldn't be here on Wednesday afternoon, which is my normal House duty day, and as you

know, if it's Wednesday, it's time allocation day in this place. My colleague Tony Martin had to cover for me because I was at the opening of Collège Boréal here in Toronto.

The government has obviously made up for it because this week we'll do not one, not two, but three: yesterday we were dealing with a time allocation motion on

Bill 175, which is the government's water and sewer bill; today, of course, we're dealing with time allocation on Bill 148, which involves emergency measures; and tomorrow, unless the government

changes their agenda, we will be dealing with a time allocation motion on Bill 180, consumer protection.

It is the week for the government to get down and ram legislation through as quickly as it possibly can, to yet again cut off and terminate or abandon any

further legislative debate on issues the government says are important. I say to the government, if the issues are important, why is it you're in here three days out of four this week, putting

through time allocation motions that effectively shut off debate on those important issues?

The last time I checked the point of the exercise was for us to be here to use legislative debate to raise the concerns of our constituents, yet it's very

clear that this week, for example, as with many other weeks -- but it must be a record this week -- three out of four days in the afternoon are dedicated to time allocation motions. The government

is clearly intent on not wanting to hear, and making sure they don't hear, what MPPs have to say with respect to the concerns coming forward on these bills from their constituents.

If I look at the particular motion that was moved earlier by Mr Galt, what's even more interesting is that this is a motion that effectively wipes out debate

on third reading, which is a new tactic this government is starting to implement. We have got used to -- I suppose that's the only way I can describe it -- the government moving time allocation

motions that effectively limit committee hearings, for example. So if there are any to be had, they are very truncated, very limited, one afternoon, maybe two if we're really lucky, here at Queen's

Park, which leaves a handful of people in a position to actually come forward and have their say.

That is clearly a change from some of the earlier years in which I was here, Speaker, and in which you were here as well, where particularly on very important

pieces of legislation there was committee travel. On some really large pieces of legislation there was quite extensive committee travel, not so much when the House was sitting but certainly in the

break. The government of the day would make some effort to travel away from here, because Queen's Park isn't the be-all and end-all of the universe and neither, frankly, is Toronto. There are a lot

more views to be had out there in the rest of the province, and the government would make it a point that committees would be able to travel to a number of communities to hear from a cross-section

of people who lived in the province about their particular concerns.

Now we have gone to a situation where, if there are committee hearings, those are usually held at Queen's Park, one or two afternoons, and then we have a time

allocation motion that says we move immediately into clause by clause, and that as well is time-limited. By 4 o'clock on the second afternoon of the public hearings, all of the questions shall be

put, all of the amendments shall have been deemed to be debated, even if they haven't been, and that is the end of that process as well.

The government traditionally hasn't used what they are using today, which is to also say that there will effectively be no third reading debate. That's a bit

of a new one they're adding to their agenda of how many ways you can actually limit debate, limit amendments and limit discussion, and th